Also less common, but I have also seem bloom used in an inherently negative context where its essentially “lack of sharp transient control”. Pretty similar usage to whats described above, but just wanted to point out that if you just see “blooms the bass” it may be being used as a negative so try and get more context
If it’s talked about on a tube amp it’s typically positive, if it’s anywhere else it’s negative lol
2 Likes
Hadn’t though about that, but yah. That checks out. Every time ive seen it used in the strictly negative context has been on old SS amp reviews (all from like pre 2015)
most of the places i see it is used for the 300B its said more negatively, which kind of made me wonder because thats a little bit of what you want IMHO. But i guess people are looking for more straight forward sound in that range.
1 Like
Well, I mean there’s good bloom and bad bloom? Anything overdone is typically bad. I just never really used this word since it’s a bit confusing to me and I’d rather use a combination of other words to try and describe what this tries to
1 Like
Too much bloom is bloat. I think the best way to think of the word is as in a flower or mold, certain cheeses are at their best when their mold blooms, otherwise they’ve not matured or ripened.
The issue with words is that not everyone uses them the say way, I’m with M0N, sometimes a combination or clarification is all that’s required.
Interesting personal experience, sometimes the use of a word doesn’t enter your vernacular until it “hits” you in the face with a solid HERE I AM.
2 Likes
I always associate it with a tonal weight, and warmth usually in the midrange. Can be accompanied by somewhat softened dynamics.
It can be quite engaging.
Not all 300B amps sound the same though.
1 Like
yeah I think with all your replies the thought is in the same corner, and I am not far off from any way the word would be used.
very true as well
2 Likes
Terminology question for @M0N on the dac round up (though I welcome other answers to I can better understand what term people would use for a specific phenomina I am having trouble describing). There are a few pieces of gear I have had that have a trait I love. I have been calling this trait texture but I dont think I am describing the same thing as most here are. What I am looking to describe is esentialy the energy/incisiveness of micro-detail/micro-dynamics. Items I have had this doo this exceptionaly are the D8000 Pro, Yggy A2, Masskobo 428, and to some extent the GSX-mini and 2020 LCD-X. Some gear that I find distinctly lacking in this area would be the sagra and arya. I am inclined to call this the oposite of smoothness but the problem is there is some gear that is fairly smooth but not utterly lacking here (P6 Pro, WA8, Forge) and other stuff that isnt smooth at all but not particularly stand out in this area (Utopia, GSX mk2, arya, phantasy II). I think ive settled on “tactility” being the closest descriptor for what I am hearing but wasnt sure if there is a better term for it.
Assuming you can figure out what im describing from the rambles above, how closely does “forwardness” and “tactility” match up for how you use the term? Ive been trying to put into words what exactly i like so much about yggy and dislike about the sagra → 13R chain (which I honestly find pretty boring/uninvolving/unemotional) and i keep falling back to the sagra chain lacking this trait specificaly. As such im trying to understand how the dacs in your round up stack up here as I honestly and comming to believe it may be the single most imporatnt factor to my enjoyment of gear (seeing as looking back all the gear I have adored has been excelent here)
2 Likes
From what you describe I think it can go hand in hand, but I think the potential problem is that things can be forward without that said tactility, or relaxed with tactility, so not sure
Not really sure if there’s a single word for that aspect, I think tactility is a good option, I would prob personally use the world liveliness, since I think I can describe all of what you mentioned as excelling in it is a very lively sound.
Actually I think a good term would be incisiveness, and I don’t really know how to rank that lol, I’d just look for the right combination of technical ability
4 Likes
haha. well im glad that there isnt a common term for it and it wasnt just me not knowing at least. I agree that “livliness” seems apt as well as “tactility”.
1 Like
So after updating my list of terms I’d use to rank on for my dac comparison pt2, I figured I’d also partially rewrite them to hopefully give greater understand of what I’m thinking, will post them here just for reference but also if something seems off or doesn’t make sense please let me know (that’s really mainly why I’m posting lol), I figure it would just be something good to do now and make it easier on myself later on lol
Macrodetail/Surface Level Detail: How much upfront clearly apparent information can something pull out of the source?
Microdetail/Low Level Detail: How much lower level and more nuanced information can something pull out of the source?
Speed: How fast can something respond overall to quick changes in music?
Separation: How well can something differentiate sounds happening at the same time, and accurately portray that space between things in three dimensions?
Control & Grip: How tightly can something follow the music and how much force can it also exert while doing it?
Impact & Slam: How well can something give visceral power and punch to things while keeping moderately composed overall?
Midrange Texture: How well can something represent perceived tangibility and feeling in the midrange?
Bass Texture: How well can something represent perceived tangibility and feeling in the bass?
Treble Extension: How far can something extend into the treble while remaining refined and composed?
Bass Extension: How far can something extend into the bass while remaining refined and composed?
