Liquid? as an adjective

I look at music the same way I look at photography. When someone mentions liquid I see , smooth ( low ISO #'s 32,64 ) low on noise a.k.a grain. When someone wants the opposite I see high ISO #'s ISO 800, 12,800 on up high on noise to where you can see the grain in the picture, some call it harsh. But like in anything sometimes the user just might like a little noise or maybe its actually distortion in the picture or music.
 
jbtrio said:
To me liquid means grain free with a smooth and natural sound.
Click to expand...

Except that unamplified live music often sounds anything but smooth. Liquid is meaningless to me as audio vocabulary, and even conjures negative associations.

Too many systems sound overly polished, polite and inoffensive -- 'liquid' perhaps?

That sound is offensive to me, it has little resemblance to the real thing.
 
Al M. said:
Except that unamplified live music often sounds anything but smooth. Liquid is meaningless to me as audio vocabulary, and even conjures negative associations.

Too many systems sound overly polished, polite and inoffensive -- 'liquid' perhaps?

That sound is offensive to me, it has little resemblance to the real thing.
Click to expand...

I disagree about un-amplified music not sounding smooth. Acoustic guitar, horns, percussion and vocals sound smooth, grain and glare free to me depending upon the venue. Yes, music through a stereo can gloss over music, so does recording and mastering.
 
To me liquid as a audio term can best be described as HDCD encoded music as in the RR recordings......(played thru a non HDCD decoding dac)

And this is not a compliment.....
 
Do the words really matter. I feel as I play more in this hobby, read more, listen more, i feel descriptions by authors mean less and less.
What I really mean is I have no idea what something in general sounds like till I hear it. And I have no idea more specifically until I have it in my system where I know the rest of the playback and have a way to evaluate what I am hearing and what it means to me. Especially when it comes to front end gear.
 
Kingrex said:
Do the words really matter. I feel as I play more in this hobby, read more, listen more, i feel descriptions by authors mean less and less.
What I really mean is I have no idea what something in general sounds like till I hear it. And I have no idea more specifically until I have it in my system where I know the rest of the playback and have a way to evaluate what I am hearing and what it means to me. Especially when it comes to front end gear.
Click to expand...

I agree but I do prefer descriptions like warmth, bright, neutral (although one man's neutral may be different than another), bloom, glare, fatiguing, grain, air-transparency over liquid, shimmer, organic, etc.. I can relate and understand the first terms I mentioned and those terms would help me decide if I might be interested in auditioning a piece of gear as I have a preference towards a warmer sound with a bit of bloom. All too often in pro reviews, I find reviews not cutting to the chase and using adjectives that I find are hard to get a handle on as far as the sound is concerned.
 
CPP said:
I have this old link showing Gorden Holts audio meanings and he noted Liquid

liquid Textureless sound.

texture, texturing A perceptible pattern or structure in reproduced sound, even if random in nature. Texturing gives the impression that the energy continuum of the sound is composed of discrete particles, like the grain of a photograph.

And you mentioned glare ; glare An unpleasant quality of hardness or brightness, due to excessive low- or mid-treble energy.

grainy A moderate texturing of reproduced sound. The sonic equivalent of grain in a photograph. Coarser than dry but finer than gritty.

gritty A harsh, coarse-grained texturing of reproduced sound. The continuum of energy seems to be composed of discrete, sharp-edged particles.

I say it all depends on a personal definition.

http://www.integracoustics.com/MUG/MUG/bbs/stereophile_audio-glossary.html

https://www.head-fi.org/articles/describing-sound-a-glossary.12328/
Click to expand...

thanks , some good definitions there
 
mep said:
After numerous recent online threads about the meaning of words used in the audiophile vocabulary, I have come to the conclusion that audiophiles basically don't agree on the meaning of words that we use to describe what we hear. Everybody has their own definitions for the words they use. This shouldn't be a surprise because audiophiles seldom agree on anything related to audio.
Click to expand...

I recommend those of you struggling and often misusing the "audiophile verbiage" to refer to Holt's and Pearson's original meaning of all these terms. I believe Stereophile recently posted something in this regard to clarify all the terminology used in our crazy hobby.
 
Priaptor said:
I recommend those of you struggling and often misusing the "audiophile verbiage" to refer to Holt's and Pearson's original meaning of all these terms. I believe Stereophile recently posted something in this regard to clarify all the terminology used in our crazy hobby.
Click to expand...

One of my links was J. Gordon Holt, July, 1993 Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary, do you have any other links
 
Liquid is what I consume during a nice music session. Organic liquid is typically the glass (or bottle) of wonderful Cabernet or Bourdeaux style wine I enjoy in a riveting music session...:D

Enjoy the music!
 
I fully agree some broad defining words are useful such as warm, lean, bright. My point about vernacular is no matter how many pages you fill, I have no idea what an MSB Select, Reference or my Mojo DAC actually sound like compared to one another. Not unless it's in my system and I really hear it. I especially dont know if the delta in price/performance is worth it.
Has anyone noticed review seem to be about 60% to 70% tech details and not about sound. Is this new?
 
Not sure if this is what you are referring to, I read reviews for feature and set up tips as much as for performance. I'm in disbelieve that most manufacturer's websites are one of the poorest sources of info regarding that. While I'm on that rant, I love going to a manufacturer website you know nothing about and seeing a list of model numbers like I'm supposed to already know what they are. Is it so hard to just say "preamp" or "amp". Or, have several series and tell you nothing of what's the difference or entry vs don't even think about it, LOL OK, rant over for now.

Kingrex said:
I fully agree some broad defining words are useful such as warm, lean, bright. My point about vernacular is no matter how many pages you fill, I have no idea what an MSB Select, Reference or my Mojo DAC actually sound like compared to one another. Not unless it's in my system and I really hear it. I especially dont know if the delta in price/performance is worth it.
Has anyone noticed review seem to be about 60% to 70% tech details and not about sound. Is this new?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top