Yes, but HP had a different and possibly more correct interpretation of what makes things sound bright or dark and that had to do with differences in dynamics for different frequency ranges. He came up with this concept because how to call gear dark sounding when it obviously measured flat?? Two flat measuring preamps for example but one is light and airy and the other dark and chocolaty. We have all heard things like that and HP came up with an interesting concept. Whether or not it is true is another issue. The deeper you go down the rabbit hole, the more you can see some of Holt's definitions as being too simplistic. He doesn't take into account, for example, the harmonic distortion PATTERN that is generated as a potential cause for a lot of tonal issues.
Dark, analytical, bright, warm....what terms, what meanings?
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
Yes, but HP had a different and possibly more correct interpretation of what makes things sound bright or dark and that had to do with differences in dynamics for different frequency ranges. He came up with this concept because how to call gear dark sounding when it obviously measured flat?? Two flat measuring preamps for example but one is light and airy and the other dark and chocolaty. We have all heard things like that and HP came up with an interesting concept. Whether or not it is true is another issue. The deeper you go down the rabbit hole, the more you can see some of Holt's definitions as being too simplistic. He doesn't take into account, for example, the harmonic distortion PATTERN that is generated as a potential cause for a lot of tonal issues.
HP's point is interesting. But I, for one, do not think the fact that two preamps measure flat undermines our use of "dark" or "light" or "bright" to describe how we perceive their frequency balance.
Subjectivists would not care that two preamps measure flat if, to their ears, one preamp nonetheless subjectively sounds "dark" and the the other sounds "bright" or "light."
Subjectivists would not care that two preamps measure flat if, to their ears, one preamp nonetheless subjectively sounds "dark" and the the other sounds "bright" or "light."
I think you missed my point a bit. The preamps were just a thought exercise. I was talking more about the Holt descriptions and how he is focused on LINEAR distortions (frequency response) as being the cause of "dark" sound and my point is that it is more likely to be related to non-linear distortions (like harmonic distortion or dynamic constriction).
Subjectivists should care why things sound like they do...it definitely helps to guide them in the right direction. Subjectivists have to realize that there is no voodoo here it is all cause and effect but those causes and effects on the listener are simply difficult to interpret and therefore predict.
Other than obvious room anomalies, I don't.
What most "S" types care about, I think, is becoming emotionally involved with the music.
Last edited:
If you have a decent idea why though it will be helpful in achieving the goal of involving music experience. Less false steps...
I addressed this issue before in WBF. Amir measurements show a very old Transparent Audio cable, I am quoting a current OPUS cable. It is known that in the days of digital glare TA tuned their cables to compensate for the poor performance of most digital equipment. Please note that the measurement shows responses taken with a 20 ohm and 600 ohm output impedance generators without proper explanation of the difference - the relevant curve should be the green one in most equipment. TA tuned their cables differently for SS and tubes to avoid this issue. When properly used the roll off is inaudible. 99.99% of electronic equipment has much more severe roll off and no one complains it is audible!
Surely TA cables are not suited for all equipment and each of us has its preferences, but in adequate systems they do not sound "rolled" - they have plenty of high frequency energy and air. Otherwise they would not have attracted the preference of manufacturers such as Wilson and Rockport, that use them in their great listening rooms. As always, just MHO and experience.
I wrote this post before the reading following posts. Please note that "Transparent Reference" is an ambiguous designation. Transparent used the word Reference just as a label in many cables along decades. Would you accept technical comments about a particular Krell amplifier just saying a "Krell class A"?
Last edited:
I quote the definition of dark from the Gordon Holt glossary.
dark A warm, mellow, excessively rich quality in reproduced sound. The audible effect of a frequency response which is clockwise-tilted across the entire range, so that output diminishes with increasing frequency. Compare "light."
warm The same as dark, but less tilted. A certain amount of warmth is a normal part of musical sound
Unless you have standards for "rich" and "mellow" - two terms often used in his glossary - all is relative to them.
