Recording Lingo: What the heck do people mean?

[cdbabel]

I think recording community has a big problem. People can't seem to agree on what any word means and often the words they use really have nothing to do with the phenomenon they describe.

Recording isn't the only field to struggle with problems of nomenclature (the devising or choosing of names for things, esp. in a science or other discipline.)

Chemistry, for example, was in a shambles before Antoine Lavoisier developed sensible names for every chemical and laid out a system for naming new ones. For example, people used to call one chemical "Salt of Tartar" (I can't remember what it is called today). What the hell is Salt of Tartar???

That said, I believe this is a problem that can be fixed and should be fixed. However, it takes a strong centralizing force and a reasonable consensus from at least the academic recording community.

Currently, I am attempting to tackle this problem head on using WikiRecording.org. I edit every page myself and make it a priority to standardize the nomenclature.

While I myself have no special 'right' to choose what words other people use to describe phenomena, I don't think that is the point. I see myself as having the right by the effort I put into throughly reading and editing every article.

Furthermore, I think this method of changing the nomenclature could be very effective. Lavoisier was successful because his book was widely read and extremely useful. As WikiRecording grows in size and generates a potentially huge reader base, like Wikpedias, people will start to use my nomenclature not because I ask them to, but because they read it and remember it. Particularly I expect people to use it if the system makes sense.

[atdunlap]

(DISCLAIMER: I'm sorry guys - this is the first post I've ever made that could be construed as negative...)

Well E Jeff, I have to say, I was definately onboard with you on this project at first, but man do you ever sound egomaniacal in that last post. You're kinda freakin' me out dude. So you want to single-handedly standardize the world of recording lingo? Yeah, well - not fully decided if I want to be a part of that or not... Have fun I guess....
"Look upon my works ye mighty and dispair....."

-AD

[cdbabel]

(DISCLAIMER: I'm sorry guys - this is the first post I've ever made that could be construed as negative...)

Well E Jeff, I have to say, I was definately onboard with you on this project at first, but man do you ever sound egomaniacal in that last post. You're kinda freakin' me out dude. So you want to single-handedly standardize the world of recording lingo? Yeah, well - not fully decided if I want to be a part of that or not... Have fun I guess....
"Look upon my works ye mighty and dispair....."

-AD

Yah, no doubt I'm a crazy dude. But historically speaking, generally one person has to take an active role in this sort of change.

However, I hardly think I'm doing this alone. That's one of the nice things about using a Wiki for this sort of project. I've got a community supporting me in everything I do. 99% of the time I consult a good number of people before making a nomenclature decision. Thats one of the great things about this forum, I can get a lot of well informed opinions really fast.

Its really a lot of fun in the end. I enjoy learning about recording and its really rewarding spending time on a project that people find really helpful.

Generally, I expect that I'll fail, but I'm foolishly hopeful anyway. I hope this shows that I'm not too egomaniacal, just hopeful.

[Professor]

We do have a few professional organizations who involve themselves in these sort of defining moments.
Have you contacted the AES Standards Committees and asked if they already have a standardized nomenclature list you could consult?
I know we had talked about that a few weeks ago, and I pointed you towards their abbreviations list, but I'm curious if you contacted them on other naming standards, or perhaps consulted magazine and book pulishers and editors to find out if they have similar standards in print?

For that matter, have you assembled a list yet which you could post or link here for a bit of peer review?

-Jeremy

[cdbabel]

We do have a few professional organizations who involve themselves in these sort of defining moments.
Have you contacted the AES Standards Committees and asked if they already have a standardized nomenclature list you could consult?
I know we had talked about that a few weeks ago, and I pointed you towards their abbreviations list, but I'm curious if you contacted them on other naming standards, or perhaps consulted magazine and book pulishers and editors to find out if they have similar standards in print?

For that matter, have you assembled a list yet which you could post or link here for a bit of peer review?

-Jeremy

I haven't contacted the AES Standards Committees, but now that its been suggested, I will.

Generally there is no list as of yet. The closest thing to a list I have is the Technical section of the wiki. This has explanations of most of the technical terms used in the wiki so far.

I just added a Nomenclature category that will serve as a list of all the more abstract words like "Bright" and "Warm." These will be the real trick (and I think the most fruitful). I really hope I can raise enough money in the next two months to spend my summer working on this problem. The results could be mind blowing.

