Terminological Exactitude....


This may be resurrecting an older thread - if so, apologies for beating an old drum...

If all sound, including music, consists of two physical properties, namely amplitude and frequency, then one could argue that much of the audio language we use is vague, and sometimes extremely difficult to understand.
For example, what are we supposed to understand by words like 'analytical' or 'warm'? My supposition is that these terms refer to peaks and valleys in the response curves, either amplitude or frequency based.

But since we apparently have very few absolutes in audio, and since most casual terminology is used within a morass of variables, there seems to be a communication gap. I know of at least one designer (of phono sections) that will design in small frequency anomalies to suit end users: these anomalous frequency curves no doubt are just what some people are seeking, given their already anomalous listening situations...

More of a comment than complaint: but it does render descriptions less than useful in many or most cases. Of course, as some will say, measurements are not everything. Indeed it may seem so - but it's always a question of exactly what is being measured. Maybe one day we'll get better at this, but I have doubts.
Until then we'll have to contend with the pseudo-scientific rather than accuracy of description. I'm thinking of a line I read from Salvatore's website - one I agree with wholeheartedly:

"Music is art; reproduction is science"

Comments?
57s4me
Bomboywalla; yes indeed, phase distortions appear to be one of the keys to understanding this.
I recently had the pleasure of meeting one of the more influential power supply designers, whose researches are specifically dedicated to analyzing this phenomenon. His studies lead to interesting conclusions regarding phase shifts far above the conventionally held limits of audibility, and their effect on what we seem to hear. Fascinating.

And I do agree with Nonoise; giving latitude is essential. No need for conflict!
Nonoise & 57s4me,
re. giving each other some latitude: yes, I'm in favour of this because what we want on this forum is discussion & not a fight even if the discussion is outside our resp. knowledge realm & outside our comfort zone. The whole idea of forum participation is to expand our resp. knowledge base altho' I know that not everyone here subscribes to this line of reasoning.
And, no, I'm at the same not in favour of giving others latitude because if the definitions are not clear we have different people interpreting the same thing differently & the advice given is all over the map to the point where it is useless.
So, if I don't understand what your definition of "warm" or "analytical" is then I could off in left field by applying my definition & drawing wrong conclusions & giving bad advice. And, I've found this to be frustrating on several occasions.
So, if everyone was diligent in starting off their verbal descriptions with their definitions then we could cut each other a lot more slack & even be on the same page. But this seldom happens - I've to depend on my knowledge of "warm"/"analytical" & hope that the OP shares the same opinion.
Audio terminology is all a potshot for the most part.

Music can only be heard exactly. All words attempting to describe it are highly subjective approximations.

The fundamental properties of the gear can be measured though and those measurements can be applied towards the goal of creating a more accurate music reproduction system. But only our ears and minds are capable of processing and reacting to the recordings when played.
An application like Shazaam is capable of listening to recordings, and quantifying them to the extent needed to attempt to identify each uniquely from others, but that's all it can do. It cannot tell us anything about how individuals will react to what they hear. Maybe some day...