Quote:
Since JGH began Stereophile, words having little to do with audio components and measurements have become the common subjective language of audiophiles and reviewers when trying to describe the sound qualities perceived from a component or system. Some words have become favorites of particular writers, such as ST and his "palpable presence", while others have come and gone in usage as more words have been needed to describe fewer problem areas and a greater ability to replicate the live experience in our homes. Or, at least, we hope that's the result. It's obvious we don't always agree amongst ourselves as to the meaning of certain words. That's why JGH made available a printed glossary for reference; http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html

But it seems certain words may have worn out their welcome while others are just catching on. Some are seldom used. We hope they described sounds so horrible they have been expurgated from the lexicon for good reason and for good. Still other words continue to serve the purpose as no other word could.

So ...

What's your favorite - and least favorite - audio word, and why?

My least favorite is "three dimensionality". I have no problem with the concept and understand what it is trying to describe. But I find too many readers, especially those who never hear live music, expect all systems and all recordings to display three dimensional sounds existing on a 3-D "soundstage". They don't understand that an electric guitar plugged directly into the mixing board has no 3-D space or that musicians recorded with close mic'd techniques, all existing in various studios possibly across the planet, do not sound like they are in a room and certainly not the same room. They expect more 3-D effects than they would hear at a live event.

My favorite is "momentum". With it you can hear musicians performing. Without it, you hear only a hifi.

I loves 3-D soundstages.

In all seriousness though. I understand what you mean, as I play electric guitar (and have for 18 or 19 years now). Dimensional in and of itself, it is not. What I do appreciate is when you hear that 3D of the environment in which the event was recorded, such as the electric guitar notes with added timbre of the recorded venue. To me that has a depth and flavor to it (acoustically coupled with my own listening room of course, as it has to be according to the laws of acoustics...) that I enjoy immensely.

Another thing that some engineers can do, I think, is mix it to have some illusionary depth (at least that is what I imagine they do, I'm not an engineer...). I guess by adding levels of reverb, and other effects to the mix.

These things are nice to have when not taken to an extreme where the music becomes incoherent IMO.

As far as glossaries, I like how HiFiChoice handles this. They put a glossary at the back of every issue. At this point I just use their definitions. It would be nice if Stereophile did something similar, as it would also induct new blood into the fold more easily if they don't pick up the magazine and get lost in some of the more esoteric descriptions for equipment sound.

My favorite is 'black', cuz I just found my personal definition for it recently.
I ordered some CD's from the Mapleshade label and all of a sudden, there it was.
Black!

My least favorite is 'slam'.
Reminds me of pro wrestling.

I like "slam" particularly when used in reference to speakers. I also liked, I believe it was Corey Greenbergs' term of "jump factor". At least they help define for me whether a speaker fell into the laid back snoring and boring category, or the lively and upfront category.

Least favorite are the new food descriptions. Chocolatety, buttery, creamy, syrupy....what the heck is that?

Jan, how does your "momentum" differ from the ole standard "PRaT".

RG

Like the dude at the Pink Floyd concert shouting over and over again, "THAT'S NOT A REAL PIG!"?

Quote:
Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms" is a good example of giving dimension to a studio production. Interesting as it is, it tells me very little about a system's capabilities in other important areas. I don't require only acoustic instruments to judge a component but I find too many young listeners not understanding what they should be hearing, what they would be hearing live, when "3-D effects" are mentioned.

One CD track that I love, and that goes right to the heart of how absolutely clear and three dimensional my mid-range sounds in my room, is Nora Jones "Painter Song."

That very beginning portion with the acoustic guitar and her vocals without any other instruments, is so real, so lifelike and in the room with me, that I play it for anyone who comes over to listen to my setup. I have the SACD version, and correct me if I am wrong in my interpritation of the term, but I think of the term "black" when I try to define how clean and clear the noise floor is in the beginning of that song in particular (at least in my current setup).

I'm not saying that I don't get that with busier recordings, or busier parts of that song, but it is always easier to hear how clear something sounds when you limit the number of things going on at once.

Another one on that album, that is busier, but also achingly beautiful sounding is "One Flight Down." What can I say, I'm a softy for soulful metaphors of self discovery....

CG has invented some of the most entertaining descriptions of all. My favorite was his use of "...make your monkey bone stand up and dance."

The only time I get annoyed with the writer's liberal use of descriptive terms is when I haven't a clue as to what he's trying to say or describe. You have to admit, we have a lot of redundancy in descriptive terms.

Great thread!

As to least favorite: HP's yin/yang. ARGH!