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
 If the manufacturer pays enough to the tabloid, in adds, or any reason.,  they get a good review.

Everywhere is a financial interest in the background. They live from it.
There is one golden rule:
Never a negative review!
And in Highest High End there is another golden rule:
Reference 
(for the next 6 months, then a new one pops up ...)

check out the "music" they use for their judgement.... always different ones...mainly horrible to listen to ... they get it for free from the sellers in the hope that some readers will buy it...

it is like "flavor of the month"...





Hunter S Thompson changed journalism. He made it me centric. Unfortunately, the vast majority of journalism haS followed that narcissistic path without a fraction of his talent.
I helped raise money for Hunter S. Thompson’s bid for sheriff of Pitkin County, Colorado. But I spent all the money on cheap wine. He was running on the Power to the People ticket. ✊ I’m not hot doggin’ ya.
I thought Millercarbon's 5/2 post was a parody of the bad reviews the OP was describing.  As such I thought it was quite good.  But apparently he is serious about the NY Times and the decline of western civilization.  Here's the Wikipedia page for The New York Time Manual of Style and Usage.  It's basically an alternative to the Associate Press, The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker and the Washington Post who have their own style guides.

Don't take audio reviews seriously, they are purely for entertainment purposes.
If you are really clear on what your sonic preferences are and start by only reading the part of the reviews dealing with that, they can be invaluable.  Obviously you need to read a number of reviews.