Dark, analytical, bright, warm....what terms, what meanings?

[DaveyF]

That is an excellent threshold question!

The glossary was published in 1993, so it is not like it pre-dates the advent of magnetic recording tape or something. I bet that audiophiles were discussing all these same issues in 1993, in substantially the same ways, as we are today.

I have read most of the Holt definitions and I, personally, find them good and thoughtful and accurate today. I think we can avoid a lot of spilled ink (ah, wasted electrons, I guess) if, going forward, we try to start with, and work off of, Holt's definitions.

Are there particular definitions in his list which you feel have become stale with the improvement over time in overall sound quality?

Not many---perhaps these: 1) Rough, 2) Pumping, 3) Plastery, 4) Lumped and these days with new vinyl...5) Banger! Although, I know of a few old LP's in G- condition that might have a 'banger' or two, LOL. ( assuming they have never been properly cleaned).

 

[DaveC]

Dave do you think the MIT networks also roll off the top end?

I don't know, haven't seen measurements. Rolling off the top end is something to watch out for though, I've seen it done in components too.

 

[DaveyF]

I don't know, haven't seen measurements. Rolling off the top end is something to watch out for though, I've seen it done in components too.

Dave, I wonder if some of the manufacturer's who roll off the top end of their response do it because they are concerned about the gear being too bright?? Simple fix to roll off the frequency response than to actually fix the real problem.

 

[ack]

Lol, that's because transparent's network rolls off the top end. So in this case, it's literally a tone control.

Yes they do, and yes they are tone controls - and horrible ones at that. It's funny how people upgrading from one Transparent line to a more expensive one comment that they are more open, when in fact all that's happening is that the rolloff point is pushed higher and they probably use better parts in their networks. Still total junk in my book. BTW, amir had posted a frequency measurement of the Transparent Reference XL in recent months, showing that rolloff; a consequence of that is that the square-wave response of that cable has to be equally bad, because of the limited bandwidth.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Dave, I wonder if some of the manufacturer's who roll off the top end of their response do it because they are concerned about the gear being too bright?? Simple fix to roll off the frequency response than to actually fix the real problem.

I think it is fair to say that many main stream modern speakers have quite exaggerated treble responses - I honestly believe that the rolled off top end (either cable or component) is designed with this in mind so that the end user is impressed that his/her speakers now sound more "natural"

 

[microstrip]

Lol, that's because transparent's network rolls off the top end. So in this case, it's literally a tone control.

A tone control with a measured crossover around 180 kHz?

In my experience, in order to use the Transparent Audio speaker cables you have to use also the interconnect cables - they are a system.

 

[microstrip]

http://integracoustics.com/MUG/MUG/bbs/stereophile_audio-glossary.html

I read many of J. Gordon Holt's definitions, a Stereophile link to which was kindly first posted by Frank. I found the link above where the glossary is in one file and easier to read.

Most, if not all, of Holt's definitions are really very good. Each of us could (and would) quibble about certain words or parts of some of the definitions but, overall, I think he did a really good job.

Does it makes sense to try to re-invent the wheel? Doesn't it make sense to try to adopt these existing definitions or use them, at least, as a starting point?

From now on I will try to refer to this glossary before making up my own definitions of words.

IMHO the Gordon Holt definitions are very useful, but lack ways of expressing dynamics, energy of sound, dynamic imaging and boundaries. It also lacks ways of expressing the grading of many properties. IMHO these glossaries are very useful for their creators, who use it, but are limiting for daily use in forums.

I suggest people to read the full review and appendixes of the old Soundlab's carried by Gordon Holt in Stereophile in 1986 http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/893/index.html#K09gq0JbDL41Zyrd.97 . IMHO, his free style, using words such as tangible, rotund and gorgeous, complementing the use of words used in the glossary is a key point of a great review.

 

[ack]

A tone control with a measured crossover around 180 kHz?

I am sure you have seen amir's frequency response measurement http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...hop-For-Cables&p=393141&viewfull=1#post393141 , where the rolloff starts at 4-5kHz. You are quoting a -3dB point, but the rolloff is quite audible in the audioband.

 

[PeterA]

I am sure you have seen amir's frequency response measurement http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...hop-For-Cables&p=393141&viewfull=1#post393141 , where the rolloff starts at 4-5kHz. You are quoting a -3dB point, but the rolloff is quite audible in the audioband.

