Comments on Profile Post by ChaChaRealSmooth

And it changes, clarity from two years ago is the mud of today. Would be easy if we all heard the Orpheus and have the same benchmark.

Describing what you hear is complex.

I am a little unclear as to where this conversation is going... ;) I have noticed lately that "tonality" is another term people use quite differently -sometimes more "objectively" to speak of FR, sometimes more "subjectively", to mean some things around timbre and even "clarity", Ha!

It's something I chase, but I understand your woes. Is there another term you prefer instead?

Agree, clarity needs further qualification. Are we talking about transparency? Incisiveness? Resolution? Low noise floor (I.e. cleanliness)? Combination of multiple/all?

And speaking of mid range clarity for example, where's the line drawn? For what setup/headphone can one say it has above average clarity in a specific frequency range? Just leave it at different strokes? For myself clarity is a product of other attributes working together, black background, imaging, depth and transients allow clarity to be exposed. Tone wouldn't play a factor.

Its because clarity is measured relatively compared to other aspects.

+1 @m17xr2b on it being a product. Ie clarity is function of many other describers: soundstage openness, clean fast transients, evenness of dynamics scale. Many want to disagree, but neutral to bright tonality helps clarity. How many dark systems have been described as having good clarity?
The wording to describe experiences are fundamentally limited. It helps to know the dude, where he is coming from.

So...you're saying we need more clarity about the word clarity?

See...I use "clarity" different thatn Pridik. I can still use "clarity" with a warm sounding system. It is a statement more of resolution and focus. Opposite would be "veiled" or "fuzzy". But I get your point. It could just be boosted in the 2-4K range and someone say it has more clarity.