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.
"The bass (or mid range or substitute any positive attribute here) is the best heard yet-in my room'' Almost every reviewer has remarked this a thousand time... ......... absolutely meaningless.
Tvad, Wonderful, Incredible, Incomparable, Holey Shhh...... ....have you ever actually HAD Corkeys BBQ? I live about 3 miles from THE Original (can almost SMELL it from here!) :-)
professional audio scribes take " heed " you have been formally educated to the likes and dislikes of the masses... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE... yeah, you there, you know who you are... (-<)...
"Night and day" Overused. At night it's dark, in daylight it's bright. A real night and day comparison would be the first TV set I saw in the 50's, compared to the new HD sets being offered now.
How's a feller s'posed to talk audio if'n he ain't got no more fluffy words in his toolkit? Soon enough, we'll end up with the Al Swearingen version of the audio review, where "Best" is the most useless f%*$& audio adjectival, you f%&$&# c$*&sucker!
Palpable. That word should get you kicked off the island immediately. The Whizbang 5000 presented Diana Krall with such palpable presense that I was convinced she was standing in front of me.
The tribe has spoken. Extenguish your torch and leave immediately.
Would someone tell me what the term " fleshing out" means? I have an idea, but I'd like to get some opinions. Used in a sentence, " As the days and hours passed, the midrange slowly began to flesh out."
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.
"Best" ....do a search in the forums or the listings...you'll see this one being used ad nauseum. I get 20 hits on "Tubelike" and 300 on "Best" in the forums. "Mint" pulls up 164. Now in the listings I think "Mint" does indeed best "Best". I'd disqualify "Mint" though since it is almost always applying to the cosmetic condition, and not the actual functional qualities..."Mint" is actually pretty black and white when it comes down to it...it either is or it isn't. "Best", on the other hand, is ripe with arrogance, and relatively useless in a hobby based around entire systems that are mostly in flux on a continuous basis, and are entirely relative to oh so many factors in their success or failure... not to mention wholely subjective. I think this is the best answer ever, don't you? Jaw droppingly insightful! Self-effacing and tubelike with that SS slam most of you crave.
"Liquid" and "organic" are equally bad offenders for me, but I absolutely don't get the tube gear I've heard so that is not a big surprise.
On the other hand, I know what I mean when I use the term PRaT, though it has a dodgy marketing background from what I gather and so I understand the visceral response in brings out in some.
Looks like Mint is winning by quite some. Frankly "both working and cosmetic are perfect". Is about as useless as can be. I realize cosmetics are vital for resale but I really don't mind really small imperfections but even the slightest malfunction and it's a no sale in my book. Please, it's working perfectly, and cosmetically perfect.
MrTennis: Primum non nocere! Are you implying we took some kind of oath or are these terms less harmful. Trelja, old pal perhaps the number of ribs or slabs there of would be a better way to draw a distinction between a specification and a descriptor. BTW what is chocolate sound does it taste or sound like ribs. Will someone explain that to me.
"Inner Detail", "Leading-edge Transients", "Attack", "Fast". I find the terms are pretty cool but I'm just not sure I can attribute them to a component.
hi trelja, i try to follow the motto "do no harm" .
since most adjectives are ambiguous because the intended meaning may not bge the same as the perceived medium, it may do more harm than good and motivate a decision involving an investment of funds and then disappointment.
referring to your food analogy.
it is sufficient to indicate the cut of meat without any adjectives. i will taste it and form my own opinions.
if there is fat surrounding the steak, say so. anything which is easy to confirm is useful, but often subjective comments could be tricky.
i know, life is dull without adjectives, it's hard not to have an opinion where adjectives are used, however, i guess one accepts opinions with good graces and makes the best of them
Mrtennis, a quantitative world, one without adjectives of the type we use, is simply one desired by the so-called objectivists.
As an example, reviewing bar b que ribs qualitatively and quantitatively: "The meat was tender, yet not to the falling off the bone stage. My only complaint was that things were just too salty." versus "I performed three measurements on a section of meat, having stripped the fat, and 3.4 mm from the bone, averaging 6.55 whatevers. Via an evaportative method, 600 mg of sodium residue was collected per kilogram of edible content."
Reviews of most things outside of audio follow the subjectivist model, and the world is comfortable with that. For whatever reason, audio does not follow suit, despite a long history of sound and measurements often not showing the best of correlation. High end audio does not have to be a physics or engineering exercise.
I'll agree with "blows away"...way over used at all audio forums. "Liquid?"...dumb, "fast bass?"...what the heck is that?...if one bass driver cycles faster than another, aren't they playing at different cycles?
I agree with Trelja, Tvad et. al. Tubey meant vintage dark (there goes another audiophile term,) with rolled off highs with midrange bloom , oops there goes another, it's not really floral. In fact what is bloom? Poor equalization? Modern day tubes amps and even just some newer designs are very clean and yes bright sounding one might even say sparkly. The list is endless but my current term du jour is chocolately, which may have something to do with liquid but I am not sure.
BLISS has to be the stupidest word used to describe gear,there is a seller who no matter what he is selling use's the word BLISS to describe how we will feel if we would just buy the gear.
1) I just knocked up my girlfriend 2) The IRS just audited me 3) I'm jumping bail to avoid prosecution 4) My bookie will break my legs by Friday 5) My drug habit has returned 6) At least Kobe had to buy a MUCH bigger diamond
Those would be the most homnest reasons to sell gear I have ever heard!!!!!
1) I just knocked up my girlfriend 2) The IRS just audited me 3) I'm jumping bail to avoid prosecution 4) My bookie will break my legs by Friday 5) My drug habit has returned 6) At least Kobe had to buy a MUCH bigger diamond
"EXCEPT"... This wonderful piece would be MINT/PERFECT.... EXCEPT for three scratches on the top, which can't be seen from X feet away, one ding....on EACH side, and a very small GOUGE in the faceplate. And....oh yeah, the dog chewed off the powercord and ......yadda, yadda....but EXCEPT for those FEW things, it's in absolutely PERFECT condition.
Jaw Dropping. Is that good or bad? One certain integrated amp seems to have all its proponents with dropped jaws. Is that like being a knuckle dragger or mouth breather?
Lifting veils, blown away, minty, PRaT, power chord - all wonderful exapmles of the nonsense seen so often.
"Reference" as in "reference system" I happen to use my system as my reference for what sounds good. That makes your reference wrong. ;) This is why I write uncannily accurate reviews like the one I just posted on the world-class cheapo speaker, the Insignia 6.5" Two Way. My new under $50 Reference speaker!
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
