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
not an adjective but the phrase 'what do you think?" as opposed to listening yourself.

DOOHHH! (spoken like Homer)

:^)
MrTennis:
Primum non nocere! Are you implying we took some kind of oath or are these terms less harmful.
Trelja, old pal perhaps the number of ribs or slabs there of would be a better way to draw a distinction between a specification and a descriptor. BTW what is chocolate sound does it taste or sound like ribs. Will someone explain that to me.
Looks like Mint is winning by quite some. Frankly "both working and cosmetic are perfect". Is about as useless as can be. I realize cosmetics are vital for resale but I really don't mind really small imperfections but even the slightest malfunction and it's a no sale in my book. Please, it's working perfectly, and cosmetically perfect.
Post removed