Audio babble ... ojective vs subjective

[agrippa]

I love reading audio reviews. People try to describe what they hear using terms like:
airy, tight, warm, detailed, bright, cold, dark, clean, balanced, neutral, defined, vibrant, silky smooth, thin, bloated, splashy, revealing and so on.

What would be nice if someone would take these subjective terms and turn them into objective terms with graphs and numbers and so on. That way people could all be on the same page. I know some have done a little bit of this but a central document would be nice.

[Carl V]

I love reading audio reviews. People try to describe what they hear using terms like:
airy, tight, warm, detailed, bright, cold, dark, clean, balanced, neutral, defined, vibrant, silky smooth, thin, bloated, splashy, revealing and so on.

What would be nice if someone would take these subjective terms and turn them into objective terms with graphs and numbers and so on. That way people could all be on the same page. I know some have done a little bit of this but a central document would be nice.

J Gordon Holt did this many years ago for his stereophile magazine.
I believe TAS & the new & improved Stereophile have carried on.

As for correlating with objectives measurements & graphs...that is
where you the reader fills in the gaps. It's an imperfect world to be sure.
Not unlike describing Wines & spirits.

[Kal Rubinson]

I love reading audio reviews. People try to describe what they hear using terms like:
airy, tight, warm, detailed, bright, cold, dark, clean, balanced, neutral, defined, vibrant, silky smooth, thin, bloated, splashy, revealing and so on.

What would be nice if someone would take these subjective terms and turn them into objective terms with graphs and numbers and so on. That way people could all be on the same page. I know some have done a little bit of this but a central document would be nice.

Not numerical but descriptive: http://www.stereophile.com/content/s...lossary-part-1

[agrippa]

Thanks guys. close enough.