2. amps-preamps
  3. 156634-5435

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
teajay
1,696 posts
 
Hey russellrcncom,

Great question.  Classical, acoustic jazz, piano, and vocals that are well recorded are excellent for getting a "take" on how a piece of gear renders timbres/tonality, spatial dimensions, micro-details, image density, decays and the very subjective domain of sounding natural/musical vs. analytical/electrical.

Historically, some of the best recordings, with a few exceptions regarding pop, rock&roll,and blues, have been classical and jazz music.  I use ten recordings at first to get a take on a piece of gear I'm reviewing.  My all time favorite tenor sax player is the late great tenor sax player Johnny Griffin, who I had the pleasure to hear in-person more the 50 times in jazz clubs in Chicago.  So, I have a live "baseline" regarding what he sounded like in real time.  I see how close does the of piece of gear in for review create the illusion of what I heard in person.  I then go on using all kinds of genres of music to fill out my assessment of that equipment's performance in the context of my two reviewing systems.
edcyn
1,876 posts
 
Well, yes, there is the snob factor.  By the same token, though, compared with other genres there is a far better chance that the music is made with instruments that are entirely acoustic, and that the recording is done with no electronic sleight-of-hand in a room with a genuine acoustic signature.  In other words, a recording of classical music has a better chance of laying bare the true sound of the components.
heaudio123
689 posts
 
+1!


I draw the line at reviews of speakers with no mention of amp used or characteristics of the listening room. Reviewing parts of systems without context is useless and tells me this person’s  opinion is not well founded. Otherwise to each his own.

hiendmmoe OP
203 posts
 
I’ve learned to just go to the conclusion and take it with a grain of salt. They never give you information that truly matters like: room size, cables, and associated equipment. If they do it’s never clear.
mofojo
2,303 posts
 
Hey Teajay,
Want to answer my question that I and others have asked several times publically about the Tekton Ulf (the speaker you own that you raved about) vs the NSMT you reviewed. Seemed like it would be an OBVIOUS comparison in the review and now you still won't answer it. Wonder why that is? 
More to discover