Ack, perhaps you could help me understand Amir's plot. Those measurements are of an old cable which he used to own but he did not specify the model or age of the cable, or if it was a speaker cable or IC. He owned it, so I assume he liked it and he has extremely well trained hearing, as he has told us. So, I wonder if he heard this audible rolloff in the audio band and bought the cable anyway.

In Amir's plot, the yellow trace is of a 20 ohm generator with his old Transparent cables. It shows NO visible rolloff at the limit of the plot at 200KHz. The Red trace is of a 600 ohm generator. It shows a -0.3dBV at 20KHz, -1 dBV at 50KHz and -2dBV at 100KHz. I don't know if that is in the audible audio band, but those do not seem like large roll offs of the high frequencies. Am I not reading it correctly? I also do not know how the 20 and 600 ohm generators correspond to our hearing or to a music signal.

Could you explain what you mean by your statement and why you think a -0.3 dBV rolloff at 20KHz is quite audible? I have a hard time identifying a 0.3 dB change in general volume level, let alone only high frequencies all the way up at 20KHz.

I have heard systems with Transparent cables sound very bright at shows, but I suspect that has more to do with other distortions elsewhere in the systems. Curiously, and just anecdotally, Magico is currently using both Transparent and MIT cables in their research/listening room. The Transparents are hooked up to tube amps and the MITs are hooked up to SS amps.

 

[ack]

I think your post is is just obfuscation and deflection, Peter, starting with the first question: Amir made it quite clear which cable he was measuring; specifically, he said in the same post I quoted: "I don't own the XL MM2 but older generation Transparent Reference cables". Prior to that he said it was a balanced interconnect. Go on trying to deflect what some of us seem to know to be true, that these cables are just junk, but I have no interest in playing this game. I have told you numerous times how dark your system sounds, how I can't hear well defined treble, and so on, but keep on deflecting as you wish. I am done discussing Transparent with you, as of a couple of years ago.

BTW, I removed my comments from your system long ago, because you continue to selectively quote what I say

 

[DaveyF]

I have told you numerous times how dark your system sounds, how I can't hear well defined treble, and so on, but keep on deflecting as you wish. I am done discussing Transparent with you, as of a couple of years ago.

Ack, you use the word "dark" to describe Peter's system...which is the term that got me to start this thread and query what meaning it had ( the term) on the Lamm Preamp thread. Since it is possible that the cabling is rolling off the top end response, could it be that Peter's system is sounding to you as less resolved in the high frequencies than what you are used to? One of the reasons that I so like the Nordost cables is that I think they truly open up the high frequencies to a point wherein they are not a limiting factor in the system( The cables that is).
However, if you are stuck with a very bright tweeter, or a problem with a high frequency issue somewhere else in the chain, then perhaps using the cabling to "shave" off the extreme top end ( and the brightness that comes with it) may not be a bad idea??? Thoughts..

BTW, I don't personally agree with the idea of 'fixing' the problem by applying such a bandaid, but I guess I can see how it might benefit some systems...and of course be a selling point for some manufacturer's. ( Even IF they are couching the benefit in some other marketing technique!!).

 

[fas42]

One way I would interpret ack's use of the word "dark" about Peter's rig is that the intensity of the transients is not conveyed sufficiently strongly, or sufficiently close to what the real instrument would convey. An example of this would be a recording of piano, where the right hand is emphatically striking the right hand end of the keyboard - does the leading edge of those notes have a sharpness and attacking quality about them, which is easy to hear with the real instrument - this is something I hear as a flaw with many systems.

 

[DaveyF]

One way I would interpret ack's use of the word "dark" about Peter's rig is that the intensity of the transients is not conveyed sufficiently strongly, or sufficiently close to what the real instrument would convey. An example of this would be a recording of piano, where the right hand is emphatically striking the right hand end of the keyboard - does the leading edge of those notes have a sharpness and attacking quality about them, which is easy to hear with the real instrument - this is something I hear as a flaw with many systems.

Frank, I actually think that there are NO systems out there that actually portray the complete intensity of transients akin to the real instrument...along with many other aspects of the 'real' that are missing from our systems. IME and IMHO, those who believe that their systems are able to sound exactly like 'real' instruments in a live space are simply deluding themselves. But that's just MHO!

