Overly flowery language is *never* a good practice in writing, and audio is no different.
Agreed. But clearly we disagree on what that means.
I get stuff like "direct", "transparent" or "punchy bass" etc, even though it will always be insufficient to truly establish the merits of the reviewed piece.
Stuff like "lifting a veil" or "a completely black background" etc etc are complete hogwash unless you've listened to a garbage system your entire life, which I hope most audio reviewers have not.
But you imply you do acknowledge it can be a useful/relevant description, is that right? Like for instance, could we agree that if you compared a worn record that has a fair amount of background record hiss - which tends to be an upper frequency artifact which often is associated with terms like "bright" - and you compared it to a CD version - that when the background noise is gone it's reasonable to describe it as a "darker" background?
Similarly, for "lifting a veil." An example could be if you had an older worn record and a CD version of the same album.
The CD version can in comparison sound "more clear and clean" and reveal sonic details that were obscured by the worn out highs/record noise. "lifting a veil" is a perfectly find analogy for this as it suggests a material that one can see through but which partially obscures, and when lifted away, the "view/detail of the recording" becomes more clear.
If so then we agree it can be a relevant description and it would seem you are more against what you see as misuse, rather than thinking "blacker background" or "lifting a veil" are inherently fallacious analogies.
It's unclear where your cut-off point is for understanding such terms. For me I would reject them if they are applied to utterly implausible claims - like a new AC cable "lifted a veil" or made for a "blacker background." However, if we are talking about actual sonic differences, they remain completely valid. For instance if a tube amp had enough audible distortion to cause what someone perceives as a "thicker tube sound," then solid state amplification, clearing away even that slight distortion could give someone the impression of "lifting a veil." And really, you would be in no position to say "no...that isn't really a good description of what it sounds like to you!" Even very different EQ settings could cause the perception of "lifting a veil". I've had some room correction settings that really cleared up some "mud" in the sound and yeah, in a sense it sounded like lifting away a veil that was slightly obscuring the clarity of detail/imaging etc.
So when it comes to rejecting subjective description - applied to actual audible characteristics - for the most part one can just say "it doesn't sound that way to me" or whatever, not "such a description is useless" (for anyone else).
Not sure why misguided audio metaphors are the leading cause of "audiophilia discontent" as per title.
There is nothing remotely "misguided" about the words you are complaining about, per se. They have justifications for their use, and many can communicate with the terms. You may as well say anyone is "misguided" to try to communicate in anything but formal, technical language.
PS: The only time I felt anything had "lifted a veil" in my entire audiophile life was when I got great speakers again, prolly about 30 years ago. Ever since, the veils are gone, but I establish barely relevant preferences while I realize I am privileged to live in our day and age of audio. And if you don't feel the same, I kinda pity the choices you made to get where you are... :-D
Well...if we are going to the "who is to pity" route....remember that most people who love music have spent far less time and money than you have to reach musical bliss and to be able to just concentrate on the music. They may rightly pity you and all of us here. But...that's neither here nor there, right? ;-)
