2. misc-audio
  3. 1150283549

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
sherod
1,690 posts
 

Okay, Grant. I guess that makes sense to me. Sorry for the double post.
chadnliz
3,736 posts
 
Mid Fi.....who the hell knows what that means or where to set the bar, if it is cheaper gear then person A has, person B has Mid fi gear.....go figure.
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
I think "mid-fi" is mostly a marketing term (as opposed to a sonic descriptive), usually understood to mean a brand (as opposed to a piece of gear) that is intended to bridge the presumed gap in sound, design, appearance and price between mass-market gear and hi-end audiophile gear. As a marketing, pricing, engineering and styling approach, mid-fi has been typified by brands such as NAD, Rotel, Adcom and Parasound. Whether this hierarchy of brand and price actually correlates directly with sound quality -- especially at the lower and higher ends of the mid-fi price scale, where there can be considerable overlap with the higher and lower ends of the mass-market and high-end price scales, respectively -- is another question, one for which the answer is probably often taken for granted. Although I've used the term mid-fi myself in these forums, one problem I can see with it is that it could be taken to imply that hi-end necessarily equals hi-fi (high fidelity) and mass-market necessarily equals lo-fi, both very questionable assumptions.
dracule1
1,085 posts
 
"Tone Color" - stupidest term I've come across in hi end. Why couldn't these reviewers just stay with tonal color.
chashmal
605 posts
 
I have never liked the word 'fatiguing' to describe the glare and shrill qualities of an overly bright system. I don't get fatigued by it, it just sounds like crap.
More to discover