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

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.

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.

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.

Hey mofojo,

You tickle my funny bone with this question! I purchased both speakers after reviewing them and use them in my different systems. Which do you like better a Porsche or Ferrari sports car? Oh, I’m sure you believe I have an underhanded and nefarious reason to not answer your question in the past. My position is they are both superlative world class reference level transducers with very reasonable prices for what you get compared to much more expensive speakers that they out perform. If you read my reviews regarding the details you can get a perspective of each models strengths and differences. Their is no "BEST" speaker, there’s lots of great speakers and it boils down to your room acoustics, synergy in your system driving them, and personal taste. For example, the Model 100 is physically a much smaller speaker then the giant Ulfs, and has a built in amp which powers an adjustable bass coupler 10 inch driver. Therefore, it will perform better in a much smaller space then Ulfs can.