Phat warm punch (split from transparent compressor thread)

[tony tony chopper]

is that the terms are so subjective that they could mean pretty much anything

But that's the whole problem & the biggest reason to define them(?)

If those terms already had a definition, we wouldn't discussing about defining them.
I'd be the first to ignore anything described with such words, but just look at the compressor's thread, everyone kept debating about something that was only phrased using subjective words, leading nowhere.

I'll also remind you that since it's sound we're talking about, the "majority" you wish to represnt includes anyone who can hear

The majority is most people. If a lot of people think that fat means spectrally rich, and some people think it means saturated, then it means spectrally rich, and the rest will use the proper term if they want to be understood.

are some kind of obscure group you think is some sort of authority on those completely subjective terms.

Who writes dictionaries?
Again, since you learnt to speak & write, you did comply to an authority above you, that taught you what every word means. While languages slowly evolve, you wouldn't go to a store, ask for an apple, then complain because you were sold an apple while your own interpretation of an apple is an orange. People agreed on "apple" to refer to that fruit, and no one will question that.
I don't know why you think that sujective means no possible definition. Hot, cold, beautiful, sad, they're all subjective and yet they have definitions. Does it mean that sad=col=beautiful=hot, because they're all subjective terms? No, so a subjective term can still have a definition, describing enough for 'cold' not to mean 'sad'. Hot/cold may be subjective in quantity, but they're about temperature, that's already a definition.
If "fat" is generally used talking about spectral richness, then it doesn't matter if for a few people it means something else, if they want to be understood, they will adapt. I adapted to english, I'm not using french terms all over the place, because they wouldn't be understood by most. Fat will still remain somewhat subjective, but at least everyone will know it's about spectral richness, and not saturation, low-end or whatever.

it's impossible to make an authoritative glossary

being the first one (& I found nothing else) would be enough to be authoritative

it would do way more harm than good

What's good in debating about anything described by subjective terms?
The OP could as well have started "what compressor is the most awesome", followed by pages of useless debate.

[thecontrolcentre]

If a lot of people think that fat means spectrally rich, and some people think it means saturated, then it means spectrally rich, and the rest will use the proper term if they want to be understood.

No they won't. Only those who agree will use the "proper term" ... this whole argument is bollocks.

Q = "excuse me ... how do I make spectrally rich beats."
A = " are you sure you don't mean saturated beats?"

[Shy]

Being the first one is not good enough to be "authoritative" which means "official, reliable, assertive", but if you think it is, then fine. I can't make my points clearer and don't think it's needed anyway. Thanks for at least trying to understand my points. I understand yours, but can't agree about their relevance or attributes.

[tony tony chopper]

Only those who agree will use the "proper term"

Then they won't be understood, their loss.
I know I won't start using words I like for everything that's already defined, because no one would understand it.

You seem to think that dictionaries are there as a police, while no one ever forced you to write properly. Maybe people who're new would like a glossary to understand what they're reading?

Being the first one is not good enough to be "authoritative" which means "official, reliable, assertive", but if you think it is, then fine.

Just imagine you're a foreigner, you'd better know what "douche" means, not to start calling everyone a douche to start with. You could understand its meaning on the street or in the urban dictionary online. "douche" may be partly subjective, it still has a meaning, to start with it's pejorative which is a pretty important piece of information. Then everyone probably agrees that it more or less defines an asshole or idiot, that's a definition, even if those terms are vague, that still informs you about what douche does NOT mean. And if it has various definitions depending on the communities in which it's used, that can be defined as well.

"color" has a proper definition in the audio world, and yes as you claim, not everyone knows what it means/understands it differently. But since it has a definition, most educated people know what it means, it's better than no definition at all.


That's for qualitative terms btw, but there are also technical terms where a small group CAN impose their authority.
Example, "summing engine". The average joe shouldn't impose its own understanding of "summing engine", that should be left to technicians, that is, programmers & audio engineers (because a summing engine is different in the digital & analog world). Right now there are still myths about summing engines, and it's not subjective, there is a truth & technicians all know it.
So I don't know, gather dozens of programmers (there are enough reading this) to agree on describing how a "summing engine" works, & then no one will ever question it anymore. If a person or company tells you what it means, you shouldn't be trusting him, but if a community agreed on it, that should have more weight.

