I am too ontologically secure to be concerned about disagreeing with a group, and I will always analyse what the group thinks.
If that is regarded as overthinking, I think that it is an inappropriate and wrong criticism.
Many groups have "not budged" until many years later the truth is evident to them.
If that is regarded as overthinking, I think that it is an inappropriate and wrong criticism.
Many groups have "not budged" until many years later the truth is evident to them.
Believe me, I know where you are coming from. However, at some point it is useful to simply be practical. One can go on and on with their reasoning that "smooth" is an essentially meaningless term when it comes to audio reproduction, but when it comes right down to it - it doesn't matter. Many (I would say the vast majority) people are still going to use the term because it does convey meaning to them - despite being so vague.
I personally think there are more interesting topics to cogitate on - things that don't already have simple, practical answers. YMMV.
Just wow ! When I started this thread, my goal was to educate myself, and have some fun. But I never intended to start anything contentious. It was supposed to be thought provoking fun.
As the OP, I always understood what people inferred by "smooth" to be slightly glossed over details. As in less resolution. Warm sounding. And probably slightly rolled off in the highs.
None of which appeals to me. I will go back and see who posted the response, but someone mentioned super high efficiency horns, which were good enough to also sound smooth, as in zero honkiness or shooting sounds. I can see where this SHOULD be the most dynamic, and most lifelike, ONLY IF the sins of most horns are not present.
But I have known many audio acquaintances, who owned wonderfully expensive little speakers with a GLORIOUS midrange, think small Proac, but with ZERO other properties to mimic real live music at all. Thus my original question ... born from boredom, not a desire to start issues over a fun subject.
As the OP, I always understood what people inferred by "smooth" to be slightly glossed over details. As in less resolution. Warm sounding. And probably slightly rolled off in the highs.
None of which appeals to me. I will go back and see who posted the response, but someone mentioned super high efficiency horns, which were good enough to also sound smooth, as in zero honkiness or shooting sounds. I can see where this SHOULD be the most dynamic, and most lifelike, ONLY IF the sins of most horns are not present.
But I have known many audio acquaintances, who owned wonderfully expensive little speakers with a GLORIOUS midrange, think small Proac, but with ZERO other properties to mimic real live music at all. Thus my original question ... born from boredom, not a desire to start issues over a fun subject.
As the OP, I have not. When I call to ask about a particular speaker kit, they always start with , "Oh, they are really nice and smooth sounding".
I'd rather hear, "They are SO fast sounding, with incredible macro and micro dynamics and detail! And they do so while remaining smooth at the same time.
THAT is what I'd rather hear.
What I want to know is the proper pronunciation of "superfluous".
soo-PUR-floo-uhs
sʊˈpɜr flu əs
This is the most accurate way this word can be attributed to audio. It just happens to be the same context it's used in everywhere else also.
Hmm..fancy that
Havana Club is also very smooth btw
This rebuttal is not analogous. It makes no sense.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.
I don't have a grudge against the use of the word smooth here, I have a grudge against it's use for audio sq, period.
However I love looking at a nice smooth FR curve on a graph.
What I want to know is the proper pronunciation of "superfluous".
Supe errrr flu us
Best I can do because I do not know the international symbols.
It seems to me that many polyprop mid/woofers give a smooth sound, but at the expense of detail.
This raises the whole issue of damping and trying to get the resulting waveforms to be as near the I/P as possible; underdamp and superimpose colorations appear on the O/P, overdamp and remove them but also remove genuine spikes form the original waveform.
This raises the whole issue of damping and trying to get the resulting waveforms to be as near the I/P as possible; underdamp and superimpose colorations appear on the O/P, overdamp and remove them but also remove genuine spikes form the original waveform.
No no, pickles can definitely be smooth or harsh going downAren't we in danger of getting ourselves into a pickle here!
As in for·mid·a·ble vs for·mid·a·ble?...and 'formidable'? TIA
When I looked up 'middle dot' I found out it's actually called a middle dot, when it's not being called an 'interpunct'.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.