IMHO the quoted definition is not the usual sense that is more frequently used in current audiophile texts. Many old SS amplifiers were considered dark were completely flat. And I do not associate dark with "mellow". Perhaps because I still own a conrad johnson Premier 350 - a mellow amplifier that is just the opposite of being dark - when it was reviewed several people noticed that other known amplifiers of that period sounded dark compared to it.
dark A warm, mellow, excessively rich quality in reproduced sound. The audible effect of a frequency response which is clockwise-tilted across the entire range, so that output diminishes with increasing frequency. Compare "light."
warm The same as dark, but less tilted. A certain amount of warmth is a normal part of musical sound
Unless you have standards for "rich" and "mellow" - two terms often used in his glossary - all is relative to them.
IMHO the quoted definition is not the usual sense that is more frequently used in current audiophile texts. Many old SS amplifiers were considered dark were completely flat. And I do not associate dark with "mellow". Perhaps because I still own a conrad johnson Premier 350 - a mellow amplifier that is just the opposite of being dark - when it was reviewed several people noticed that other known amplifiers of that period sounded dark compared to it.
The Holt definitions were bonded to the characteristics of the existing high-end systems when they were written. Harry Pearson's "Glossary of Terms", published much later along many issues of TAS, goes much deeper and is surely much more elaborated. His essays on coherence, for example, can not be summarized in a short sentence.
micro, you can add Magico to the list of manufacturers that use (at least on occasion) Transparent cables in their SOTA listening room. I was just there and spoke to them about it a month ago.
Thank you for mentioning the 20 and 600 ohm output impedance generators in Amir's plot. No, there has not been a satisfying explanation about what that actually means and how it corresponds to a music signal and what we hear. I have seen in room frequency plots of members' own systems who strongly criticize Transparent which have a much greater high frequency roll off than the -0.3 at 20KHz that Amir's old cable showed. We are talking about roll offs of -5 db or more at 10kHz. I still don't see how the -0.3 in the Transparent cable at 20KHz would be audible in such a system, or how one can hear a system at some demo and clearly identify the Transparent cables as being the true source of rolled off highs.
People who use digital correction often select a gentle downward slowing frequency response which is much greater than the rolloffs shown in Amir's measurements.
Your comments about Transparent designing the cables to balance early digital glare make sense. I have also heard this idea about why these cables were so popular with the hot Wilson tweeters of a few years ago. Now, those tweeters are better behaved, the Transparent cables seem less rolled off and they are shown with Magico speakers in Europe and Asia.
Anyway, I'm more interested in what the system sounds like than in discussions based measurements of old, discontinued cables and whether they correspond to what we actually hear with different cables in different systems.
This discussion is not about Peter's system - I never mentioned it in this thread. But I did post glowing comments about his system on his thread years ago, which I have since removed (though they are still there in quoted responses), and have followed up in private with him about his system's shortcomings (dark, et al). Peter likes to continue selectively quoting the good things I said on WBF (did it again today) and not what I've told him in private, and for that, I have cut him off and our discussions. So it's not important what I think of his system, in this thread.
Agreed that it is not important as to what you think about Peter's system, or for that matter anyone else's system, for this thread. I do think that there are several..."colorations", that we tend to either enjoy or seek out for the sound of our systems. There really is no wrong or right here, to each there own, IMHO
. My OP was more about the description of the various terms and what they mean to various people. The term "dark" doesn't really have much of a meaning to me--particularly coming from my musician side. However, I guess such a term could be attributed to a certain coloration...or lack of definition in the overall sound! The term "bright" i fully understand. "Dark'---??
What is whitish? I remember HP using the term "white sound" with certain equipment which I thought meant less colored is this what you mean? I know that morricab explained the overall quality of class D also as whitish but his description of the sound is exactly what I would call dark… VOCABULARY
!david
What is whitish? I remember HP using the term "white sound" with certain equipment which I thought meant less colored is this what you mean? I know that morricab explained the overall quality of class D also as whitish but his description of the sound is exactly what I would call dark… VOCABULARY
david
When I think of "white" sound, I think of one that lacks tonal color and richness. It is "bleached" of fine resolution and detail. It tends to be flat with a sameness to each recording. It can be boring or not engaging, and is not transparent. It is not the same as bright, though that also lacks tonal color and richness.
This in only my own definition and I don't really know how others define this term.
This post is a blend of fun with saxophone music ? terms ...
Some bits and bites ...
