OPINION ALERT! In my personal opinion, most descriptions of sound quality are BS, highly subjective, communicating very little. There..... I said it. On the other hand, we do need to find ways to discuss sound quality.......
"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." - variously attributed to Gore Vidal, Martin Mull, Frank Zappa......
I do think it's important, though, that we don't conflate "hard to communicate" with "unnecessary to communicate." Describing the way things sound, and how that relates to the way things make us feel, is at the center of what I imagine a lot of us do (at the very least).
When we ask a vocalist to "tell me the story" or "go deep into the feeling that inspired the writing of that lyric," it's similarly highly subjective, and certainly runs the risk of communicating very little. It's also centrally important, even if the "return on investment" (in terms of "accurate conveyance of ideas per word") is very, very low.
As with musical theory, we can learn a bit about the technical underpinnings behind the equipment we use to (hopefully) enhance our ability to communicate more expediently. The problem is when we don't know enough about the technical side to justify the words we're using-- hence why "fast" and "slow" can be very misleading. Most of the time when someone uses those, they have a notion
of what they think "fast" might sound like, but that's not necessarily based in technical reality.
Sort of how, if a non-literate musician were to use the term "harmonic minor" when he intended a minor harmony, without realizing that the "harmonic minor" scale is a different thing (or in an effort to sound smart)-- that would hinder, rather than enable, communication. Same as when someone with no electronics background delves into using words like "slew rate" to describe a subjective impression of immediacy, or to try and add weight to a subjective opinion by couching it in objective-sounding terms.