 

[PeterA]

One way I would interpret ack's use of the word "dark" about Peter's rig is that the intensity of the transients is not conveyed sufficiently strongly, or sufficiently close to what the real instrument would convey. An example of this would be a recording of piano, where the right hand is emphatically striking the right hand end of the keyboard - does the leading edge of those notes have a sharpness and attacking quality about them, which is easy to hear with the real instrument - this is something I hear as a flaw with many systems.

Frank, we can return to ack's original description of the sound of my system to understand the degree to which it does or does not sound "dark". Here it is in its entirety with no selective quotes or editorializing:

I heard Peter's system this past summer and didn't want to comment here until he had a chance to listen to mine (yesterday), for fear he would feel compelled to return the kind words on my system's page... So to make a long story short, PeterA and I appear to have the same goal - accuracy. Based on that, and considering his speakers cannot go as low, move enough air, and you can't really get the scale of an orchestra as with larger speakers, the sound is as he says - truly sublime, and overall (with the understanding that I have heard a few dozen systems only) the most accurate I have yet heard, save the Q series Magicos, and clearly a class above mine - a true reference system! It is QUITE impressive and the sound exceptionally realistic, to be honest, just perhaps a bit less resolving than mine.

Bravo Peter!

Regarding the intensity of transients, especially as heard from piano, I use the Direct-to-Disk 45RPM recording of Beethoven's "Appassionata" played by Ikuyo Kamiya, (RCA RDCA-4) as one reference. I can hear what you describe when the right hand is emphatically striking the right hand end of the keyboard, and how the leading edge of those notes have a sharpness and attacking quality about them. Yes, it is easy to hear with the real instrument, and it is much more difficult to get right on an audio system. Earlier versions of my system used to have difficulty with this, but I find my current system is now pretty convincing in this regard, though I don't think it would be mistaken for sounding exactly like a real piano.

 

[fas42]

Davey, you need to get out more, ... in the end it's just a waveform envelope that our hearing registers, and if it matches up with what our memories, etc, tell us is right, then the illusion loop is completed. We have a Yamaha electronic keyboard in the house, it was top of the range 25 years ago - with grand piano sounds captured, to use. Switch on from cold, that piano sound is awful, tinny midfi, it sounds miles away from being realistic - I have done experiments to optimise the playback, most important is keeping it running so that all the electronics stabilise - and steadily over many hours the quality improves until it sounds very much like a decent hifi version. At the end of the conditioning the sound finally comes together, that grand piano does sound like a grand piano, people at the door have been fooled - I drive it with a laptop running MIDI files of classical pieces.

So, the same electronics, with same "source material", went from sounding like tinny rubbish, to the point of being quite convincing, and especially in getting the transient bite right - it's a process to get a system to that point ...

 

[PeterA]

We seem to have developed a large number of terms in our quest to describe what we hear in our gear.
Some of these terms are fairly self explanatory... Some not so much

For example, in the thread on the Lamm Preamp, the term 'dark' was raised.... A term that seems to have become much more popular recently ...I was not sure how 'dark' applied to what we hear....light, dark, grey, black, colored etc.,??
Perhaps we should discuss the meaning of these terms and more specifically, what they mean to different members.


So....dark, warm, bright, analytical, neutral, cool.....other terms, your thoughts..

Back to the OP. DaveyF, the four terms in your thread title all describe colorations or distortions, in my opinion. Yes, some are self explanatory. The term that I like, and which for me describes a system that has minimal colorations or distortions, that is one that does not sound subjectively dark, analytical, bright, or warm, is the term "natural". This is perhaps the highest compliment a system can receive, imo. Another good term, though with different meaning, depending on the context, is "accurate".

Natural clearly refers to the sound of real instruments and spaces, so if the recording is good, the term "natural" would we very complimentary. It means that the listener finds the reproduction convincing or believable. Accurate, needs further qualification. Does it refer to the recording or to the sound of real instruments? When listening to music like "Dark Side of the Moon", I suppose accurate would be a much more effective term used to describe a transparent system and one which reproduces the highly artificial sound very accurately, that is, as it is on the recording without editorializing (though this is hard to verify). For this music, the term "natural" would be inappropriate, because there is little natural about such a recording.

