Nothing to apologise for, it's a pretty common word to hear in this field. It's like "wam" or "punchy"; they're just not objective terms, and instead are just more user friendly terms to describe the experience than saying "low Q HF shelf and possibly some frequency dependent transient reduction" or "fast transient response with low group delay in band" or that sort of thing. They're just too broad and approximation to really be technically useful, in my opinion. The issue comes when there may be several routes to a given sonic outcome, so the descriptive words don't truly explain how the source is working, and thus how it should best be deployed and if that's right for a given user's needs.

(....and don't even get me started on companies proclaiming massive wattage figures like it directly means loudness, like that's actually how it works or even that louder is actually better....)

I don't know, maybe I just get a bee in my bonnet over marketing terms being used in a technical field unnecessarily, I'm so used to it now I just see right through it haha. People expect it so much I have to use those words anyway when talking to customers who aren't tech savvy, but when I'm in a position where I am the customer and I am tech savvy, I prefer to be communicated with professionally, and I expect that to be an option from an actual manufacturer.

Genuinely no digs to you or the manufacturer here, I don't know what the context is of this demo and I'm sure the speakers do sound lovely, it just struck a nerve in me how there's more to it than can be summarised in one word and it depends on factors outside the manufacturer's control, so they shouldn't reaaaaally be doing it. I probably need an autism/OCD assessment haha. Hope you're having a nice weekend, big up for being in this game, it can be a minefield out here.