Snake Oil Salesmen

[eth2]

I am so tired of audio reviews. When I read a car review, I can understand what they are saying. When I read a hotel review, I understand what the reviewer is saying is good or bad about the particular site. When I read a resturaunt review, I either get hungrier or decide to start a diet. But when I read an audio review,it reminds me of the children's story about the Emperor who had no clothes.

 

Here are lines from the last review I read.

 

More dynamic at the macro level and about the same as you scale down to the micro level.
Imaging is similar in density and edge definition (i.e. very good) but with a little less layering.
A nice sense of natural flesh and blood solidity comes through.
The acoustic around the images is less charged by the music.
The texture (grain size of noise) is a bit larger and more noticeable and in the plane of the music but only rarely intrusive.
There is a nice sense of air and space
Gives less of a 'they are here' perspective and more of a 'you are there' sense to the music
A little less continuous -- a little larger grained -- but still very liquid and flowing and still making the music come across as connected from moment to moment to be musically compelling.

 

WTF?

Edited May 5, 2016 by eth2

[Mallette]

"Tastes Great"

"Less filling"

 

Dave

[paul79]

LOL! It is tougher to describe something you cannot see or touch, but I get what you are saying. There is a "lingo" that some have created to describe sounds.

 

How bout we play a game here.... Copy the above review that eth2 posted, and try translating each phrase into your own words. Should be fun to see what people come up with.

Edited May 5, 2016 by paul79

[Schu]

I completely agree OP!

The worst part is... even if there is discernable differences audible to the user, it ONLY manifests itself when either set up is heard immediately pre/post each other ot by switching "on the fly".

[paul79]

I'll start. Translations in red:

 

More dynamic at the macro level and about the same as you scale down to the micro level. Lacks contrast
Imaging is similar in density and edge definition (i.e. very good) but with a little less layering. Flat images
A nice sense of natural flesh and blood solidity comes through. Body
The acoustic around the images is less charged by the music. Vibrancy
The texture (grain size of noise) is a bit larger and more noticeable and in the plane of the music but only rarely intrusive. No clue
There is a nice sense of air and space Ambient information
Gives less of a 'they are here' perspective and more of a 'you are there' sense to the music Artist's are not in the room with you
A little less continuous -- a little larger grained -- but still very liquid and flowing and still making the music come across as connected from moment to moment to be musically compelling. Decent flow of music

[Mallette]

I'll start. Translations in red:

 

More dynamic at the macro level and about the same as you scale down to the micro level. Lacks contrast

Imaging is similar in density and edge definition (i.e. very good) but with a little less layering. Flat images

A nice sense of natural flesh and blood solidity comes through. Body

The acoustic around the images is less charged by the music. Vibrancy

The texture (grain size of noise) is a bit larger and more noticeable and in the plane of the music but only rarely intrusive. No clue

There is a nice sense of air and space Ambient information

Gives less of a 'they are here' perspective and more of a 'you are there' sense to the music Artist's are not in the room with you

A little less continuous -- a little larger grained -- but still very liquid and flowing and still making the music come across as connected from moment to moment to be musically compelling. Decent flow of music

 

Shorter translation - Sucks!

 

Dave

[mittsawhney]

I agree with eth2......WTF

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paul79]

 

I'll start. Translations in red:

 

More dynamic at the macro level and about the same as you scale down to the micro level. Lacks contrast

Imaging is similar in density and edge definition (i.e. very good) but with a little less layering. Flat images

A nice sense of natural flesh and blood solidity comes through. Body

The acoustic around the images is less charged by the music. Vibrancy

The texture (grain size of noise) is a bit larger and more noticeable and in the plane of the music but only rarely intrusive. No clue

There is a nice sense of air and space Ambient information

Gives less of a 'they are here' perspective and more of a 'you are there' sense to the music Artist's are not in the room with you

A little less continuous -- a little larger grained -- but still very liquid and flowing and still making the music come across as connected from moment to moment to be musically compelling. Decent flow of music

 

Shorter translation - Sucks!

 

Dave

Right, sucks is what comes to mind, but lets not be too predictable Mallette!

[paul79]

Think this reviewer is bad? Read some of this guys reviews, and tell me what you get out of them....

