2. misc-audio
  3. 1150283549

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 learsfool

learsfool
1,215 posts
 
Didn't read through this whole thread, but my least favorite term in the audiophile world is "neutral." Speaking as a professional musician, I certainly wouldn't ever want that term applied to a performance, either of live or recorded music. Yes, I do understand why reviewers use it, I just think it is silly, as live music is most certainly not neutral, and one would never want it to be.

Dracule1, I have never heard a musician use the term "tonal color." We all use the term "tone color," and this term always refers to timbre, not pitch.
More to discover