Phat warm punch (split from transparent compressor thread)

[Shy]

Too bad you can't see my point. I think it's pretty damn clear.

Your point is people define largely subjective terms differently, so we shouldn't even try to understand each other when participating in a discussion based on these terms, right?

Oh really, that's what you got? I guess you like ignoring parts (more like all of it), like anyone can post a sample, using common sense, and not creating senseless, narrow minded "glossaries" to replace trying to understand -each other-.

[shogger]

I guess you like ignoring parts (more like all of it), like anyone can post a sample, using common sense, and not creating senseless, narrow minded "glossaries" to replace trying to understand -each other-.

I lost you on that one. Common sense on the one hand but when it get's collected what people find out it's becoming senseless and narrow minded? I don't get it.

Shogger

[Shy]

I guess you like ignoring parts (more like all of it), like anyone can post a sample, using common sense, and not creating senseless, narrow minded "glossaries" to replace trying to understand -each other-.

I lost you on that one. Common sense on the one hand but when it get's collected what people find out it's becoming senseless and narrow minded? I don't get it.

Shogger

Common sense says everyone's definition is not the same, or even necessarily similar at all. Providing general samples, even thousands of them for each "term" still results in a "narrow minded" (who says thousands represet billions of people's subjective opinions?) view, is more of a mess than a "representation" anyway, and goes against understanding each other. Pointing people to a "glossary" of such terms is first of all unneeded since anyone can provide a sample or few to explain far better than thousands of words what their idea of any term is. If we can't even bother to accept the fact that we have to interact to properly understand each other and that not everything can be empirically defined, that's just sad.

[LOSER]

Too bad you can't see my point. I think it's pretty damn clear.

Your point is people define largely subjective terms differently, so we shouldn't even try to understand each other when participating in a discussion based on these terms, right?

Oh really, that's what you got? I guess you like ignoring parts (more like all of it), like anyone can post a sample, using common sense, and not creating senseless, narrow minded "glossaries" to replace trying to understand -each other-.

Yes, that's what I thought your point was (otherwise I wouldn't have posted it); also note that it was verbalized as a question since I was unsure as to your point. But apparently your point is that we should not agree on common definitions ("narrow minded 'glossaries'") but rather everyone should include sound samples that define his/her definitions each and every time a topic involving the term is discussed? (Please not that this is worded as a question again because I'm still unsure what your point is .. call me narrow minded whatever but I just don't get it.)

[Shy]

but rather everyone should include sound samples that define his/her definitions each and every time a topic involving the term is discussed?

If they want, and if you want or need it to better understand their point of view. A narrow minded glossary of subjective terms does way more harm than good, and will inevitably serve to piss people off more than anything else.

[LOSER]

If they want, and if you want or need it to better understand their point of view.

The way I understand it is that since those terms aren't defined you don't need it to better understand but to even understand what they define the term to mean, otherwise those terms could - like already mentioned - mean anything and nothing and thus these terms are in fact not even buzzwords but simply words that people use that might or might not even have a meaning to them.

Although I now understand your point, I must disagree since every process to an audio signal via a processor can be empirically defined - in fact it is already defined in the principles of physics - so everything resulting from that process must also be empirically definable, hence all phrases like "compressor X has more punch/is more transparent/etc... than compressor Y" can be defined by the difference in the results of compressor X and Y. Now it is correct that different people might have defined these terms differently but that doesn't hinder finding common ground about what each term means, otherwise if these terms are used without a definition somewhere they can mean anything or nothing at all depending on the person that uses them. Thus using them would be the same as not using them at all since without a common definition they do not provide any usable information whatsoever besides adding buzz to an discussion.

[eytanmich123]

Are we that f**king pedant and dumb that we need a glossary for largely subjective terms which define sound that everyone interprets differently?

No - we are not dumb nor pedant.
Yes - we need a glossary for "largely subjective terms". you see, these are
NOT "subjective terms". these are AGREED (not the KvR nick ) phenomenons
from the audio world. lets take, for instance - a CAR. it is agreed that it has
an engine, 4 wheels and s steering wheel. now, according to what you say, I CAN
mean that a car is actually a Camel (not the company). according to what you
say, it is perfectly acceptable. hey, it is subjective..ain't it ?? but
according to MOST people I may seem utterly dumb and need urgent hospitalization...

I'm fu*&king tired of all this "no rules" $hit.

Give me a break and use some common sense

And what, you think EVERYONE will use the SAME common sense ?...
What IS common sense ? according to what YOU say, there can't be COMMON sense
since everyone will use subjective sense (=uncommon) anyway...

Ummm

You can't always fully understand everyone or think alike

No, and I really don't WANT to.