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/nagra2/1.html

[oldtimer]

When I read a car review, I can understand what they are saying. When I read a hotel review, I understand what the reviewer is saying is good or bad about the particular site. When I read a resturaunt review, I either get hungrier or decide to start a diet.

 

I just figure they are all lying.  Try movie reviews.  Now, if I were a movie reviewer, and people acted on my recommendations, the entire industry would collapse.  They are all shills.

[paul79]

Most places, in order to get a review, you have to buy advertising. I don't think I need to say more about this.

[Fjd]

Maybe it is just too obvious, but it sure seems like the stereo-typical review of a high end solid state amplifier with an even higher end tube amplifier.  Of course, the reviewer is NOT using horns and is probably using low efficiency direct radiator speakers in the efficiency range of 86dB - 88dB 1 watt / 1 meter. 

[Paducah Home Theater]

How bout we play a game here.... Copy the above review that eth2 posted, and try translating each phrase into your own words. Should be fun to see what people come up with.

 

 

More dynamic at the macro level and about the same as you scale down to the micro level.

Nice dynamics at loud volumes but also has nice dynamics at lower volumes, which is often times harder.

Imaging is similar in density and edge definition (i.e. very good) but with a little less layering.

I just took some really good acid and this song is making me hallucinate. Pretty colors and shapes, feels like I can touch the music.

A nice sense of natural flesh and blood solidity comes through.

Oh wow, a woman just appeared. This acid rocks.

The acoustic around the images is less charged by the music.

I have no idea what I'm talking about right now so just bear with me.

The texture (grain size of noise) is a bit larger and more noticeable and in the plane of the music but only rarely intrusive.

These speakers are damn smooth.

There is a nice sense of air and space

Man I did really good buying this studio apartment. Did I just say that out loud? Focus!

Gives less of a 'they are here' perspective and more of a 'you are there' sense to the music

Gotta say something good that people can actually understand here before I wrap up, this line always works. Nice huh.

A little less continuous -- a little larger grained -- but still very liquid and flowing and still making the music come across as connected from moment to moment to be musically compelling.

Dude, what if this whole planet is just a molecule on a giant dog's butt hair?

[Fjd]

Maybe it is just too obvious, but it sure seems like the stereo-typical review of a high end solid state amplifier with an even higher end tube amplifier.  Of course, the reviewer is NOT using horns and is probably using low efficiency direct radiator speakers in the efficiency range of 86dB - 88dB 1 watt / 1 meter. 

 

 

More insight for Paul's game.

 

 

 

I am so tired of audio reviews. When I read a car review, I can understand what they are saying. When I read a hotel review, I understand what the reviewer is saying is good or bad about the particular site. When I read a resturaunt review, I either get hungrier or decide to start a diet. But when I read an audio review,it reminds me of the children's story about the Emperor who had no clothes.

 

Here are lines from the last review I read.

 

More dynamic at the macro level [solid state punch vs tube amp] and about the same as you scale down to the micro level [both solid state and tube amp can resolve the micro detail in the recording].

Imaging is similar in density and edge definition (i.e. very good) but with a little less layering. [solid state portrays similar ability to image but tube amp has the edge on the 'realism' of the image]

A nice sense of natural flesh and blood solidity comes through. [while the tube amplifier is distinctly better at the "realism" the solid state amplifier is no slouch in its own right]

The acoustic around the images is less charged by the music. [there again, less "realism" with the solid state amplifier vs. the tube amplifier]

The texture (grain size of noise) is a bit larger and more noticeable and in the plane of the music but only rarely intrusive. [this might be the 3rd harmonics that are characteristic of solid state and sometimes noticeable vs. the less intrusive aspect of 2nd harmonics in tube amplifiers]

There is a nice sense of air and space [solid state does a very respectable job of rendering the ambient information I the recording, but the next phrase gives the edge to the tube amplifier]

Gives less of a 'they are here' perspective and more of a 'you are there' sense to the music [as above, this gives the edge of "realism" to the tube amplifier, although the solid state amplifier is "very nice"]

A little less continuous -- a little larger grained -- but still very liquid and flowing and still making the music come across as connected from moment to moment to be musically compelling. [all in all, a very respectable solid state amplifier, if you are into solid state amplifiers, but it seems like this reviewer will keep the higher end tube amplifier when all is done]

 

WTF?

