What are you listening for?

[Lamplighter]

If you are looking for material for the uninitiated you might consider starting with this. A really well thought out training aid. It could greatly assist with the meaningful description of sound, good or bad.

Brian

[CharlieH]

If you are looking for material for the uninitiated you might consider starting with this. A really well thought out training aid. It could greatly assist with the meaningful description of sound, good or bad.

Brian

Thankyou for sharing that! Had a quick play and seems like a great practice tool. I shall give it a proper go tomorrow through my monitors http://www.blue-room.org.uk/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

[Just Some Bloke]

I've really enjoyed following this thread. Certainly when I first read the original post my brain said "this is going to be interesting". It's a shame that no-one has yet been able to give an answer to that original question, but I'd just like to throw one thing into the mix (pun intended) here. You mention that:

 

seasoned professionals ... develop adjectives that seem to be widely understood by other sound persons: boxy, muddy, airy etc. That's all very well once you've be let into the secret society...

 

Isn't this the same as a choreographer asking a dancer to "change to the leg being extended à la seconde instead of fourth position front in the fouetté rond de jambe en tournant"? (thanks Wikipedia!) Anyone can dance but no-one would have a clue what to do in the above situation without having heard the phrase before and seen what others do in that circumstance (plus 15 years of training, obviously!).

 

Much as I understand your desire to find suitable words that eveyone can understand, if they don't exist and we have to coin other words into new meanings we understand, is that so bad?

[peteshepherd]

I've really enjoyed following this thread. Certainly when I first read the original post my brain said "this is going to be interesting". It's a shame that no-one has yet been able to give an answer to that original question, but I'd just like to throw one thing into the mix (pun intended) here. You mention that:

 

seasoned professionals ... develop adjectives that seem to be widely understood by other sound persons: boxy, muddy, airy etc. That's all very well once you've be let into the secret society...

 

Isn't this the same as a choreographer asking a dancer to "change to the leg being extended à la seconde instead of fourth position front in the fouetté rond de jambe en tournant"? (thanks Wikipedia!) Anyone can dance but no-one would have a clue what to do in the above situation without having heard the phrase before and seen what others do in that circumstance (plus 15 years of training, obviously!).

 

Much as I understand your desire to find suitable words that eveyone can understand, if they don't exist and we have to coin other words into new meanings we understand, is that so bad?

 

 

yep. now pass me the oojamaflit and I'll plug it in to the doofer.

 

sorted...

 

 

 

[Simon Lewis]

I've really enjoyed following this thread. Certainly when I first read the original post my brain said "this is going to be interesting". It's a shame that no-one has yet been able to give an answer to that original question,

 

I've held back, as it was interesting to see people's thoughts...

 

Ben Duncan has used this list for some years (in HiFi mags), and it can be found in his book High Performance Power Amplifiers. I understand that some of this might seem to stray into the esoteric hifutility arena, but the glossary is quite well thought through. Hope the small extract complies with copyright laws...

 

Simon

 

Highest Treble

Airy see ‘Broader tonal perspectives’.

Sheen Very high treble, above 16kHz, often absent or really hiss.

+Tizzy Excess around 12-16kHz, usually overemphasizing cymbals’ high harmonics.

+Hard,

+Metallic,

+Brittle Excess of high, metallic-sound, usually around 8-16kHz.

+Bright,

+Brilliant,

++Glassy Excess around 4-8kHz.

Sibilance 5 to 7kHz.

Treble, down into the High Midrange

+Crisp Peak about 3 to 4kHz.

Presence Centered on 2kHz.

+Nasal 1kHz emphasis.

+Honky Like a Cockney saying ‘oi’, or like poor or improperly used mid/hf horn speakers. Around 600 to 800Hz.

+Chesty Excess in the 200 to 400Hz area, particularly with pure male vocals.

+Boxy As if the singer is inside a cardboard box. Aggravated by cube shaped monitors. Around 250-450Hz.

+Barky

+Woody A characteristic mid-bass resonance in some larger speakers.

