Submitted by TheFrator t3_z6wmyt in headphones
rhalf t1_iy5npl0 wrote
Reply to comment by dongas420 in Just EQ in resolution. by TheFrator
Yes they do, but do these two things sound so similar that they deserve common name? I think we need to talk about audiophile dictionary in a more critical way, or else it'll continue to be just poetry. Poetry is nice, but for communication's purpose, it's interpreted with more disciplined language. It would be cool to have some intermediary terms that help us with interpretation and link physical phenomena to casual talk.
I'd like to add something that I've been always pointing out. Headphone audiophile speak came from speakers. Words like 'soundstage' are far more descriptive with speakers than with headphones. No wonder, newcomers are often confused. Not everyone imagines headphone soundfield as a stage, more often as a bubble.
dongas420 t1_iy5u91u wrote
I don't really care. The Crinacle dictionary has been perfectly adequate for judging and unambiguously describing the sound of virtually everything I've listened to, and I can correlate the terms both with what I hear in my test tracks and with FR elements such as pattern/magnitude of treble notches, upper treble downslope, and 5-8/10-16 kHz treble ratio.
Anyway, this post is about the reductionist big brains who constantly chant Harman curve as a thought-terminating cliché, and critically examining the terms that audiophiles use to describe sound isn't going to help with them at all.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments