Man, I really want to invite Kerry King to dinner now. I wonder if he likes spaghetti?
6 Likes
I grew up with people playing live at our house all the time…my step mom was in a couple of bands (rock, jazz, blues, bluegrass, funk etc)…they would setup and practice in our living room… I will say, I didn’t fully appreciate it as a teenager, but it was pretty awesome looking back on it. Plus she was in a couple of orchestra/symphonies every year…so between them practicing and or going to their shows (bars, small venues, or large if it was the symphonies) … Pretty cool…damn feeling nostalgic…
10 Likes
Agreed. I have read and had many a conversation about this and am actually tinkering on an article about it. The thoughts go:
All audio systems are interpretive to one degree or another. Recording studios, mastering suites, even painstakingly calibrated Dolby Certified mixing theatres have variations. Like a piece of literature, once a recording is out in the wild, it’s subject to reading, translation, and interpretation which is always an interaction with subjectivity - there is a “framing” that takes place.
[editing out a huge, meandering page of notes here 
I’ll save it for the article.]
Anyways. It’s a fascinating topic. Thanks for clear and concise thinking.
9 Likes
You’ll have to post a link to your article when you’ve finished. Sounds like it’ll be a great read.
1 Like
I love the heck out of that. 
3 Likes
Thanks. Might be a while. It’s like the old Camaro in the garage up on blocks that I tinker with on weekends
3 Likes
But once you get that Camaro running, she purrs…
Take your time. It’ll be ready in it’s time. 
3 Likes
I like engaging as a term!
From my perspective, I get deeply engaged by all the details. I like to listen to the material aspects of the recording, the “constructed space” - all the plays on presence and space created in a recording. To me, when these aspects speak on their own, with each other and with the composition and performance it’s like a little bit of magic. It’s part physical, part intellectual. This is what brings me into a recording, and makes me feel “there”.
In this light, would call the THX engaging. Like when-I’m-not-listening-to-it-I’m-thinking-about-listening-to-it engaging. Is it musical? I’m not sure I’m would call it that. I would not call it analytical either…It’s clean (oh so clean), dynamic and detailed. The bass on it is super tight and quick, and it images really well for me. Thinking about it as I am writing, I wonder if musical/sterile/clinical are really value judgments rather than descriptions.
I like you guys. It’s fun here!
PS. I also loves me some yummy second order distortion, too, though it would seem my preference for this in monitors rather than headphones.
7 Likes
I’m a clinical type of guy myself. Though most would probably think my preferred listening preference to be overly bright and thin sounding.
I might also add though there are times that I just like to listen to a more consumer focussed sound. I guess its mood dependent. As are most things.
6 Likes
I was only envying people for the headphone systems. Now I’m envying you for your cars. Not enough to do the work and actually listen or drive them of course, just vicariously reading perspectives. Because I’m frequently still working in AV (setting and operating equipment on corporate shows usually in hotels), I’m of two or three minds on equipment analysis. If I’m on a show my job is to make the audio and video as clear as possible for the audience. 99-something percent of the time I’m doing audio. Because I’m in various buildings in various rooms every set is different the everything changes. The phase relationships change and of course the overall acoustics change. Over the years I built my home theater with floor-to-ceiling electrostatic speakers that I found where cheap compared to other electrostatic speakers. I like a planar (flat panel surface) presentation as opposed to a cone presentation because of the more easily designed smooth frequency response with less distortion in the mid range and high frequencies inherent in the design. Yes it’s a choice. Yes some cone speakers are really good. I like a floor to ceiling planar presentation. I was headed for the apogee’s ribbon speakers but they were too expensive for me. I just couldn’t justify thousands of dollars for a pair of speakers. So I waited and watched and saved and when Acoustat went out of business I waited and bought five pairs of them over the years for about $800 or $1000 a pair. Then the idea came to me a few years ago that when I retire I may eventually not have the capability of having a large room with large speakers and the ability to play them as loud as I want at 3 in the morning. So I started researching headphones. The above is to categorize my prejudices. As sacrilegious as this may sound on this forum, I have never liked headphones. They are a tool when I’m in the field working. They are like my glasses I need them to see clearly and protect my eyes but I don’t particularly care for them. The difficulty is finding inexpensive headphones that can keep up with the electrostatic speakers and get out of my head as much as possible and don’t make my ears sweat and are comfortable and are cheap and and… 
That is my challenge. When listening to sound systems or any electrical reproduction of anything I am of two or three minds. One is a very clinical analytical mind analyzing the phase relationships frequency response distortion characteristics and how deep into the mix I can hear. The other the more audiophile part of my mind is listening to how open the sound is how free the space, how relaxed the sound is and how comfortable the sound. Then, how much do I enjoy the music or the movie. All three of them are dancing in my head all the time. Want a quick audio test? Get reasonably comfortable in your place of favorite listening with your favorite music and listen intently about the how the music sounds and how your sound system sounds either headphones or sound system and then go outside with the same mind and listen to what it sounds like outside. Then come back inside and put your headphones on or listen to your sound system with the same ears. The difference brings into bold relief how different reproduced sound is from real life. Promise you won’t hate me now. 
