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

Showing 1 response by golden_ears

So what's wrong with the term "musical"? A large portion of the Audiofool population sits and listens for tiny little details in the music, thinking that this is the Hallmark of Audio reproduciton. (Gawd, did you hear that? I heard one of the musicians move his foot! Oh, did you hear that? The clarinetist's in-breath whistles because she hasn't trimmed her nose hairs! Wow!)
Meanwhile, the soundstage is narrow and flat, harmonics are virtually absent, the overall balance is off and it is not a very "musical" reproduction!
If used for the right reasons, "musical" is very important descriptive word.