BUT

If we are to communicate with each other, it has to be based on common set
of RULES. like or not. i think that it is F*&uking ridiculous that one seeks
for "clean and transparent compressor" and gets in return answers like a phazer
delay, exciter, eq, limiter or whatnot. "no, but a delay has this
vintage harmonic distortion - like tape distortion - which can be seen as
tape compression..." (I quate this from memory but I can collect for you
quotes from forums (including KvR) and believe me - you will piss in your pants

Live with it

I do. but it is a stange thing.... this Babylon Tower...and it makes communicating a REALLY hard job

Anyone can provide samples of what they personally think of as "punchy", "transparent" or whatever, there's no need for an idiotic "glossary" with sound examples of a few people's subjective ideas of each term to wave

Yea, there no NEED but I still think there should be one...

Want an example ?

OK... lets talk transparent : I think that the most transparent compressor
is IKM's Amplitube , set to full distortion - crunch mode.

The harmonic DISTORTION gives the sound that clean, worm, colored and transparent sound... it is so subtle and transparent - YOU WILL IMMEDIATELY HEAR IT !

What do you have to say about it ?

[Shy]

LOSER: well, we can't ban those words even if they "buzz" some people. Empirical definition is possible, sure, but since everyone's opinion is not the same, it's not generally "true" at all. People sometimes hope someone would understand them and describe sound in various ways. What can you do. I understand how some people may get annoyed if they visit forums like this so often and read things again and again and see that every time the meaning is different, but there's nothing to do about it, it's human nature and we can get upset or accept it. I support posting samples when possible, to explain what you mean when it comes to a characteristic of sound, but still, I don't really get upset when someone's description is one I don't understand or don't agree with.

[Shy]

What do you have to say about it ?

"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"

[thecontrolcentre]

there will be people who benefit from this as a rule of thumb.

I think you're way off ... it's just another thing to argue about, instead of using said equipment to make music.

You mean that's what this forum is for? Making music? Do you mean that it's more cool for us all to blah around while being so subjective that no one really knows what we're talking about? Would that increase our coolness factor? Maybe, but some people sometimes want to learn a few things every now and then.
I'd rather have 10 audios of various people with some explanations why that now is "insertbuzzwordhere" and have that as a thing I can relate to than to see over and over and over the same old questions asked and not agreed upon.

You've totally misinterpreted what I said. It has nothing to do with whats "cool". My point is that a glossary will just result in more arguments about what does [insert term here] mean, and whether it's defined properly in the glossary. Surely people can use some common sense here, and just ask if they don't understand the question/answer. I'm sure most of us already know what transparent means, when it comes to compressors, just as we know what coloured means in the same context. But, what the f**k ... go ahead and make a glossary if it floats yer boat.

[LOSER]

My point is that a glossary will just result in more arguments about what does [insert term here] mean, and whether it's defined properly in the glossary.

But doesn't that do what has been done do this thread by a mod - that is separate the discussion about terminology from the real discussion using the terminology?
Anyway I guess I'll just ignore everyone using those undefined terms in the future, that's what I can do, or to put it with the words of Voltaire: "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."

[elxsound]

I avoided this discussion for as long as it was apart of the compressor thread, but now that it's here, I might as well jump right on in!

As much as it'd be nice to have some definitive definitions on these words, the truth is that there are none. Shy is correct that these words are subjective and very open to various interpretations.

I say let things remain as is and let the OP of each (help me make my mix phat, warm, loud or help me find a transparent compressor, etc....) thread explain their interpretation.

[shogger]

You've totally misinterpreted what I said. It has nothing to do with whats "cool". My point is that a glossary will just result in more arguments about what does [insert term here] mean, and whether it's defined properly in the glossary. Surely people can use some common sense here, and just ask if they don't understand the question/answer. I'm sure most of us already know what transparent means, when it comes to compressors, just as we know what coloured means in the same context. But, what the f**k ... go ahead and make a glossary if it floats yer boat.

OK, sorry for the misinterpretation, wasn't intended.
On the one hand you say that people will argue about the correctness of a definition. On the other hand you imply that most of us know what certain things mean. So if that would be true we must have "somehow" have learned what those terms mean, right? And how did we all learn these things?
A lot of things I just learned by reading forums for like the last 500 years and somehow intuitively grasping the meaning of things like: warm, transparent compression, analog sound, punch, transients, fat, pumping, silky, air, and what not.

Shogger

[shogger]

Anyway I guess I'll just ignore everyone using those undefined terms in the future, that's what I can do, or to put it with the words of Voltaire: "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."

There has to be a point where you get pragmatic. Even for philosophers.

Shogger

[thecontrolcentre]

OK, sorry for the misinterpretation, wasn't intended.

No worries

So if that would be true we must have "somehow" have learned what those terms mean, right? And how did we all learn these things?

In my case, from experience of making and recording music, and discussions with other musicians and sound engineers about those experiences.