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
Most useless adjective: Palpable (I second Montytx, who named this one earlier.)

Most useless noun: Continuousness (I've seen this in reviews in Stereophile several times and I have no freaking idea what the hell they're talking about). Anyway, it is not even a word.

Extended highs.

I've been trying to get my mind around that term for some time. Does it mean extended bandwidth? Does it mean greater resolution or transparency of the high frequency information? Does it mean increased high frequency response, as in 'bright'? Is it a coded message that the sound will seem 'bright' to many users and need some sort of compensation from other components in the system?

When I see this term used I see it more as a red flag than a positive. Go figure......:-)
Extended highs works for weather and pot though. I agree that it's difficult to find an adequate vocabulary to describe sound or the character of sound or the reproduction of sound. But as imprecise as most of these terms prove to be what choice do we have if we want to communicate with each other about the subject? Obviously agreement on the meanings of terms would be a good beginning but as imperfect as our language might be, it's all we've got!