Ears On

Copy protection: The problem with this term is that it's movie and recording industry-centric as opposed to consumer-centric. Making software impossible to copy doesn't make it more palatable to consumers, even if copyrights are being legitimately protected. Sticking as close as possible to the inadequate original, copy prevention or copyright protection would make more sense. The simplicity of anti-copying would be even better. The industry seems to have migrated to digital rights management, a seven-syllable mouthful. However, unlike previous terms, it's often abbreviated as DRM. If you accept the acronym, and most folks do, this is a rare case of terminology improving: making more sense, getting more succinct.

Surge protector: This is a useful product that protects your other electronic investments from harm. However, a surge is not something we protect—it's something we protect against. The term surge suppressor is preferable.

4K Ultra HD: When digital TV with 2160 x 3840 pixel resolution began turning into a real product category, the Consumer Electronics Association needed to standardize marketing nomenclature. The technology was first informally called 4K x 2K, which referred to the pixel count, and was shortened to 4K. That was nice and pithy and a lot of people still use it. But some people in the industry preferred Ultra HD, which can be abbreviated to UHD, also nice and pithy, albeit a syllable longer. CEA tried to make everyone happy with the redundant 4K Ultra HD. This is what happens when you make decisions by committee. Make up your minds, people!

Surround speakers: This term refers to the rear speakers in a 5.1 system but might easily be confused with the entire surround speaker system itself. In fact, it is unrealistic to expect a newbie to assume otherwise. Similarly, surround channels refers to the channels feeding the rear speakers. The advent of back-surrounds made things a bit less confusing. Besides being a clearer label, it also forced the renaming of surrounds to side-surrounds, at least in a 7.1 system. A happy ending, then. Unless you're talking about a 5.1 system, in which case you're more likely to stick with the original confusing term. I once led a one-man rebellion, referring to surrounds as rear surrounds, but with the advent of back-surrounds that became confusing because it didn't distinguish clearly enough between side-surrounds and back-surrounds. So today I use the terms surround speakers and surround channels in the customary senses. But that doesn't mean I have to like them.

Dolby Surround: This was the original name for Dolby's analog surround technology when it came to the home for the first time. It was perfectly descriptive and I'm not knocking it. But when Dolby ushered us into the age of Atmos, it revived this venerable name to describe the Atmos upmixer, which processes non-Atmos signals and routes them into height-capable speaker systems. Granted, the only people likely to be confused by the duplication of terms would be home theater old-timers who still remember the original analog Dolby Surround. And since we're well-informed, we're not really confused, just perplexed by the choice of nomenclature. But really, why not just call it the Atmos Upmixer? Besides being less duplicative, it would also be more specific, more descriptive, and therefore more helpful.

Digital coaxial cable: This is yet another duplicative term. It refers to the S/PDIF connection when used with copper, as opposed to optical, cables. Coming up with a less clunky alternative to S/PDIF (Sony/Philips Digital Interface Format) wasn't a bad idea. And there was a need to differentiate non-optical from optical (Toslink) cables. But the name coaxial, as applied to cables, was already in use, referring generically to any cable with an outer sheath surrounding an inner core. Referring to copper S/PDIF as coaxial is like using the term food to order a meal: "I'd like to have some food." "What kind of food, sir?" "A burger." "Then why didn't you just say burger?" Granted, copper S/PDIF is a mouthful, but surely we could think of something simpler. Non-optical digital?

Macrovision Quality Assurance: This is another antique term and fortunately it is not making a comeback. But it's one of the most offensive acts of misnaming in the history of consumer electronics. Macrovision was the name of a technology (and company) that prevented copying of videocassettes by tampering with the vertical blanking interval in analog television. While this did prevent copying, the tampering also caused flashing or strobing effects in some TVs because Macrovision fed them misleading information about the brightness of the picture. And the company had the gall to call this "quality assurance"! Today Macrovision has renamed itself Rovi and markets electronic program guides, recommendation engines, and other benign technologies. There are newer anti-copying features in DVDs and BDs but they operate digitally and do not interfere with picture quality.

What are some consumer electronics terms you find confusing or wrongheaded? And if you could rename them, what would you call them?

Audio Editor Mark Fleischmann is the author of Practical Home Theater: A Guide to Video and Audio Systems, now available in both print and Kindle editions.