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

I can't think of too many audio equipment reviewers that I agreed with.  Much like the ten thousand wine reviewers out there.  First, you can't figure out what the heck they are talking about and second, you never know if they are being influenced some way on their review.  

However, I, for one, actually do like and appreciate the technical side of equipment reviewing.  I for one do want to know how it's made, what's in it, the circuitry and circuit design, etc.  It gives me an indication as to where the technical side of the industry is.

I'm a fairly intelligent and educated person and if it takes some time for the reviewer to get to the point, then I know they are being paid by the word.  If they don't discuss the technical design/construction part of a piece of equipment, then it tells me something about that person also.

Contrary to what many feel, this is technical and engineering. R&D, implementation, listening, adjusting, redesigning, etc.  I want to read about how the designer got there also.  they didn't just snap their fingers and viola, a brand new amp appeared.

But using phrases that tell me absolutely nothing, without explaining what the phrasing actually means (to that person), don't help.

Also, I agree with some here.  If the reviewer is reviewing an amp or speakers and don't describe the room, and the other equipment, it really doesn't help me much.

enjoy

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.

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.

+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.

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.