To put a label on this, yes, which makes your brain jump around between notes. As I see it, this fatigue mechanism also applies to secondary sources of radiation. Pano's mention of horn systems also fits in with this as I see it.
Firstly, we are all 'trapped' in our own perceptive world, we agree that something is red, but we have no idea what others actually see, they too have been taught to use the label 'red' when looking at a certain colour. Doesn't this apply to sound also?
It is easy to agree when comparing the surface of a piece of wood, whether or not it is smooth, or could be made smoother, but much harder on an abstract perception.
Isn't it a metaphor with sound?
I'd like to hear some of the supposedly validly defined sound quality descriptions.
It is easy to agree when comparing the surface of a piece of wood, whether or not it is smooth, or could be made smoother, but much harder on an abstract perception.
Isn't it a metaphor with sound?
I'd like to hear some of the supposedly validly defined sound quality descriptions.
Oh, so you mean smooth as in.."good tonal balance", I get it. Here's one...smooth as in 'accurate life-like timbre'? Oh, and this one..smooth as in 'time phase coherent'. Gee, I wonder how many more there could be you could render redundant in favor of just saying 'wow, those sure are smooth!'
Sure, dummy down audiophile jargon for the sake of redundancy.
Complete nonsense.
He alludes to posts 2,3, and 4, and I empathise to an extent, but am uncomfortable with vagueness, especially when these terms are used by reviewers.
In Hi-Fi News some years ago a letter from a reader complained about violins sounding screechy, the respondent said "Have you listened to a violin?".
In Hi-Fi News some years ago a letter from a reader complained about violins sounding screechy, the respondent said "Have you listened to a violin?".
Once again, a great display of how this group can a) overthink anything and b) disagree about anything.
Like most audiophile terms, "smooth" is vague. However, about 90% of us have pretty similar intuitions of what it means and there may be slight variability in the subjective experiences and definitions - but mostly it is common ground. The other 10% - who knows? Perhaps they just like to overthink stuff and/or debate. It comes as no surprise. It is DIYaudio.com, after all.
Like most audiophile terms, "smooth" is vague. However, about 90% of us have pretty similar intuitions of what it means and there may be slight variability in the subjective experiences and definitions - but mostly it is common ground. The other 10% - who knows? Perhaps they just like to overthink stuff and/or debate. It comes as no surprise. It is DIYaudio.com, after all.
Maybe a sticky could be a good thing to allow people to comunicate with words that has the same "definition", "tone" , "reference". For people with low average english speaking as I am, it's also sometimes hard to understand the context when experienced people help but think their shortcuts is well understood. Some illustration :
- smooth in crossover region
- bass - mid-bass - medium - upper bass - low treble (when not speaking from octaves that beginn at 20 Hz
- clear vs transparent vs light
- dark ; dark background
- presence region
- grainy (this one is ? for me)
- rough, harsh when involved in frequencies speaking.
oh I know more or less what it means but sometimes not in the definition the people answering uses it and so if I get it !
For instance reading Troels Gravsen or Humblemadehifi, you have pain to understand some descriptions, but maybe if you're english native.. and perhaps there are subtilities between north Americas and britons, guys from asia (HK, Taiwan, Singapour.. oh: India as well!)
- smooth in crossover region
- bass - mid-bass - medium - upper bass - low treble (when not speaking from octaves that beginn at 20 Hz
- clear vs transparent vs light
- dark ; dark background
- presence region
- grainy (this one is ? for me)
- rough, harsh when involved in frequencies speaking.
oh I know more or less what it means but sometimes not in the definition the people answering uses it and so if I get it !
For instance reading Troels Gravsen or Humblemadehifi, you have pain to understand some descriptions, but maybe if you're english native.. and perhaps there are subtilities between north Americas and britons, guys from asia (HK, Taiwan, Singapour.. oh: India as well!)
The exact same could be said of your descriptions of alcohols as smooth. It's an adjective that tries to define a subjective quality. For liquors you claim you know what it means. But does it mean the same thing to other people? Yes, probably to many. That's why it's used.
Same with speakers. Many people understand and use the term. You just seem to have a grudge against its use here, yet you accept it elsewhere. It's really OT.
Anyway, I answered your question a propos the OP. You're welcome.
Correct, however you still need to account for subjectivity of individual tastes. Gibson's 12 year is "smooth" to some, and yet others find it is only palatable with ginger ale - and would much prefer something like The MacAllan 12 year triple casked, neat.
A word which is commonly used in loudspeaker reviews these days is 'couth'.
For example, "The midband is clean and couth".
One dictionary definition of couth, when used as an adjective, is 'cultured, refined and well-mannered'.
A synonym of couth is 'polished'. Perhaps a reviewer turns to the word couth when he has used up his quota of 'smooth'!
For example, "The midband is clean and couth".
One dictionary definition of couth, when used as an adjective, is 'cultured, refined and well-mannered'.
A synonym of couth is 'polished'. Perhaps a reviewer turns to the word couth when he has used up his quota of 'smooth'!
Overthinking (in this instance) means that there is an answer to a question that most people agree with for most practical purposes and they are willing to accept it is not a perfect answer, however the over-thinker for some reason has a need to re-think it all from the beginning, challenge the consensus, debate semantics, deconstruct the collective linguistic constructs...
It's OK to do so, but just realize that the consensus of the practical majority will not budge and you will almost certainly find yourself using the word "smooth" in this context - if only because you understand that most people have a good gut feeling of what it means (even if it is "meaningless" when subjected to overthinking).
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.