[thecontrolcentre]

You seem to think that dictionaries are there as a police, while no one ever forced you to write properly.

You didn't go to the same school as me then? My point is that these terms are open to interpretation, as are many other descriptive terms, in every walk of life (music, art, sport, etc) ... and no n00b is going to consult a glossary, or dictionary, before posting some dumbass question on a forum. Please go make a glossary, if it makes you happy, but don't expect anyone to respect it's definitions or treat them as if they're made in stone.

Just imagine you're a foreigner

Do you mean "non-english speaking" or "non-american" or what? This is the internet ... we're all foreigners.

[Shy]

"color" has a proper definition in the audio world

No, it really doesn't.

[eduardo_b]

The majority is most people. If a lot of people think that fat means spectrally rich, and some people think it means saturated, then it means spectrally rich, and the rest will use the proper term if they want to be understood.

The problem as I see it is that defining each term is often going to involve descriptions that use other terms. So phat (fat) means spectral richness...but what is that. Saturation? What is that.

It's an issue inherent in the medium. One can use a photo to describe apples and oranges, but with audio the identification is in the hearing more than it is in the words. There are dozens of these. How about phase. One can use a graphic to illustrate phase, but what does being in or out of phase sound like. It's certainly not obvious until you hear it and have it identified.

Traditional dictionaries don't really address this sort of situation, so while a group could come up with terms and definitions, the usefulness will not meet the needs of those who aren't familiar with the actual phenomena.

[tony tony chopper]

No, it really doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_color


Noise too has several colors defined as well btw, and precisely defined, so no one would dare to claim "this is pink noise because that's how I hear it".

Saturation? What is that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_arithmetic (for saturation/clipping in general)
http://www.simulanalog.org/clip.pdf (for soft saturation)

So phat (fat) means spectral richness...but what is that.

full spectrally, you'd see it by watching a spectrogram

[eduardo_b]

No, it really doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_color


Noise too has several colors defined as well btw, and precisely defined, so no one would dare to claim "this is pink noise because that's how I hear it".

Saturation? What is that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_arithmetic (for saturation/clipping in general)
http://www.simulanalog.org/clip.pdf (for soft saturation)

But these illustrate the point I was making. They are just lots of words (and, much worse, useless math) that aren't tethered to real world audio experience. Without audio examples, they leave the person not knowing what it all actually means. An audio dictionary of audio terms is the only viable solution to this.

[Shy]

Furthermore, "tone color" as described there and "color" in general in regards to audio have hardly any relation at all.

[tony tony chopper]

But these illustrate the point I was making. They are just lots of words (and, much worse, useless math) that aren't tethered to real world audio experience.

a description that not everyone can understand is better than no description at all. If it can be described to people who can understand it, then it can be dumbed down & explained to others.

Without audio examples

why wouldn't it have audio examples?

"tone color" as described there and "color" in general in regards to audio have hardly any relation at all

yes it has, coloration would mean a spectral change, not a change in gain or dynamics.
Anyway it seems that you're arguing for the sake of arguing, I didn't even think anyone would have a good reason to be against dictionaries. It's like being against education.

[Shy]

yes it has, coloration would mean a spectral change, not a change in gain or dynamics

Says who?

[tony tony chopper]

Says who?

says him
http://varietyofsound.wordpress.com/201 ... oloration/

He adds about coloration through phase shifting btw, & I would agree with that too. Messing with magnitudes or (strongly) phases, as long as it's not uniform accross all bands, would color sound.

[Shy]

Good for him, but his "vision" is not similar to mine at all.

[Rock Hardbuns]

Color is well established as far as I know. If you want to use is to mean something else, no one can stop you, but still I might be useful to know what someone means when they say that a "compressor adds color", for example. It means it tampers with the spectrum, possibly emphasizing a particular band.

If on the other hand the compressor adds warmth, it means it has some kind of saturation effect, possibly reminiscent of tape or tube saturation.