Microdynamics: How well can something convey quick low level changes in volume while remaining audible and apparent, not being overwhelmed by more prominent information?
Macrodynamics: How well can something convey large changes of volume and scale while remaining audible and apparent, not feel limited or out of control?
Background Blackness: How well does something create a sense of nothingness between instruments, it’s ability to recreate empty space without the feeling of something being present when nothing should be? (Note, this is not noise floor aka background hiss)
Stage Width: How far can something extend in creating it’s space while still remaining coherent enough?
Stage Depth: How deep can something extend into the stage, how much range something has inside the stage inbetween the farthest and closest aspects?
Stage Verticality: How high or low can something go in it’s three dimensional space?
Stage Boundary: How sharply/clearly can something define the boundaries and limits of the stage, and how well do they shift depending on the source?
Placement Accuracy: How accurate is something at creating a convincing overall stage, accurately representing the location of sounds in space and time with precise definition?
Presentation Organicness: How realistic is the overall balance of something (all combined aspects), in a way that leans closer to live?
Presentation Openness: How open and expansive does something present within it’s boundaries?
Timbre: How accurate is something at creating the characteristics of an instrument or sound, other aspects that don’t directly focus on tonality, the general nature of the sound, how true does the instrument sound to life?
Tonality Organicness: How balanced is something in frequency response and how well does it prevent things from being masked or overwhelming each other throughout the entire range?
Tonal Density Quantity: How much weight and meatiness/thickness does something place on notes?
Tonal Density Quality: How well does something vary it’s weight to be accurate to the recording, and it’s ability to control the weight and prevent it from affecting other aspects?
Smoothness: How smooth and non fatiguing does something portray it’s sound, potentially blending together sometimes?
Softness/Roundness: How rounded and softened does something represent sharp attacks, potentially blunting or dulling them?
Liquidity: How well does something handle the natural flow of music without adding or subtracting things, flowing through without imparting any extra texture or sound of it’s own?
Coherency: How well does something portray a sense of unity and seamlessness overall?
Forwardness: How close does something bring the sound from where it should be, how much things are pushed toward you more than they normally would be?
Energy & Incisiveness: How directly, clearly, and energetically does something represent sound?
Forgivingness: How forgiving is something of both bad synergy with other components and bad source material, the ability to make even lesser recorded or poor matches sound more enjoyable?
Overall Treble: How capable, polished, and complete does the overall treble range sound on something?
Overall Midrange: How capable, polished, and complete does the overall midrange sound on something?
Overall Bass: How capable, polished, and complete does the bass range sound on something?
Overall Subbass: How capable, polished, and complete does the subbass range sound on something?
If there’s an aspect of sound that you think isn’t represented here, would really like to hear about that lol, tried to think of any ways to represent sound as I could without resorting to too many specific or combined terms
14 Likes
I think that list is pretty great. The only things missing may be openness (vs soundstage width), etc.
1 Like
Ah that’s a good point, that wouldn’t really be easily represented with the above terms. A question would be is that applying to physical openness (like open v closed) or perceived openness somewhat relating to clarity?
I guess something I might try for the less physical definition
Openness: How well something fills and occupies the space it can recreate, not restricting or hampering expansion?
Not sure if that makes sense or not
3 Likes
I think works but there are things like an HD800s which IMO almost take openness to an artificial level which can sound pretty great with some recordings, and and, well artificial with other recordings.
Great definition list BTW!
EDIT: forgot to add. I think stage depth can be described as how well the 3rd dimension of the stage is presented in the fore and aft direction. Where stage with can be represented in the 2nd dimension and would sound flat without a good degree of depth.
To me that’s more artificial width and space, rather than openness, which makes it difficult, because openness seems too vague and could relate to too many things (could be stage openness, dynamic openness, extension openness, physical openness, etc). I guess that more boils down to the feeling of being unrestricted more than open per se which might be a more definable substitute
1 Like
openess is an open term. lol
Reading through you list again, I think the biggest takeaway for me is the combination of macro and micro dynamics which I place a lot of importance on. When there’s a lot going on in the music and still you can hear the other aspects, stage, impact, slam, tonality, resolution etc.
It actually may be one of the most important things for me given how it’s an indicator or so many other qualities. Meaning if something has good micro and macro dynamics, it’s got a leg up on everything else from the get go.
1 Like
IMO this is key. Its almost like “how defined the stage boundaries are”. Like the LCD-R (most LCDs tbh) is the dead oposite of “open” where images come in from a dense black background while something like L700 is much more “open” in that images within the stage are in a lighter airier background
I have felt great openness with HFM, at least with my experience. The voices come from a particular distance away, but the boundaries of the stage seem to go to infinity.
Openness vs soundstage width are 2 different things, and the confusion of both of those terms leads to a lot of inaccurate statements by folks in the hobby IMO.
An example of the differences would be that a Grado SR80 is extremely open and open sounding, but it has virtually non existant soundstage width.
1 Like