Low Midrange into Bass

Boomy see dynamics.

Punchy Around 120–160Hz, a high definition area.

+Balls,

+Ballsy,

+Gutsy Low bass that is visceral, i.e. can be felt.

Boof-Boof Around 80–90Hz, soft bass area.

+ Chunky 80–90Hz ‘sample’ bass with added harmonic definition.

– Gutless Absence of low bass.

Lowest Bass

Broader tonal descriptors

Airy Smooth, apparently effortless high treble, seeming to extend further than the music. Suggests ultrasonic capability.

Closed in Treble lacking above 10kHz, almost the opposite of airy.

Dark Sound that tilts down from the bass upwards.

Dull General lack of treble.

Enclosed Dull, coloured, airless.

Lean Slight, gentle reduction below 500Hz, or very clean, transparent bass.

Muffled Where high frequencies are reducing rapidly, above 2kHz.

Open See Airy.

Recessed General lack of midrange

Rich A downtilt in level above 300Hz. Also, a slight excess of reverb.

Thin Overall lack of bass.

Tune playing A consistent quality (especially power) throughout the bass range.

Opposite of ‘One note bass’.

General sonic adjectives and nouns

Aggressiveness Preponderance of mid-high energy (3-6kHz), often phasey and distorted.

Ambiance Not a sonic adjective, but may be portrayed in recordings. To do with mood and feeling. Elusive Neptune–Venus stuff.

Ambience Usually subtle, low level non-musical background sounds captured in a recording, that are usually only subliminally appreciated, but add to the sense of the occasion.

Analytical When sound equipment seems to reveal too much of the stitchwork in music. Sometimes used when a system has distortions that unduly emphasise detail or ‘edges’.

Articulation When you can hear the inner detail of complex sounds, particularly those in the main vocal range (300Hz-3kHz).

Clinical Suggests sound that is clean, bright, sharp, detailed, but may be mildly pejorative, as cleanliness in one area shows up dirt elsewhere. Also suggests emotional qualities are held back.

Detail – see Space

Dry Sound tending to lack reverberation.

Euphonic Erring on the side of being pleasing at the expense of accuracy.

Fuzzy A spiky yet soft texture caused by high distortion and compression.

Glare Distorted mid treble. Also tonal imbalance or forwardness.

Grainy Excess texture. A kind of distortion usually in the high midrange.

Gritty Like grainy, but harsher and coarser.

Grunge Like gritty, but more muffled. (Actual Grunge music is closer to being gritty)

Hardness Fatiguing ‘wood block’ type of midrange emphasis.

Harsh Dissonant and/or Discordant. Unpleasant.

Loose Badly damped bass

Lush See Rich under Dynamics.

One note bass Poor damping of major resonance(s) in low bass.

Phasey Symptomatic of a frequency response that undulates like a comb.

Co-exists with a manic, zig-zag phase response, literally ‘phasing’ our hearing system.

Transparent When you feel you’re hearing just the music, not the replay equipment. A sense of ‘nothing in the way’. Being able to hear back to the recording venue. In Martin Collom’s words “Vital aims !”

Woolly - see Loose.

Dynamics

The next group deals with how accurately the music at many levels and frequencies is output over time. The comparison can be loosely likened to lowering a small plaster model of a huge mountain range over a copy, to check the fit. Representing 50 miles of complex 3D surface (Time, Energy and Frequency), it has fine detailing to the nearest inch of real mountainside, symbolic of the ear’s ability to resolve millionth-sized differences buried deep in the main mass of sound.

Boomy Poor bass damping. A bad loudspeaker/amplifier combination.

Congested See Smeared and Thickened, which are facets of the same effect.

Dynamic contrast Subtle changes in level or pitch embedded amongst much larger changes.

Dynamic range In audio engineering, the amplitude performance envelope of a sound system. In music parlance, the programme’s intensity range. Audiophiles call this ‘Dynamic contrast’ to distinguish.

