Audio reviews: too many analogies, never simple, but most of all, never clear.


How many reviews have you read were it takes at least 2 paragraphs for the the reviewer to actually give 
hint this article is actually audio related or even gives mention to what he or she’s reviewing. Get to the subject matter. Leave out your less than perfect dramatic writing skills and lets start hearing about the actual review. I’d rather hear about comparisons between audio components than analogies between wine and taste related to transparency and how that gives rise to what they are getting ready say. What does wine have to do with audio transparency, nothing! Also they have a tendency to talk more about recordings that I’m sure 99% of the readers of the article have never heard of, or would ever listen to.
And when you looking for some sign of what they actually think of the components they’re reviewing they never give you a straight answer; it’s always something that leaves, at least for myself, asking, well where’s the answer. 
hiendmmoe
I enjoy the reviewer talking about the music they are listening to, I've discovered some excellent recordings that way that I can actually afford
. Agree that most of the equipment reviewed costs way to much, heck I'd be paying a grandchild's college tuition or shopping luxury vehicles if I had that to blow.

I subscribed to stereophile for about 40 years. Each year I wrote a letter suggesting that their reviewers have an audiologist perform a hearing test and publish the results. I never received a response, not even a, “You again, give it a rest.” Their ability or inability to hear well is more important to me than many factors used to establish credentials 
One thing I’ve learned is to always magnify their adjectives. If they say a little warm, they mean colored. A little rolled off; dark and lacking detail. A little bright; searing. Lacking some transparency; brick wall.
Well I'll be, noromance that is worth a listing in the Glossary of Audiophile Terminology! Well done!
Let me tell you guys what I know about reviewers. If you're obsessed with audio you can be a reviewer. If your appetite for new gear far exceeds your ability to purchase said gear and you are able to learn a few terms and string them together not totally ungrammatically you can be a reviewer. There's a very few exceptions for guys like Fremer who earned their money the old fashioned way and then later on figured out that if they were clever about it they could make enough to cut back and not have to do any real actual work. But by and large its guys who have a monkey on their back and will do anything for the next fix. 

I could give you one I personally know as a beautiful example but see no reason to ruin his good thing or impugn the rag he writes for, as they may have other reviewers who don't deserve to be slandered by association. Just please take my word for it, reviews are always to some extent bought and paid for. 

Except for mine. I am the one uncorruptible exception. My hearing has been tested and confirmed perfect by kenjit. GK has audited my system and it is proven to contain no wires. Or speakers. 

This heavily cabernet-influenced segue in no way detracts from the compliment paid noromance, which does indeed belong in the Glossary of Audiophile Terminology.