You may have seen this list before, but I have to chuckle when I think of all the adjectives we use to describe the acoustic output of our machinery.
At least we're not as bad as wine connoisseurs (oenophiles). I can't even remember some of the terms they use. I can imagine what a wine's "nose" might be, but past that they use words that are at least as meaningless to a non-member as ours.
Some audio words that come to mind: sheen, haze, tizz, presence, euphonic, musical (in both good and bad connotations), timbre, vowel coloration, accurate (in both good and bad connotations), loose, tight, punchy, airy, tipped up or down (as in frequency response curve on a graph), quick, slow, fat, tubby, lean, thin (not the same as lean), cold, lukewarm, warm, open, closed-in, dynamic, constricted, gritty, smooth, lifelike, artificial, wooden, electronic, fatiguing, rough, nasal, forward, recessed, pinched, close (not the same as closed), bloated, hard, soft, distant, detailed, intertransient silence (go figure that one out), huge, big, small, light, bright, piercing, dark, grey, muffled, clear, focused, clearly focused, disconnected, blurry, sharp, lethargic, strident, velvety, harsh, mechanical, steely, shimmery, black-background, spaceous, one-, two-, and three-dimensional, alive, dead, and dull.
I have been known to use the terms good and bad, too.
Frequencies have been divided into extreme highs, upper highs, highs, top end, upper midrange, midrange, lower midrange, bottom end upper bass, upper mid-bass, middle bass, low bass, and deep bass.