[atdunlap]

Professor,
I resonate with your post 100% here... Of course, I know that you are surrounded by acadamia and most likely have a great deal of respect for the words "peer review." I just hope that everyone else who would involve themselves in a project such as this realizes how vastly important that concept is in order for any memeber of the "upper echelons" of the recording community to respect, let alone recognize this list of being any kind of an authority.
-AD

[JGriffin]

We do have a few professional organizations who involve themselves in these sort of defining moments.
Have you contacted the AES Standards Committees and asked if they already have a standardized nomenclature list you could consult?
I know we had talked about that a few weeks ago, and I pointed you towards their abbreviations list, but I'm curious if you contacted them on other naming standards, or perhaps consulted magazine and book pulishers and editors to find out if they have similar standards in print?

For that matter, have you assembled a list yet which you could post or link here for a bit of peer review?

-Jeremy

I haven't contacted the AES Standards Committees, but now that its been suggested, I will.

Generally there is no list as of yet. The closest thing to a list I have is the Technical section of the wiki. This has explanations of most of the technical terms used in the wiki so far.

I just added a Nomenclature category that will serve as a list of all the more abstract words like "Bright" and "Warm." These will be the real trick (and I think the most fruitful). I really hope I can raise enough money in the next two months to spend my summer working on this problem. The results could be mind blowing.

You have got to be kidding me. "Bright" and "warm" are completely subjective terms that mean different things to different people. As are "fuzzy," "brown," "tight" and "funky." There's no absolute definition of any of these terms and there never will be, at least not any on which everyone will agree.

Additionally, we already do have a standardized vocabulary for many of the aspects of recording that are objectively quantifiable: phase, polarity, cardioid, wavelength, resistance, propagation, intonation, decibel...the list goes on. The art and science of sound recording is the confluence of electronics, audiology, acoustics, music theory...all fields that have spent decades and in some cases centuries standardizing their terminology the same way chemistry did. I kinda think you're wasting your time here.

[cdbabel]

We do have a few professional organizations who involve themselves in these sort of defining moments.
Have you contacted the AES Standards Committees and asked if they already have a standardized nomenclature list you could consult?
I know we had talked about that a few weeks ago, and I pointed you towards their abbreviations list, but I'm curious if you contacted them on other naming standards, or perhaps consulted magazine and book pulishers and editors to find out if they have similar standards in print?

For that matter, have you assembled a list yet which you could post or link here for a bit of peer review?

-Jeremy

I haven't contacted the AES Standards Committees, but now that its been suggested, I will.

Generally there is no list as of yet. The closest thing to a list I have is the Technical section of the wiki. This has explanations of most of the technical terms used in the wiki so far.

I just added a Nomenclature category that will serve as a list of all the more abstract words like "Bright" and "Warm." These will be the real trick (and I think the most fruitful). I really hope I can raise enough money in the next two months to spend my summer working on this problem. The results could be mind blowing.

You have got to be kidding me. "Bright" and "warm" are completely subjective terms that mean different things to different people. As are "fuzzy," "brown," "tight" and "funky." There's no absolute definition of any of these terms and there never will be, at least not any on which everyone will agree.

Additionally, we already do have a standardized vocabulary for many of the aspects of recording that are objectively quantifiable: phase, polarity, cardioid, wavelength, resistance, propagation, intonation, decibel...the list goes on. The art and science of sound recording is the confluence of electronics, audiology, acoustics, music theory...all fields that have spent decades and in some cases centuries standardizing their terminology the same way chemistry did. I kinda think you're wasting your time here.

While I can agree that "Bright", "Warm", "Fuzzy", "Brown", "Tight" and "Funky can be subjective terms, I don't think they have to be.

The real issue is, when a word like "Bright" or "Tight" is used, does it really mean anything? If you can't define a word and show examples, a word is really useless for communication and has no place in our discussions.

I fully expect for these words to end up with multiple definitions, but I want them to be well defined in every case they are used, at least in articles at WikiRecording.

Here is the Nomenclature policy I just wrote for the project. Please give suggestions on what should be added and or changed:

"Don't use words you can't define. If you can't define a word, it has no real meaning to anyone else, even though it might have meaning to you. Remember that this site is about communication.

Define the words you do use. Particularly descriptive words like "Bright" should be defined.

Don't use let the same word have two different definitions. If the word you used is already defined, try and find a better word (or even make one up, remember that languages aren't set in stone.) As long as you define it, it is a word. If you are having trouble thinking of a different word, try using a Thesaurus. As a last resort, create a second definition for the word and make it clear that you mean the second definition rather than the first."

[RefD]

i have to admit this is intriguing.

are you familiar with the works of Ted Matsumura?

