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

[greynol]

To add to that, it's also a shame since sometimes two pieces of gear might actually sound different objectively.

[Nessuno]

To add to that, it's also a shame since sometimes two pieces of gear might actually sound different objectively.

In this case an objectivity wised reviewer can just take the right measurements (not a trivial task per se) and elaborate on the differences between them. Any further explanation, which anyway could be just unavoidable if the target audience is not strictly technical, is left to his expressive capabilities and communication skill, and words are just tools.

[icstm]

To add to that, it's also a shame since sometimes two pieces of gear might actually sound different objectively.

In this case an objectivity wised reviewer can just take the right measurements (not a trivial task per se) and elaborate on the differences between them. Any further explanation, which anyway could be just unavoidable if the target audience is not strictly technical, is left to his expressive capabilities and communication skill, and words are just tools.

I am a little confused. In greynol's comment it appears that no descriptive word is necessary. However your post Nessuno you point out that some words are required to explain the objective difference. However what type of words should be used?