• https://tamingthesaxophone.com/bright-sound-dark-sound ? Bright - Dark - Warm - Cold ... Sax
• http://soundbible.com/tags-dark.html ? Fun sound effects (listen ?)
_________
Bonus: White noise/Black noise (relaxing) ... :b
__
David, a white sound, to me, would be a reflected sound ... the presence of all colors in the room's space. Black sound is the opposite; an absorbed sound ... the absence of color.
• https://sightssoundswords.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/words-on-sounds-what-is-black-white-in-sound/
Black ? Dark
White ? Bright
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black
Some bits and bites ...
• https://tamingthesaxophone.com/bright-sound-dark-sound ? Bright - Dark - Warm - Cold ... Sax
• http://soundbible.com/tags-dark.html ? Fun sound effects (listen ?)
_________
Bonus: White noise/Black noise (relaxing) ... :b
David, a white sound, to me, would be a reflected sound ... the presence of all colors in the room's space. Black sound is the opposite; an absorbed sound ... the absence of color.
• https://sightssoundswords.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/words-on-sounds-what-is-black-white-in-sound/
Black ? Dark
White ? Bright
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black
Last edited:
Your definition of whitish is exactly what I would call a dark sound Peter. Imagine 5 audiophiles who gathering for the first time for a club meeting discussing the system
! To add more to the confusion when it comes to instruments, dark or white doesn't imply any of the above!david
To put a different perspective on things, I never use audiophile terminology to describe the apparent tonality or quality of a system I come across. To me, everything which is not correct is a distortion, and that's what I perceive in every system which is not convincing - the texture of the sound is either right, or wrong, and if it's wrong then there is a flaw in the system which causes audible anomalies - the next step is obviously to sort out that anomaly, resolve it.
IOW, it's all about audible artifacts which shouldn't be there, which typically, as mentioned earlier, are caused by non-linear distortions - not frequency response and phase imperfections.
IOW, it's all about audible artifacts which shouldn't be there, which typically, as mentioned earlier, are caused by non-linear distortions - not frequency response and phase imperfections.
I am more likely to believe MikeL and my own ears and knowledge (with the Transparent that I have demoed at home and/or owned) than anyone else's opinion. Also, there is no proof that these speaker manufacturers are using the networks, only the wire - which is not what we are discussing. Weak arguments.
Obfuscation and deflection. "Reference" is a current model designation http://www.transparentcable.com/products/performance_level_prod_list.php?catID=1&perfID=2&modCAT=1 . At least you are not resorting to character assassination and are sticking to discussing the products.
Last edited:
Peter, that's perfect. That is exactly the way I have interpreted it. I sometimes wonder if it's a whiteness that is almost like a filter of fine veil of high order distortions... Like a really fine white noise. I know when it is in a system it is at its worst quite fatiguing and really makes it impossible to be able to relax into the music... It's a giant disconnect. The kind of tonal saturation possible with very black backgrounds is quite it's opposite in effect.
Davey, Nice Thread! You have a talent for starting good ones. Sorry, I am slightly late to it, as I have had a busy weekend.
Let me bring a psychological perspective to the discussion: it has been said that writing about music is like dancing about architecture. This is also true when it comes to putting words around subjective experiences of audio.
Without context, a word like “dark” is really is nothing more or less than a word that anyone can use to indicate anything we please. The problem is that people seem pleased to use this one word to indicate a host of different things, which has created a tremendous terminological mess…
A lot of the mess stems from prior experiences – or a lack thereof. Hypothetically, if someone lacks the machinery for a sexual orgasm, then our experience of orgasm is one that this person will never know - no matter how much we talk about it.
Experiences of fine tequilas, string quartets in world class venues, caring deeds, ice cream, and high end audio are rich, complex, multidimensional, and impalpable. Because “Dark” is also an experience, it can only be approximately defined by its antecedents and by its relation to other experiences. That’s why I can’t stand reviewers like “worthless to the fan” Robert Harley who never compare, but just proclaim something as “best” because some new detail he heard tickled his analytical preference. Of course, it is best only in the “worthless one’s” imagination and contributes to fukc the audio fan culture that we live in…
Once we have an experience - hear a component that does something very new or very different – like speed and inner detail of a horn or magic of an electrostatic midrange driven by an OTL, we cannot simply set it aside and see the world as we would have seen it had the experience never happened.
