Re: Audiophile glossary

<< 
> Odd? I thought they were fairly obvious. Start at the lowest audible
frequency
> and go up by octaves.

> 20-40
> 40-80
> 80-160
> 160-320
> 320-640
> 640-1280
> 1280-2560
> 2560-5120

Okay, I'm just used to rounding them off for audio purposes. (i.e. typical
test tones, etc)  And being an instrument builder/musician, I tend to think of 
music pitch standards as references for the multiples.  I'm not a number
theorist.

By nature, these definitions are not exact, hence the difficulty of compiling
a glossary.  Avoiding vague terms would therefore seem like a goal.   If 
exact definitions are used for adjectives, they are not like adjectives anymore

and lose their conceptually global character.  That doesn't seem helpful
either.  

Just my opinion.

 >><BR><BR>

If we are going to divide the audio spectrum and give each division a title
there will always be something forced about doing so. I didn't mean to imply
that dividing by octaves was a superior means of determining such divisions I
was simply pointing out that it was one obvious choice amoung obvious choices.
IOW it didn't seem odd to me.