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

[ZAPNSPARK]

The following words were collected from an actual 2 part review in
an audio webzine. It's not a complete list.
Can anyone guess what was being reviewed?

Airy
Anemic
Anvil-taught
Assertive
Balanced
Bassy
Billowing
Bite
Bloom
Bold
Brassy
Breathy
Bright
Brittle
Broken
Buzz
Clarity
Clean
Clear
Closed
Clouded
Coherence
Compressed
Confident
Damped
Dark
Dense
Detail
Detailed
Diminutive
Distinct
Dynamic
Ear-grabbing
Eargasmic
Effervescent
Elegant
Exotic
Extended
Fast
Feathery
Flair
Flavored
Flowing
Fluffier
Fluid
Full
Glare
Grain
Harsh
Hollow
Impactful
Laid-back
Liquid
Liveliness
Magical
Midrange-centric
Muddy
Musical
Natural
Neutral
Occluded
Open
Overdone
Personality
Pleasing
Polite
Punchy
Refined
Rich
Romantic
Sexy
Slippery
Slow
Smooth
Sophisticated
Sparkling
Spitty
Strained
Subtle
Syrupy
Tasteful
Textured
Thick
Thin
Tight
Transparent
Veiled
Vivid
Warm
Wholesome

Cheers.

ZAPNSPARK

[Arnold B. Kruege...]

The following words were collected from an actual 2 part review in
an audio webzine. It's not a complete list.
Can anyone guess what was being reviewed?

[unnecessary full quote of list removed]

A little Googling shed the following light.

(1) The above list appeared earlier on the Gearslutz forum and was said to apply to a review of capacitors.

(2) All of the above words appear in a standard reference called "A rhyming words dictionary".

One can only speculate on the genesis of the two-part article referenced in (1).

This post has been edited by db1989: May 8 2012, 19:13

Reason for edit: Users can view the original post if they are interested in the list.

[krabapple]

The following words were collected from an actual 2 part review in
an audio webzine. It's not a complete list.
Can anyone guess what was being reviewed?

[unnecessary full quote of list removed]

A little Googling shed the following light.

(1) The above list appeared earlier on the Gearslutz forum and was said to apply to a review of capacitors.

(2) All of the above words appear in a standard reference called "A rhyming words dictionary".

One can only speculate on the genesis of the two-part article referenced in (1).

It would be easy enough to take any single issue of The Absolute Sound and develop a similar, though perhaps smaller, list.

The classic of its pretentious type is the acronym PRAT: among golden ears, components are said to differ in their 'Pace, Rhythm, and Timing'. As if amplifiers were musicians. It's Emperor's New Clothes idiocy.

This post has been edited by krabapple: May 9 2012, 16:47

[Nessuno]

Left alone all the considerations if a common three-axis cartesian system is the one to use or a polar one is more suitable, if it's better to speak in non euclidean terms and not forget about the fourth dimension etc... I think that the word "threedimensionality" has a precise and perfectly understandable sense in audio gear review (at least the one you can search for in a magazine, not in "Transactions of" ) and the concept beneath is absolutely clear.

I explain:

I listen mainly to classical, a kind of music that has always been performed on an actual three dimensions space long before audio gears came into use. There are even compositions that make explicit use of space effects (Gabrieli's canzoni a due cori or J. S. Bach's first choir from Mattew's passion are just the firsts that come to my mind) .
I regularly attend to concerts and have thus developed a rather accurate mental three dimensional image of an orchestra, a quartet, an opera singer playing on stage etc...
It happened to me, rarely I admit, to listen to a stereo set able to recreate, even in part, that image. As to say: a soloist very next to me on the foreground but not the size of a mountain, violins right behind, then horns, then triangle in the far background etc...
On the other extreme of sonical experiences, with some system all instruments are simply clustered around the two speakers. No "virtual" space at all.
Never actually tried (never had the chance to) but I think I could ABX two completely different systems, at least the speakers if not the electronics.

Now, from those premises, when a reviewer writes about "threedimensionality" I understand what he, in a simply qualitative and straightforward way, wants to communicate me. Then I can accept that a set of speakers, if properly positioned, can have "threedimensional" capabilities of his own and an amplifier or a converter cannot, but not deny that such a term has a meaning and blame the reviewer if he uses it.

This post has been edited by Nessuno: May 10 2012, 09:07

[honestguv]

Now, from those premises, when a reviewer writes about "threedimensionality" I understand what he, in a simply qualitative and straightforward way, wants to communicate me. Then I can accept that a set of speakers, if properly positioned, can have "threedimensional" capabilities of his own and an amplifier or a converter cannot, but not deny that such a term has a meaning and blame the reviewer if he uses it.

Given that a pair of speakers can be used to create the illusion of sound sources in a 3D space to some extent (and they can albeit not as well as headphones) how useful is an emotive qualitative description to a consumer that has not signed up for audiophile beliefs and can see a large number of other emotive qualitative descriptions in the review many of which appear to make no rational sense (e.g. your 3 dimensional applied to cables). If those conducting the review genuinely wished to convey how well a pair of speakers performed at locating sound sources in 3D space don't you think there are some quantitative ways to do it? Ways that would stand scrutiny by others and could be relied upon by consumers? So why don't they do it?