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
>>Bill, is a hot stamper worse than a box mover?<<

Worse? Not really.

Both are in it only for the money.

But the hot stamper guy probably hasn't heard more than 2 copies of the albums he's deified.

Caveat emptor.
anything involving a percentage is really stretching credibility (unless verified by an actual measurement)

as if!
Chashmal said:
"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."

Well, you've probably got the good sense to stop listening as soon as you hear the glare; however, if you didn't, then you'd be fatigued. ;-)

Dave