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

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.

Yes, true. clever art of Beating around the bush. never committal to serving truth to reader, never surgical reality.

I have written professionally for three different websites ( Hometheaterreview/Six Moons/Stereo Times) over the last ten years. I can honestly state the following:

1) I have never been asked to write a positive review because of the need not to offend a current advertiser.

2) Even being a relatively unknown reviewer I have had some companies offer me payola to write a positive review, if you trust me you know I did not accept it, if you don’t trust me, you don’t.

3) I rarely have to write a negative review because I get to select gear that meets my personal taste to a point that I would want to own it. Put it this way, if I’m a food critic, and based on past experience I know I don’t care for the food from a specific restaurant, why would I want to waste my time/effort going to eat somewhere I don’t enjoy the culinary offerings.

4) As I explain to everyone who will listen if you discover that your personal taste matches mine and what I’m looking for in my system’s overall presentation matches what you are seeking, I can be helpful to you in the information I provide in my reviews. Therefore, I have always clearly stated in my writing the priorities in these matters. I discovered very early on that the movie critics Siskel and Ebert had very different personal tastes/priorities regarding what they endorsed in the movies they reviewed. It turned out the great majority of time Ebert’s taste matched my own, and if Siskel loved a movie I often did not. Therefore, I mainly read the reviews of fellow reviewers that match my personal taste to gain helpful information about a piece of gear. One example, Dick Olsher, who writes clear to the point reviews that I gain credible information from based on the above assumptions. And yet, I still tell everyone, use your own ear’s not mine.

There have been historically pictures of my acoustic space and different system setups and complete listings of my gear in my reviews. This, hopefully addresses key questions in my reviewing experience regarding my past "baselines", the effect of my acoustic space on the system, and my overall system(s) synergy. When I have seen the pictures of some of the highest regarded reviewers listening spaces I’m horrified at the clutter/mess that can effect the performance of their systems and jamming big hulking speakers into tiny acoustic spaces right on the front walls and into the corners! Yet, they claim that they can realistically hear dramatic differences in spatial dimensions. OK, if they say so.

5) I just was having a conversation this afternoon, not knowing about this interesting thread, that I dislike the reviews that spend so much time on irrelevant crap like: their political views, what they eat for breakfast, their taste in wines, their emotional mood or state of mind, what freaking is happening in their neighborhood, etc. Also introductions that go on and on trying to be witty and clever that are highly boring and not so clever.
Also, the use of metaphors, analogies, and abstract obtuse language that I scratch my head over and ask my self what are they trying to freaking say!

OK, hold my reviewing feet to the fire, if you want. I know mindfully I try to write clear and succinct pieces. I have often stated my personal preferences/tastes that I’m looking for in a piece of gear in the context of my system and acoustic space. I try to use language that clearly conveys the sonic attributes of the gear being reviewed which hopefully helps the reader get a take on what it sounds like. And, I don’t waste time on irrelevant horse-crap about my moods, what I’m drinking these days, or personal struggles when I sit down to enjoy music.

I agree with your self-assessment teajay. I find your reviews helpful and entertaining, and I am also glad that you are also writing for Six Moons because the format at Home Theatre Review doesn't allow for longer more in-depth reviews.  

Hey roxy54,

Thanks for your kind words regarding my reviews.  Just want to inform you I now write for Clement Perry's the Stereo Times website.