Your vote: Most Useless Audio Adjective


From what I've seen in online audio discussion forums such as Audiogon, words like warm, taut, wooly, and forward can upset even died in the wool audiophiles. While some may have a hard time getting their arms around them, most of the terms seem quite appropriate to me. You have to develop some list of terms in order to convey a description of a component's sonics, or to delineate it from another component.

However, I have noticed the description "self effacing" creeping into more and more reviews, and it flat out boggles my mind. Initially, it seemed to fit into the context it was being used - affordable or downright cheap gear, that was fun and lively. However, now that I've read the term being used to describe quite a serious piece of high end kit, the time has come to point out how ridiculous things are getting.

I had to laugh out loud thinking of the snootiest, most condescending audio dealer I know who was carrying this brand. Using the term "self effacing" with anything had to do with this guy was akin to describing Phyllis Diller a young, hot sex symbol.

What is your most useless audio adjective???
trelja
Minty -- reminds me of a few lines from a Steven Leacock story "She had a face that was so face like in appearance as to be absolutely facial."

The word minty makes me hope for the days when matter can be transfered through the ether so I can slap the person using the word minty.
Post removed 
most adjectives are ambiguous because they are subjective and have idiosyncratic conotations.

for example, "bright". what does it mean ? i believe, it means a peak in the range 100hz to 3000hz ?

what does it mean to someone else ?

also, how does one translate a qualitative variable into a quantitative one ?

nouns and description are easier to understand.

another problem is that most adjectives are threshold based. this means that it depends upon someone's ability to perceive changes in "sound". if 2 listeners are reporting an experience of auditioning a stereo system, one may say "i hear thinness", while the other may disagree.

there is the issue of aural acuity and what constitutes thinness to each listener.

thus, there are too many variables involved in using an adjective which reduces the clarity of communication.

even a simple description such as " i hear an excess of treble harmonics" and is subjective and not necessarily replicable.

such a statement is preferable to "i hear brightness" .
'Simply' or 'in a word' -- a cliche that is used to preface another cliche, for instance "in a word, astonishing!"

BTW: 'astonishing' is another good candidate for most worthless audio word of the century.

The term that riles be the most is "blows away". Talk about hyperbole. Most of the top components are simply too good be be "blown away".

Regards,

Wendell