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.
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.