[Axis29]

Originally Posted by 11 Gauge

I understand, and at the end of the day, how we choose to describe things is really a personal call.

I just don't like when my perception gets clouded, personally.

When I think that something sounds good, I typically try to give a recorded standard of something as an example. Still not universal by any means, but it will typically give the person who's querying tonal specifics a sort of ballpark measure. I might say that it's dirty and overdriven like the rhythm part in Brown Sugar, has edgy characteristics like Elliot Randall's leads in Reelin in the Years, or is a nice mix of clean and dirty, with lots of harmonic overtones like Angus' intro chords on Walk All Over You. If it differs from the recording, I try to give aural details that make sense, like it's more percussive, doesn't have quite the same top end, there's less dynamic range, etc.

When I think that something sounds bad, I typically refer to my reactions on how it came up short. Things like it just wasn't very inspiring to play through my rig, there just didn't seem to be enough top end detail to my liking, I couldn't dial out enough bass to get a good tonal balance, or simply that it didn't do as good of a job as a certain mass produced pedal that most folks are somewhat familiar with.

None of it's out of bounds, though. It's more up to the person asking to provide more details if words like lush, creamy, glassy, brown sound, fluid, sheen, sparkle, etc. aren't hitting the target.

I like your examples reference. I think that's a very good way to go about it!

I agree there are some words that I probably use which are ambiguous at best... They make sense to me when I type them. I think I'm going to try and adopt some of your example methodology into my own descriptions.

However, I still think my OCD is transparent to my guitar tone! LOL


Have fun y'all,