 

[DaveyF]

Davey, you need to get out more, ... in the end it's just a waveform envelope that our hearing registers, and if it matches up with what our memories, etc, tell us is right, then the illusion loop is completed. We have a Yamaha electronic keyboard in the house, it was top of the range 25 years ago - with grand piano sounds captured, to use. Switch on from cold, that piano sound is awful, tinny midfi, it sounds miles away from being realistic - I have done experiments to optimise the playback, most important is keeping it running so that all the electronics stabilise - and steadily over many hours the quality improves until it sounds very much like a decent hifi version. At the end of the conditioning the sound finally comes together, that grand piano does sound like a grand piano, people at the door have been fooled - I drive it with a laptop running MIDI files of classical pieces.

So, the same electronics, with same "source material", went from sounding like tinny rubbish, to the point of being quite convincing, and especially in getting the transient bite right - it's a process to get a system to that point ...

Frank, as it happens, I just got back from playing a small gig with a couple of pro musicians at a local event...so I guess I don't get out that much....
Your Yamaha piano has a particular sound that most musicians use as a back-up when they need something that plugs into a PA..and need flexibility in transport. One of the pros that I was playing with tonight was utilizing a Yamaha baby grand....uhmmm i don't think we would use a Yamaha electric, unless we wanted sound reinforcement...but for sound quality...
I have a thought... Go out and see if you can have a friend/acquaintance/ other, bring over a baby grand, play it and see how it compares to your electronic keyboard, lol!

 

[fas42]

Regarding the intensity of transients, especially as heard from piano, I use the Direct-to-Disk 45RPM recording of Beethoven's "Appassionata" played by Ikuyo Kamiya, (RCA RDCA-4) as one reference. I can hear what you describe when the right hand is emphatically striking the right hand end of the keyboard, and how the leading edge of those notes have a sharpness and attacking quality about them. Yes, it is easy to hear with the real instrument, and it is much more difficult to get right on an audio system. Earlier versions of my system used to have difficulty with this, but I find my current system is now pretty convincing in this regard, though I don't think it would be mistaken for sounding exactly like a real piano.

That sounds excellent, Peter! Yes, it's bringing the system to a stage where those types of transient sounds are effortlessly reproduced, with all the intensity and 'naturalness' of the real thing - once this is in place then all those recordings which just fail to impress, when you think they should, have an excellent chance of making the grade.

Those are the areas that I focus on when "troubleshooting" - how close is the quality of those sounds to what it should be, and if not up to scratch what are the likely reasons for that being the case? The answer could be any of the various factors I have mentioned, in many posts; it's then an exercise of working through the possible gremlins, one by one, to track down the ones responsible.

 

[fas42]

Your Yamaha piano has a particular sound that most musicians use as a back-up when they need something that plugs into a PA..and need flexibility in transport. One of the pros that I was playing with tonight was utilizing a Yamaha baby grand....uhmmm i don't think we would use a Yamaha electric, unless we wanted sound reinforcement...but for sound quality...
I have a thought... Go out and see if you can have a friend/acquaintance/ other, bring over a baby grand, play it and see how it compares to your electronic keyboard, lol!

Davey, the sound is intrinsically authentic, but it's certainly going to get mangled when running through a PA! The latter is typically pretty awful, so will cripple all of the potential of the musical instrument - now, if one were to plug it into a superb audio system, for getting acoustic output, then one's opinion might change ... .

We do have a conventional piano here as well, nothing special - but it gives one a comparison as regards a "piano sound" - the Yamaha in top notch running form is a good match, and in certain areas of richness of tone, in the left hand area, quite noticeably outruns the acoustic instrument.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Respectfully, gentlemen, I am not sure it advances our common understanding of words or our common use of descriptive terms to graft a concept of "intensity of the transients" onto the word "dark." Holt's definition of dark, I think, focuses on tonal balance (or imbalance).

Words are useful only to the extent they help us to distinguish certain things from other things. In this hobby arriving at a widely accepted definition of any of our descriptive terms is already difficult.

Might "intensity of the transients" be more helpfully discussed in terms of dynamics or transient response or leading edge attack or some other term, rather than a term having to do with frequency balance?