Additionally, distorted views of reality are made possible by the fact that experiences are ambiguous -that is, they can be credibly viewed in many ways, some of which are more positive than others. Different moods, auditioning circumstances, people we like or don’t like, preconceived notions, etc., also affect experiences.
Furthermore, to complicate things even further, our remembrance of things past is imperfect, thus comparing our new understanding of “dark” with our memory of our old Dark is a risky way to determine whether two subjective experiences are really different.
Understanding other people may be one of the most complicated puzzles on earth. Many think they are experts at it – and are wrong! Others who come from a math and science background and have been conditioned that there is only one right answer poo poo this, selecting to see this hobby solely from the perspective of measurements.
Yet the ideas presented above are actually based on very rigorous science. Although not easy when applied wrong, such as by elite reviewers, it leads to misunderstandings and conflicts. (How many times have we been told by “transparency to source” / analytical guys that your system is old shti while something they got is best because they heard some new detail on the recording?)
But when applied properly, sharing experiences helps connect other human beings together in this hobby.
Let me bring a psychological perspective to the discussion: it has been said that writing about music is like dancing about architecture. This is also true when it comes to putting words around subjective experiences of audio.
Without context, a word like “dark” is really is nothing more or less than a word that anyone can use to indicate anything we please. The problem is that people seem pleased to use this one word to indicate a host of different things, which has created a tremendous terminological mess…
A lot of the mess stems from prior experiences – or a lack thereof. Hypothetically, if someone lacks the machinery for a sexual orgasm, then our experience of orgasm is one that this person will never know - no matter how much we talk about it.
Experiences of fine tequilas, string quartets in world class venues, caring deeds, ice cream, and high end audio are rich, complex, multidimensional, and impalpable. Because “Dark” is also an experience, it can only be approximately defined by its antecedents and by its relation to other experiences. That’s why I can’t stand reviewers like “worthless to the fan” Robert Harley who never compare, but just proclaim something as “best” because some new detail he heard tickled his analytical preference. Of course, it is best only in the “worthless one’s” imagination and contributes to fukc the audio fan culture that we live in…
Once we have an experience - hear a component that does something very new or very different – like speed and inner detail of a horn or magic of an electrostatic midrange driven by an OTL, we cannot simply set it aside and see the world as we would have seen it had the experience never happened.
Additionally, distorted views of reality are made possible by the fact that experiences are ambiguous -that is, they can be credibly viewed in many ways, some of which are more positive than others. Different moods, auditioning circumstances, people we like or don’t like, preconceived notions, etc., also affect experiences.
Furthermore, to complicate things even further, our remembrance of things past is imperfect, thus comparing our new understanding of “dark” with our memory of our old Dark is a risky way to determine whether two subjective experiences are really different.
Understanding other people may be one of the most complicated puzzles on earth. Many think they are experts at it – and are wrong! Others who come from a math and science background and have been conditioned that there is only one right answer poo poo this, selecting to see this hobby solely from the perspective of measurements.
Yet the ideas presented above are actually based on very rigorous science. Although not easy when applied wrong, such as by elite reviewers, it leads to misunderstandings and conflicts. (How many times have we been told by “transparency to source” / analytical guys that your system is old shti while something they got is best because they heard some new detail on the recording?)
But when applied properly, sharing experiences helps connect other human beings together in this hobby.
Yes I agree with the first sentence ? above; Davey is a great audio discussion's starter. He is indeed very talented in how he starts the open audio discussions.
He is a great asset. His formulations keep us on the edge of balance, in check with our audio surroundings...on all aspects.
* I watched a "dark" type of movie last night; part comedy part drama part psychological part reality part Hollywood movie industry from yesteryears part unique humor from the Coen brothers. ...For a dedicated movie thread. But just to mention that some terms we use in audio language can similarly apply to movies as well.
He is a great asset. His formulations keep us on the edge of balance, in check with our audio surroundings...on all aspects.
* I watched a "dark" type of movie last night; part comedy part drama part psychological part reality part Hollywood movie industry from yesteryears part unique humor from the Coen brothers. ...For a dedicated movie thread. But just to mention that some terms we use in audio language can similarly apply to movies as well.
Similar threads
