advertisement


Subjective Descriptors for Hi-Fi?

I've not read the source material, but 'Disturbing Sounds' is a weird one - although I confess one of my personal indicators is 'scariness': being a marker of transient speed/dynamics: in particular the ability of a speaker or amplifier to produce a very loud, well defined tone and stop immediately without overhang.

I suppose you could translate 'Nearness' as 'projection’ and 'spatial rendition/soundstaging' which would make more sense to an audio journalist.

It's a worthwhile endeavour.

Transparency/clear windows is of course, an over-riding quality. There are also useful analogies in lighting ('brightly lit’, 'overlit', 'underlit', blackness of background), texture (gritty/grainy, smooth, etc), and weight. Also the concept of 'embodiment/incarnation' is handy. Frustrating that we have so few words that relate directly to hearing without borrowing metaphors from other senses . . .
 
I was reading about this just now.

Various works have statistically compared dozens of subjective adjectives used in sound quality assessments and have concluded that many of them appear to be strongly correlated with each other. Gabrielsson, et al. concluded that as few as 8 perceptual dimensions could claim reasonable statistical independence:

Clearness/Distinctness
Sharpness/Hardness vs Softness
Brightness vs Darkness
Fullness vs Thinness
Feeling of Space
Nearness
Disturbing Sounds
Loudness

In these terms, Gabrielsson observes that sounds appearing to be 'pleasant' or 'true-to-nature' in overall assessments, should be 'clear/distinct', 'soft' (at least not too 'sharp/hard'), 'full', give a 'feeling of space' (not sound 'closed'), and be free from 'disturbing sounds'.

I'm not sure what the nearness aspect means exactly, do you? It tends to be the opposite of 'feeling of space' for me, and is a factor of direct to reflected sound.

I suspect nearness refers to how close (or far) the image is from the listener. I personally prefer an image that is well back from the speakers. Some equipment, e.g. the Naim 555PS used with Naim's CDPs brings the image well in front of the speakers ... hence I suspect the nearness description.

Nic P
 
I expect the 'timing' of equipment would described as 'direct' or not. It could be direct, but not sharp and that for me would mean pacey, immediate sound.
 
You don't appear to have any 'flat earth' terms at all, e.g. pitch, pace, rhythm, timing etc. All your categories relate pretty much exclusively to tonality. When criticising hi-fi I still think mainly in these more music-related terms, e.g. I'll pick up on whether I can easily follow structural aspects such as the notes and rests of the bass line long before forming an opinion on the aesthetics, though obviously both tend to be related in many ways.

When objectivists attempt to use subjective terms they reveal the fact that their preoccupation is only with tonal differences, i.e. frequency response inaccuracy. They are not concerned with temporal accuracy as they believe that the medium of reproduction is always perfect in this regard.

The two things are inextricably linked.
Steven, only the extreme subjectivists fail to grasp this.

You can for example subjectively enhance the PRaT aspects of a loudspeaker system with EQ. Perhaps one of the most obvious examples is the Linn Kan. No real bass, lean balance, raised upper mids, rolled down top end = fast, pacey and 'grooves like a bastard'. Flatten out the response and these aspects of performance diminish.

There are plenty of examples. Loudspeakers with very extended LF tend to be described as slow compared to more bandwidth limited models.

Linn LP12 (the traditional one) has some upper bass excess which helps create that characteristic 'boppy' character given sympathetic music.

It isn't the whole story by any means, but certainly plays a large part.
 
YMMV and all.....

The PR&T thing doesn't change for me at all when the speakers are changed for flat earth types or round earth types. Additionally, adding briks, kans or another traditional PR&Tty flat earth speakers to a round earth system doesn't change the PR&T of the sound in my experience. The source seems to be the biggest factor affecting PR&T for me followed by the amps.

regards,

dave
 
YMMV and all.....

The PR&T thing doesn't change for me at all when the speakers are changed for flat earth types or round earth types. Additionally, adding briks, kans or another traditional PR&Tty flat earth speakers to a round earth system doesn't change the PR&T of the sound in my experience. The source seems to be the biggest factor affecting PR&T for me followed by the amps.

regards,

dave

That's interesting - I've only ever built systems around Kans, Sara's and Briks with sources that have great timing and rhythm - but tell a lie I did plug in my CD walkman and the prat went down the plug hole!

mat
 
That's interesting - I've only ever built systems around Kans, Sara's and Briks with sources that have great timing and rhythm - but tell a lie I did plug in my CD walkman and the prat went down the plug hole!

mat

Mat,

I've used LP-12s with many American round earth amps and speakers since the mid-seventies when they first came across the pond and there was no doubt PR&T was there with these systems. I didn't bring a Naim amp into the mix until '77 or '78 IIRC with a PNAG head amp for my Grace/Supex cartridge combo and Linn speakers (kans) until '80. For me, introducing even this one early and crude Naim head amp brought a degree of pitch accuracy that still amazes me to this day and never beaten to these ears by other brands. (Btw, I'm not saying PR&T wasn't improved by the PNAG's addition as it was as well as other attributes, the pitch thing just stood out as quite shocking as it was an amplifier which, after all and like a TT, had "no sound" as everyone knew back in the day;-)


As a Linn/Naim dealer for a number of years, I tried all sorts of combinations including Linn and Naim speakers on the end of many SS and tubed American amps and front-ends and never heard whatever degree of PR&T that was present affected in the least. FR deviations such as a false low-end thud right below 100HZ just sticks out and sounds like what it is to me-a thud that may or may not be on the beat - not the phrasing and nuances that separates great musicians from the ordinary which (IMO) would require artificial intelligence built into the components for a system to regenerate or turn your average high school sax player into Coltrane if this information was missing from the signal due to distortion or losses. I'm not sure what you'd call this as PR&T seems inadequate to me but what ever it is, other brands that I've heard seem to miss it to various degrees. It's all a trade-off however as Linn and Naim certainly loose bits as well -I just prefer the ones they're able to keep intact;-)

regards,

dave
 
I suppose there are no words for timing as the research was done in 1979. Was this before 'flat earth' got its heals dug in?
 
That's interesting - I've only ever built systems around Kans, Sara's and Briks with sources that have great timing and rhythm - but tell a lie I did plug in my CD walkman and the prat went down the plug hole!

mat

But surely the magic 'prat' abilities of the Kans, Sara's or Briks should have corrected the CD walkmans woeful timing problems?


:D
 


advertisement


Back
Top