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
Howard, was that a Mrtennis review?

Honestly, despite whatever he tries to say, a world without adjectives (or, adverbs for that matter) is one incompletely developed, and of little use to one beyond the most elementary understanding. One cannot perform subject review or analysis, which as a scientist and engineer, I will argue is far more important than objective analysis, without the use of modifiers of the nouns and verbs. Analytical tests provide the numbers, but advancing the craft requires an individual to transcend the data, keep an open mind, and shift towards the model of an artist where patterns are seen, things are viewed in subjective terms, and the next step is reached.

This site is not geared toward the reader of The Audio Critic (whose editor, Peter Aczel is literally hard of hearing) or Stereo Review. Measurements have their place, but in the end, just about every Audiogoner cares far more about the way his components sound than how they spec out.

Zaikesman, you ALWAYS enrich the threads you participate in! Here, you nailed one of my all time favorites; electrostatic - like. As Grant explained tubes do not sound anything like what most people say they do, so do electrostatic speakers. Again, I hear the opposite of the conventional wisdom in regards to electrostatic loudspeakers. To my ears, they are MORE slow, caramel colored, rich, relaxed, liquid, and soothing. My term for Quads, Innersounds, etc. is "pipe and slippers" speakers.
"Pipe and Slippers". A new metaphor for a certain tonal quality. "Overall, the sound of the XYZ CD player is very pipe-and-slippers."

I love it!
Thanks Joe, but "Pipe-and-Slippers"? What, did you grow up learning about hi-fi from Playboy? Hmmm -- guess if one does the supertweeter-addition thing with Quads, then you've got Pipe-Slippers-and-a-Golden-Retriever speakers ;^)
Verbalizing sound is perilous. Few of the words we use have shared meanings among us. How much better it would be were we able to post sounds, not words or pictures.
Joe, you crack me up.
This list should help standardize any future review of e-stat characteristics.