4 Likes
Yeah my 84 fiero up in Alabama and they can’t find anybody to put a V8 in it 
1 Like
One reason I was coaxed into buying a set of Focal Clears was Tyll’s review and him stating these headphones made him “gush” because they were so tonally accurate which makes them very “musical”!
So I am thinking that if transducers can present an accurate tonality then you can have a great “musical” like experience…
What I do not like about the THX 889 is its very brutal in allowing everything thru good or bad…“at times”…meaning lesser more colored amps make some of the lesser recordings a bin more pleasant to listen to…and it makes me have to look for a better version of some material…
But as I have alluded to in my “experience” is its nice to have a “reference” type amp that will allow other parts of the audio chain a chance of being evaluated…
Cars. My favorite was my 1966, 427cu in, Maroon Coupe Corvette Stingray which I used to drag race!!
Then on to motorcycles, racing, teaching high speed riding skills or how not to kill yourself at 120 mph+
at Daytona, Roebling Road, VIR, Mid-Ohio etc…now I am a grand father settled down to a WRX/STI, and a measly Z06…
Good Morning!
Alex
6 Likes
Nice. 84 Fiero since new waiting for V8. 67 Harley FL not full dresser. Ok… Ok… Back to headphones. A buddy has headphones that are quite good in his motorcycle Helmut. Can’t tell much difference than regular cell service other than a slight tendency
to hear auto gain distortion. Wonder how many here listen to headphones on motorcycles?
1 Like
“I like you guys it’s fun here” is wonderful. “2nd harmonic distortion”? Don’t make me say it! Okay, okay, I like tubes sometimes. But they are work and I am lazy.
2 Likes
That’s an easy idea to get. I like Planar presentation speakers also, and would prefer them to headphones generally. And yes, some cone speakers are very good. Light easy to drive headphones that can keep up with electrostatic speakers? That’s more difficult. The STAX SR-003 earbuds and the portable driver might work, but will be not cheap.
1 Like
I think there are some adjectives used in describing an audio experience that are more straightforward than others because they denote a meaning as opposed to conveying an idea or a complex experience. Words such as thick/thin, fast/slow, punchy/flat, etc. come to mind. These are not only straightforward but tend to mean the same thing in other contexts. Terms like musical and analytical attempt to convey a more complex experience and I think are rather vague. When one says something is musical in any other context, such as, “their laughter was musical” it’s meant to conjure an experience of listening to music, something that is tuneful, melodious and many other things in order to give it that quality in describing it. But when one uses musical to describe the actual listening of music via a piece of audio gear, is it meant to mean that the musical experience is exaggerated, more tuneful than tuneful? I don’t know.
There are other terms that on appearance seem vague because they denote a property that belongs to something that is not sound, terms that are borrowed, such as wet/dry or liquid. Although I think that in recording industry parlance, wet specifically refers to reverb and dry to a lack of reverb. In this sense I find these terms very useful as they are clear, concise and denote something specific. Liquid, in the way many use it, not so much although I can appreciate what it attempts to convey - the properties of water or a liquid substance.
