Words that are meaningless in the context of an audio review, A list of words which discredit a review by their inclusion Options

[wakibaki]

I've google searched for this list, but either my search criteria are bad or it isn't out there.

My apologies if this is not an original topic.

As the title says, I'm trying to compile a list of words that are employed by audio reviewers and forum pundits in their descriptions of the performance of equipment that don't actually convey anything useful.

A couple of words that have come to my attention recently are 'uninvolving' and 'fatigueing'. Both of these at first sight are characteristics that I wouldn't want my equipment to have, but on reflection they're so unspecific that I feel that the reviewer might just as well have said 'I don't like this equipment, but for no good reason I can put a name to'. Since the whole purpose of a review is to provide specific descriptions of equipment characteristics, I've come to feel that the inclusion of these words automatically discredits the reviewer

Another word I'm not too happy with is 'thin', but perhaps you don't share my view. Anyway, I'm going to leave it open to others now to make some contributions.

w

This post has been edited by wakibaki: May 6 2012, 02:41

[skamp]

• "analog sounding" (isn't everything we hear analog?)
• "musical" (we're all listening to music, right?)
• "effortless" (in contrast to a constipated amp taking a dump)
• "involved" (in contrast to a lazy DAC that really doesn't give a damn)
• "euphoric" (it's the reviewer who's on cocaine, not the gear!)
• "lively" (it lives!)
• "authoritative" (the reviewer's gear is letting them know who's the boss - whip not included)
• "focused" (high end audio gear doesn't much care for distraction, especially when it's chinese)

…to name a few.