Fast Incisiveness of attack, particularly of bass fundamentals, but as bass doesn’t ‘move fast’ by definition, most likely a reflection of rapid damping, proper synchronisation between the fundamental and harmonics (see Chapter 7), and correct reproduction of all associated harmonics.

Incisive Conveying the ‘slicing’ sound of close miked snares, like a sonic machete knife. Indicative of good attack synchronisation, like ‘Fast’ and ‘Slam’.

Lifeless Superficially perfect, anodyne reproduction conveying nil emotion or interest. Commonly caused by forcing equipment or system to manifest a perfect measured frequency response without regard for factors affecting space or dynamics.

Micro-dynamics Lifelike energy (transients) in small, low-level sounds.

Muddy Especially applied to bass; see ‘Smeared’.

Pace Ability to make music seem to unravel at the pace (or BPM) it was recorded at, rather than slower. See ‘Fast’.

Punchy Similar to Slam, but can have a pejorative element of ‘One note bass’.

Rich(ness) Lots of coherent reverb. More usually applied to program rather than equipment.

Rounded Loss of attack transients, due to poor damping, poor hf response, or slew limiting.

Rhythm Ability to put across the infectious ‘vibe’ inherent in a live show, that makes people want to dance or move in rhythm.

Slam Convincing, correctly synchronised attack for a fundamental in the 125Hz area.

Slow Rhythm seems slower.

Smeared Caused by excess incoherent reverb, too much harmonic and intermodulation distortion and/or timing errors.

Solid Well damped bass.

Squashed May be caused by hard limiting. Seeming absence of most dynamic contrasts.

Thickened Can be caused by compression or soft limiting, or more subtly by any path component, from mics to resistors. Reduced dynamic contrasts.

Transient Abrupt, short lived events in music. Skilled ears can resolve differences in attack slopes and harmonic synchronisation down to tens of microseconds.

Space

Dimensional qualities are embedded in recorded music. Even a mono soundfield can yield spacial information. Good stereo can create 3D images, but as a low grade hologram, you can only experience it from one side, not be in it. It is nonetheless capable of offering a deep experience, and is still revealing its holographic recovery capabilities, over 60 years after its simultaneous invention in the UK and USA.

Users of higher dimensional encoding systems (eg. Binaural, Ambisonics, Holophonics or equipment like the Soundfield Mic or the Azimuth Co-ordinator) can create full sonic holograms, ie. soundfields (or dynamic sculptures) you can walk around and get inside.

Detail More spacial version of Dynamic Contrast Also the diametric of Muffled.

Etched Finely detailed.

Focus Sharpness of detail. May vary across the soundfield, in all 3 dimensions.

Image, Imaging Ability to portray width, depth, and sometimes height.

Layering Sounds having a precise depth in a soundfield, with the implication of many depths or infinite gradation.

Hologram When coherent and correctly focused light or sound enables higher dimensions to unfold.

Pinpoint When the image is very stable and finely etched, like some metal sculpture.

Smeared When an otherwise sharp image seems to be portrayed through butter-smeared glass. See also under Dynamics. Also Timing.

Sound stage The space between and around two speakers in which sound in stereo (Greek for ‘solid’) appears to emanate from.

Timing Time is a another kind of spacial dimension. The timing between sound components at different frequencies coming from one or

more instruments may be unlike the original sound. Compare bass to mid, bass to treble, etc. Delays of milliseconds or less can be audible.

Botheration or Abomination

When something sounds atrociously bad, e.g. “Like a box of rifles” An unbearably crashy, thuddy sound. “Like sandpaper:” An unnervingly scrapy, scratchy sound. “Like a train crash” A frighteningly loud metallic aggression attack. “Blanketed” A heavily dulled, possibly slow, tiring sound.

[KidRay]

A mate of mine was on the monitor desk at a festival when Art Garfunkel asked if the monitors could be "...a bit more vibey"

Stressed engineer heard muttering to himself "yeah, I'll just turn the "vibe" knob up a couple of clicks"

[Andrew Edwards]

Is the vibe knob next to the DFA button?

 

We did an extensive amount of A/B during our mastering module at college.