Sweetness is another borrowed adjective and I have come to understand that many people use it to describe the effect of second order harmonic distortion. Bob Katz, a well known mastering engineer, wrote an interesting piece on Innerfidelity about how it affects our listening experience in terms of pleasure. It’s worth a read: https://www.innerfidelity.com/category/katzs-corner
Reading reviews is a bit like putting a puzzle together. When I read a particular review I look at other reviews by that person for gear that I have heard. I then assess if their experience is generally similar to mine and if it is, I try to assemble the more vague and complex terms they use and see if there are consistencies in how they are used in terms of what my experience is.
In assessing whether I want to buy a piece of gear that I can not audition and where I am reliant on reviews, I try to look for agreement in different reviews by different people, hopefully people whose opinions I have come to trust over time.
While I am not a fan of Stereophile, I do like the fact that their reviews contain a subjective element and one based on measurements and that there is at least some discussion on discrepancies between the two, although there should be more. I much preferred Tyll’s columns on Innerfidlety, the headphone section of Stereophile.
Regarding blind and double blind listening tests vs sighted/subjective bias, as one person on another forum wrote, or something to the effect, all music production decisions are based on sighted listening experiences. In fact all creative decisions are imbued with bias. So for example, while metrics are important in the construction of a building, it’s the architects vision that prevails. That said, unfortunately there are too many horrible buildings that are the product of the profit metric.
In terms of “hearing what the artist intended” I agree with what others such as Torq have said. Although, out of interest have a look at this lecture by Floyd Toole on sound reproduction. He argues that reproduction systems in studios, especially the monitors, should be standardised so that we do know what the mixing engineer intended. At the time of the lecture I think he worked for JBL and perhaps the lecture had more to do with touting JBL’s M1.
10 Likes
Back in the day I’d say good fast or cheap pick any two. 
Well said. I believe the BBC went the standardization route at some point, I honestly don’t know enough on the subject, but I recall reading about this with regards to the BBC ls3’s.
There’s definitely a strong argument for doing so.
Thank you, @Cariad, for getting back to the original topic. You beat me to a few of the points I was hoping to make; reading through this thread gave me a growing sense of disquiet.
For me, the core of this subject is the interpretation and misinterpretation of meaning and nuance in the best cases. The best cases are those where the reviewer is actually trying to convey something with terms like “musical” and “clinical”. The worst ones tend to be where someone is just trying to buzz you with bs1.
I think I’m particularly sensitive to the issue because I’m bilingual and studied linguistics in college until I came to my senses, and found another subject that might make me more employable. In a forum like this, it’s good to remember when writing that there are people for whom English is a second or third language, and that when coming from a different language background, the reader may have a rather different interpretation of a nuanced term.
I went to the Collins online Dictionary and Thesaurus to look up Musical and Clinical. It’s interesting to note that Collins’ has both English and American versions, and they are not identical:
+++ cut here +++
MUSICAL
Collins American Thesaurus
- melodious, dulcet, euphonious, harmonious, lyrical, melodic, sweet-sounding, tuneful
Collins English Thesaurus
Synonyms
melodious, lyrical, harmonious, melodic, lilting, tuneful, dulcet, sweet-sounding, euphonious, euphonic
CLINICAL
Collins American Thesaurus
Collins English Thesaurus
(adjective) in the sense of unemotional
Definition
logical and unemotional
This approach is far too clinical for my liking.
Synonyms
unemotional, cold, scientific, objective, detached, analytic, impersonal, antiseptic, disinterested, dispassionate, emotionless
+++ end cut here +++
What I’m trying to get at here, is that if you (or I) are going to be using terms that are open to interpretation, it’s good to try and define what it means to you, the writer, so that hopefully it will mean more to the reader.
An alternative would be to add to @Torq and other’s plates by making a forum.headphones.com Glossary.
7 Likes
While it’s a good thought, I think this runs the risk of being severely unrepresentative of reality because most people will not read this and continue to use these terms in their own disparate ways.
You do bring a good point about not speaking the same language, though. Even those who speak perfect English tend to have different interpretations of the more abstract words. As others have said, it’s down to being familiar with the reviewer’s tastes enough to form your own (hopefully consistent) understanding of each term.
6 Likes