High End jargon; your take

I third Rodman's comments - spot on - exactly right - that is just how it all sounds! Well said! Although a high Q system (underdamped) can sound pleasant (with plenty of bass for a small WAF friendly design) it will not convey the lower octaves clearly so that you can feel the "texture" of bass sounds. There is actually a stunning amount of information in the bass - every individual track should actually sound dramatically different in the bass just as every midrange and treble usually does.

I agree with the above comments, even if my own personal opinion is that the Q scale is skewed a bit low for my tastes. I realize these are the historical numbers, but I feel a value of 0.5 is beyond ascetic. Then again, there are a lot of guys who think the younger Kate Moss was the ideal, so who am I to say? Going against the traditional figures of 0.7 being ideal and 1.0 being on the voluptuous side, I feel 1.0 is pretty close to reality, the right balance of all parameters.

Now we are getting somwhere!

...somewhere between Grace Jones and Alison Moyet possibly?

The last best response was Blindjim. I had tears in my eyes. After that I couldn't make it through those serious responses. I'm still waiting for someone to take the "blanket" off my speakers!!

Thanks for the "serious" responses. Some of you others are a hoot. The mention before of "musical" as a descriptor for gear reminds me how ridiculous that is.