[cdbabel]

i have to admit this is intriguing.

are you familiar with the works of Ted Matsumura?

Nope. I tried to google him but the results were fruitless (or too confusing to go through). What did he write / what are his main points?

[JGriffin]

We do have a few professional organizations who involve themselves in these sort of defining moments.
Have you contacted the AES Standards Committees and asked if they already have a standardized nomenclature list you could consult?
I know we had talked about that a few weeks ago, and I pointed you towards their abbreviations list, but I'm curious if you contacted them on other naming standards, or perhaps consulted magazine and book pulishers and editors to find out if they have similar standards in print?

For that matter, have you assembled a list yet which you could post or link here for a bit of peer review?

-Jeremy

I haven't contacted the AES Standards Committees, but now that its been suggested, I will.

Generally there is no list as of yet. The closest thing to a list I have is the Technical section of the wiki. This has explanations of most of the technical terms used in the wiki so far.

I just added a Nomenclature category that will serve as a list of all the more abstract words like "Bright" and "Warm." These will be the real trick (and I think the most fruitful). I really hope I can raise enough money in the next two months to spend my summer working on this problem. The results could be mind blowing.

You have got to be kidding me. "Bright" and "warm" are completely subjective terms that mean different things to different people. As are "fuzzy," "brown," "tight" and "funky." There's no absolute definition of any of these terms and there never will be, at least not any on which everyone will agree.

Additionally, we already do have a standardized vocabulary for many of the aspects of recording that are objectively quantifiable: phase, polarity, cardioid, wavelength, resistance, propagation, intonation, decibel...the list goes on. The art and science of sound recording is the confluence of electronics, audiology, acoustics, music theory...all fields that have spent decades and in some cases centuries standardizing their terminology the same way chemistry did. I kinda think you're wasting your time here.

While I can agree that "Bright", "Warm", "Fuzzy", "Brown", "Tight" and "Funky can be subjective terms, I don't think they have to be.

The real issue is, when a word like "Bright" or "Tight" is used, does it really mean anything? If you can't define a word and show examples, a word is really useless for communication and has no place in our discussions.

I fully expect for these words to end up with multiple definitions, but I want them to be well defined in every case they are used, at least in articles at WikiRecording.

Here is the Nomenclature policy I just wrote for the project. Please give suggestions on what should be added and or changed:

"Don't use words you can't define. If you can't define a word, it has no real meaning to anyone else, even though it might have meaning to you. Remember that this site is about communication.

Define the words you do use. Particularly descriptive words like "Bright" should be defined.

Don't use let the same word have two different definitions. If the word you used is already defined, try and find a better word (or even make one up, remember that languages aren't set in stone.) As long as you define it, it is a word. If you are having trouble thinking of a different word, try using a Thesaurus. As a last resort, create a second definition for the word and make it clear that you mean the second definition rather than the first."

So the next time I am sitting with a client who wants his bass to sound more 'purple,' I should send him to your website to make sure he's using the right word? Even if engineers somehow corral themselves into using all of your new vocabulary words, it doesn't mean the artists we work for/with will. And they shouldn't. Many of these subjective terms are used in response to an emotional reaction to stimuli (in this case, sound, but photography and painting and sculpture are the same way), and emotional reactions to a single given stimulus will vary from individual to individual. Language is not the only way to communicate. Language is a tool. But no tool is the right tool for every job. In some applications language can be surgically precise. In others, it can only be a blunt instrument, or more aptly, the broad-strokes instrument that allows you to get to the point where you use the finer instruments.

[cdbabel]

Here is an example of a definition for an often vague term.

Bassy

[RefD]

how about "wooly"?

i'm not being glib, i used to hear that tossed about quite alot.

[cdbabel]

how about "wooly"?

i'm not being glib, i used to hear that tossed about quite alot.

Dang, i'd never use that word, so I'm not up to the task of defining it. I'd sure like to see someone who uses it try to define it.

When I think of wool, i think of an irritating scratchiness. Ick.

[JGriffin]

how about "wooly"?

i'm not being glib, i used to hear that tossed about quite alot.

Dang, i'd never use that word, so I'm not up to the task of defining it. I'd sure like to see someone who uses it try to define it.

When I think of wool, i think of an irritating scratchiness. Ick.

Oh, yeah, I've heard 'wooly' a bunch. It usually refers to a bass sound with almost no high end or definition, as if the bass amp were covered in a big sweater.

But is that a good thing or a bad thing?