The worst sentence in audio writing


. Literally, hearing new details and delicacy in music I’ve heard a thousand times before.

I read this sentence from another thread but didn’t want to pollute it with this thought or to harp on my own opinion about the gear being discussed.

What I did want to do was point out that this sentence is one of the worst, most fraudulent sentences in all of audio, and we have all read it from a dozen different reviewers.  Anytime I read this I shudder. It’s not that I don’t believe the reviewer who writes this, it’s that I do. To understand why I hate this sentence you have to know my own personal values in audio.

  • Smooth frequency response
  • A laid back presentation

In order to make gear which has details never before heard the gear must exaggerate some sounds to the detriment of others. There’s no such thing as a neutral piece of gear that also makes you hear things yo have never heard before.

It’s a type of con, in that sure, you get new details, but they never talk about what you are giving up. The beauty of this con is that there’s all sorts of frequency response tricks and distortion gimmicks which will make you feel this way, each different, each not neutral. Each time we experience this "never before heard details" is like a new hair cut. It isn’t better, it’s different and that is exciting.

erik_squires

I start write review now I have best grip on the English. I have ear without flaw and system that lady flock to listen. My ear hair made of diamond that cut nonsense and radiant warmth to soul.

Post removed 

I agree that detail retrieval does not have to be at the expense of a certain frequency band, but I also agree that the ol' "could not believe the crazy new detail" sentence is just lazy writing. Reviewers who are also good writers take the time and effort to convey what they are hearing using more substantive, less hackneyed phrases.

And for the love of god, AG, can you please delete Tubebuffer's posts... Please?