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 4 responses by newbee

newbee
4,751 posts
 
I'd vote for 'tubelike' in ads and 'musical' in general comments. Both are misleading at best and far to vague for usefulness.
newbee
4,751 posts
 
Restock, Not really, a stereo system is meant to replicate recorded music. It produces sound. The music is in the recorded performance. I can hear the 'music' in a poor system or a very advanced system, even if the output from the speaker is rolled off, bloated, shrill etc.

As a descriptive term, I believe it is usually connected with someone's attempt to describe a system as smooth with a neutral to warmish tone. But, its just undescriptive as everyone has their own opinion of what sounds 'musical' to them. Some would strike my assumption that 'musical' connotes any warmth. That to be 'musical' it must be 'neutral', which of course to me would suggest that in their definition 'accuracy' equates 'musicality'.

Rather than 'musical' why not for example 'the upper bass/lower mid-range is a tad warmer than normal, the mid-range is smooth and transitions into the highs without any upper midrange emphasis, and the highs are detailed and airy with out being bright? (Or what ever combination of adjectives you care to decide to use which would define your use of the term 'musical').

Were you to use your own specific terms I could then apply my knowledge of the components in your system to decide whether or not your opinion would be useful to me, but when you just say its musical I really don't have a clue about what it is that makes it 'musical'.

To me saying a product is 'musical' is much the same as saying its a 'killer', 'beats all', choose your own superlative, but you get the idea.

I don't know if this makes sense to you, its JMHO.

newbee
4,751 posts
 
A post yesterday reminded me of another adjective I've never understood - 'vinyl' like. With all the different cartridges and phono preamp variations it can't be tonal, can't be that someone wants clicks, snaps, pops, and tracing noise, can't be the compression involved in recording. What exactly is this vinyl sound that is so immediatly identifiable that even folks without vinyl experience know what it is? Hummmmmm :-)
newbee
4,751 posts
 
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......:-)
More to discover