We also had some great lectures from some big names and the adjectives used were all in Ben Duncan's list. I would say descriptions can only work coupled with examples. After all, trying to describe blue to someone who has never seen it would be nigh on impossible.

 

The majority of their examples were comparisons. They also played quite a few tricks on us. For example, playing something that really did sound good but then playing how it should actually sound and then going back. The change was quite astonishing.

 

A nice exercise might be to give them a variety of programme content, various outboard and a list of adjectives and then ask them to make it sound like the adjectives. A good application of skills and possibly a little more objective than giving them a load of issues and asking them to make it sound 'better'.

[Just Some Bloke]

They also played quite a few tricks on us. For example, playing something that really did sound good but then playing how it should actually sound and then going back. The change was quite astonishing.

 

I think you are falling into the same semantic trap of words and meanings being tricky. Your quote above makes it sound like the source material shouldn't actually sound good. Did you, by any chance, mean that they played you a recording of something that had been treated with EQ, FX and a good mix then playing the same material without any of that? To pose a philospohical question here: which version was "how it should actually sound"?

[Andrew Edwards]

Good point. I absolutely did.

 

It was a well known Madonna track but I can't remember which.

The first version was played and we were asked to comment. The general consensus was that it sound like it should or 'good'.

The second version that was played was the version that was released and the first version had indeed been processed in some way. When comparing the two, the treated one suddenly sounded horrible compared to the 'original'. As for describing what was wrong, it was missing some top end and had a quite narrow notch cut from the lower mid. Most of us used the word dull.

 

The point is that the aesthetics of sound need to be compared to a reference as much as the physical properties when it comes to the subtleties.

[paulears]

The trouble with all these descriptors is that they're a little like dBs. So just to take one example. This sounds a little boxy, compared to ...... and Art Garfunkles request for more 'vibey' would be the same, it's sort of context dependent rather than absolute.

[Just Some Bloke]

it's sort of context dependent rather than absolute.

 

You're absolutely right!

 

Another example: a couple of years ago I made up a new soundcheck CD to help me set up PA systems. I used a thread on the BR to give me some ideas as to what to put on there. I took the advice that I've always given myself and was all over the relevant thread that you should use pieces of music that you know well, and I turned this advice on its head and chose good tracks for soundchecking then listened to them a lot on a variety of different systems so I got to know them well. I now have a very useful CD of music in all different styles that I can use to line up a system regardless of what style of music (and spoken word) I'm working with. On the earlier thread someone had suggested the Queen song 'Hammer to Fall'. I listened to it and have to agree that the "mix", in the old-fashioned sense of the term, is brilliant. The relative balance of all sorts of source tracks is just perfect. Unfortunately, up against every other track on my CD, the recording quality is, quite frankly, pants! It was recorded in the days when they didn't have digital recorders and, anyway, most people were replaying the record (as it would have been then) on pretty suspect-quality playback equipment anyway so the music, the arrangements and the production job were far more important then the sound quality. In the end I chose to include the track simply as a nice contrast to all the others - it's a way of putting all the lovely quality tracks in context. Frankly if you're actually mixing a bog-standard band they're going to sound more like the Queen recording than 'The Race' which has probably never seen a live stage in it's life, only ever having spent time in a perfect-quality studio. I follow the Queen track with Sting's 'Shape of My Heart' which begins with one of the best recordings of an acoustic guitar that I know. It's a wonderful contrast!

[Andrew Edwards]

Just to through something else in...

 

Ear fatigue can also affect your perception. Go away for while somewhere quiet and then come back and have another listen.

 

If you are doing more than one night try and come in early in the morning and have a listen too.

[indyld]

 

A nice exercise might be to give them a variety of programme content, various outboard and a list of adjectives and then ask them to make it sound like the adjectives. A good application of skills and possibly a little more objective than giving them a load of issues and asking them to make it sound 'better'.

 

That is essentially one of the exercises I do. The question wasn't much looking for teaching ideas but seeing what everyone's description of what they were listening for would be.