contradictory communication

It's very possible IMO for a component/system to be warm and transparent. I base this on what a live orchestra sounds like -- warm and transparent, like liquid. There is treble extension thru 20,000Hz, and violins and trumpets are smooth. True detail lies not in frequency extension but timbre and harmonics--the sound within the sound.

In a recent thread "minimze ambiguity when describing audio components" by Mrtennis, he suggested that we should avoid ambiguous terms. One of his suggestions was to "have some definitions of commonly used adjectives, and post them where all can see them ". In that thread, I suggested a Stereophile Glossary at Glossary. He responded "zargon has the right idea". So lets do that.

warm = The same as dark, but less tilted. A certain amount of warmth is a normal part of musical sound.

dark = A warm, mellow, excessively rich quality in reproduced sound. The audible effect of a frequency response which is clockwise-tilted across the entire range, so that output diminishes with increasing frequency. Compare "light."

transparency, transparent = 1) A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. 2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal. A quality of crystalline clarity.

So, it would seem from these definitions that warm and transparent are used to describe very different qualities of sound reproduction. Are they inconsistent? I leave it to you all to decide.

Personally, I don't think it's very important to come to some kind of concensus regarding audio descriptives. Despite the disparate interpretations of audio jargon I've rarely been surprised when buying equipment on Audiogon based on the discussions here. I think the key is to not search using descriptions in the absolute sense, but to use them more in relative terms when comparing components.

gunbei you are very perceptive.

i now realize that i have been using terms in the absolute sense, especially philosphical persepctive of knowledge and other terms.

if one uses terms in the relative sense, one still has to be careful.

for example, all decent stereo systems are "somewhat" transparent. the question is how transparent, since none are absolutely transparent as all stereo systems have flaws, small and unintrusive, yet noticable.

it is reasonable to say that stereo system a seems to be more transparent than stereo system b, without specifying how transparent each one is.

another solution is to try to present a sonic picture of the music as heard through speakers without using too many adjectives. it is proabably sufficient to say " there is a lack of bass" or "an excess of treble energy" and communicate clearly.

Mrtennis, I like discussion threads where people compare the sonics of say amp A relative to amp B. Not really judging good or bad, but just how they differ sonically keeping in mind what they were matched with at the time. I think we people that read these discussions keep running tabs of the comparisons and form our opinions over the long term.

It's funny, because after participating in a few threads about the subject of sonic descriptive terms in the last month or so, it seems my definitions and understanding of these terms doesn't seem to jibe with the majority. Yet, I still end up with what I expected. Funny and odd.