was audible

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "was audible" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to describe a sound that can be heard or perceived by someone in a specific context. Example: "During the meeting, a faint whisper was audible from the back of the room."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

The relief was audible.

The New York Times

Her joy was audible.

The New York Times

His disbelief was audible.

The Guardian

The sigh was audible.

The Guardian

The softest whisper was audible everywhere.

The New York Times

Every detail was audible, sometimes startling.

The Guardian - Music

This time, my sigh was audible.

The Guardian

For a moment, it was audible over the horns.

The New York Times

But for the young Pablo, their melodic beauty was audible.

The Economist

Every noise was audible through the thin wall.

The Guardian

When Emile was reported missing, there was audible shock.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Consider using more descriptive verbs to add nuance. Instead of "The sigh was audible", try "The sigh echoed" or "The sigh resonated".

Common error

Avoid using "was audible" when you simply mean something was spoken or read in a loud voice. "Audible" refers to the capacity of being heard, while "aloud" refers to the manner of speaking. Example: Incorrect: "He read the letter was audible." Correct: "He read the letter aloud."

Linguistic Context

The phrase "was audible" functions as a predicate adjective, describing the state of a noun (usually a sound) as being capable of being heard. Ludwig confirms this usage through numerous examples where "was audible" modifies nouns like "sigh", "noise", and "whisper".

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

75%

Science

15%

Formal & Business

5%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

0%

Wiki

3%

Reference

2%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "was audible" is a grammatically sound and commonly used expression that denotes the ability of a sound to be heard. Ludwig AI confirms its correctness and broad applicability, particularly in news reporting and scientific writing. While generally neutral to formal, it should be used judiciously, avoiding confusion with similar terms like "aloud". For alternatives, consider "could be heard" or "was detectable" depending on the intended nuance. Remember to focus on clarity and context to ensure accurate and effective communication.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

could be heard

This alternative is a more direct and common way of expressing that something was able to be heard.

was hearable

This alternative is a more formal and less common synonym for "audible".

was detectable

This alternative broadens the meaning to include detection beyond just hearing, such as visually or through other senses.

was perceptible

This alternative suggests that something was noticeable or discernible, not necessarily just through hearing.

registered

This alternative indicates that a sound was recorded or noted by someone.

came through

This alternative means that the sound was transmitted or received successfully.

reached the ears

This alternative is a more descriptive way of saying that a sound was heard.

was picked up

This alternative means that a sound was noticed or detected, often implying a deliberate effort to listen.

sounded

This alternative is a simpler way of saying that a noise was produced and could be heard.

was within earshot

This alternative focuses on the proximity required for a sound to be heard.

FAQs

How can I use "was audible" in a sentence?

"Was audible" indicates that a sound could be heard. For example, "The whisper "was audible" despite the distance."

What can I say instead of "was audible"?

You can use alternatives like "could be heard", "was detectable", or "came through" depending on the specific context.

Which is correct, "was audible" or "could be heard"?

Both "was audible" and "could be heard" are correct and often interchangeable. "Was audible" is slightly more formal, while "could be heard" is more common in everyday speech.

What's the difference between "was audible" and "was loud"?

"Was audible" simply means something could be heard, regardless of volume. "Was loud" indicates a high volume level. A sound "was audible" even if it wasn't loud, and vice versa.