Terminological Exactitude....

This may be resurrecting an older thread - if so, apologies for beating an old drum...

If all sound, including music, consists of two physical properties, namely amplitude and frequency, then one could argue that much of the audio language we use is vague, and sometimes extremely difficult to understand.
For example, what are we supposed to understand by words like 'analytical' or 'warm'? My supposition is that these terms refer to peaks and valleys in the response curves, either amplitude or frequency based.

But since we apparently have very few absolutes in audio, and since most casual terminology is used within a morass of variables, there seems to be a communication gap. I know of at least one designer (of phono sections) that will design in small frequency anomalies to suit end users: these anomalous frequency curves no doubt are just what some people are seeking, given their already anomalous listening situations...

More of a comment than complaint: but it does render descriptions less than useful in many or most cases. Of course, as some will say, measurements are not everything. Indeed it may seem so - but it's always a question of exactly what is being measured. Maybe one day we'll get better at this, but I have doubts.
Until then we'll have to contend with the pseudo-scientific rather than accuracy of description. I'm thinking of a line I read from Salvatore's website - one I agree with wholeheartedly:

"Music is art; reproduction is science"

Comments?