Re: Audiophile glossary

"Mkuller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*snip*
> First, sorry for my miscalculation in calling the upper midrange 5-10kHz.
Had
> I had "How to Read The Absolute Sound" handy, I could have represented
what TAS
> refers to as the 'upper midrange' specifically instead of my poor
estimation.
>
> Now to your comment above - In any hobby or specialized area, getting a
handle
> on the 'lingo' is what separates the experts from the wannabes - at least
> superficially.  Take the prose used descriptively in wine tasting, for
example.
>  Or in surfing, or model construction, or automotive racing, etc.  As far
as
> adjectives having 'specific' meanings, please define hot, wet, big or a
few for
> me.  Their meanings are not specific, but all depend on the context - just
like
> the adjectives used in audio component reviews.

In wine tasting, the adjectives used only seem vague to the non-expert.
Those wishing to become expert can purchase a wine tasting training kit that
contains a large number of aroma and flavor extracts that can teach you what
is specifically meant by a "long vanilla finish".  It seems to me that
Stereophile could produce at any time, a CD containing variously processed
musical segments that very specifically and unambiguously illustrate the
"standard audiophile lingo".  Have a section of music recorded unprocessed,
then process it to sound "hard", "strident" etc.  I suspect that the only
reason that this hasn't been done is that no one truly agrees on what makes
something sound "strident".  Reviewers will simply claim that they know it
when they hear it.  Thus we come full circle to the fact that the terms, by
virtue of have no aggreed upon definitions, are inherently (and, IMO,
intentionally) vague.