 

 

[eth2]

 

Maybe it is just too obvious, but it sure seems like the stereo-typical review of a high end solid state amplifier with an even higher end tube amplifier.  Of course, the reviewer is NOT using horns and is probably using low efficiency direct radiator speakers in the efficiency range of 86dB - 88dB 1 watt / 1 meter. 

 

 

More insight for Paul's game.

 

 

 

I am so tired of audio reviews. When I read a car review, I can understand what they are saying. When I read a hotel review, I understand what the reviewer is saying is good or bad about the particular site. When I read a resturaunt review, I either get hungrier or decide to start a diet. But when I read an audio review,it reminds me of the children's story about the Emperor who had no clothes.

 

Here are lines from the last review I read.

 

More dynamic at the macro level [solid state punch vs tube amp] and about the same as you scale down to the micro level [both solid state and tube amp can resolve the micro detail in the recording].

Imaging is similar in density and edge definition (i.e. very good) but with a little less layering. [solid state portrays similar ability to image but tube amp has the edge on the 'realism' of the image]

A nice sense of natural flesh and blood solidity comes through. [while the tube amplifier is distinctly better at the "realism" the solid state amplifier is no slouch in its own right]

The acoustic around the images is less charged by the music. [there again, less "realism" with the solid state amplifier vs. the tube amplifier]

The texture (grain size of noise) is a bit larger and more noticeable and in the plane of the music but only rarely intrusive. [this might be the 3rd harmonics that are characteristic of solid state and sometimes noticeable vs. the less intrusive aspect of 2nd harmonics in tube amplifiers]

There is a nice sense of air and space [solid state does a very respectable job of rendering the ambient information I the recording, but the next phrase gives the edge to the tube amplifier]

Gives less of a 'they are here' perspective and more of a 'you are there' sense to the music [as above, this gives the edge of "realism" to the tube amplifier, although the solid state amplifier is "very nice"]

A little less continuous -- a little larger grained -- but still very liquid and flowing and still making the music come across as connected from moment to moment to be musically compelling. [all in all, a very respectable solid state amplifier, if you are into solid state amplifiers, but it seems like this reviewer will keep the higher end tube amplifier when all is done]

 

WTF?

 

 

Wow...Your ability to ferret out meaning from this is very scary!

[oldtimer]

Titanic is an overblown fantasy of a story which is based on events we know to be true.  Yeah sure a low life seduces an aristocrat, and stands on the bow shouting woo woo.  Luckily as in real life the ship sinks and almost everybody dies.  Less luckily this piece of schlock will win the academy award.  If you really want to eat popcorn while wasting a couple of hours, go see Starship Troopers instead.  It has giant insects.  Additional hint---Titanic has a theme song by Celine Dion.  Enough said.  Pulling weeds is more entertaining.

 

 

(telling the truth rarely gets you spared or elected)

Edited May 5, 2016 by oldtimer

[Fjd]

 

 

Maybe it is just too obvious, but it sure seems like the stereo-typical review of a high end solid state amplifier with an even higher end tube amplifier.  Of course, the reviewer is NOT using horns and is probably using low efficiency direct radiator speakers in the efficiency range of 86dB - 88dB 1 watt / 1 meter. 

 

 

More insight for Paul's game.

 

 

 

I am so tired of audio reviews. When I read a car review, I can understand what they are saying. When I read a hotel review, I understand what the reviewer is saying is good or bad about the particular site. When I read a resturaunt review, I either get hungrier or decide to start a diet. But when I read an audio review,it reminds me of the children's story about the Emperor who had no clothes.

 

Here are lines from the last review I read.

 

More dynamic at the macro level [solid state punch vs tube amp] and about the same as you scale down to the micro level [both solid state and tube amp can resolve the micro detail in the recording].

Imaging is similar in density and edge definition (i.e. very good) but with a little less layering. [solid state portrays similar ability to image but tube amp has the edge on the 'realism' of the image]

A nice sense of natural flesh and blood solidity comes through. [while the tube amplifier is distinctly better at the "realism" the solid state amplifier is no slouch in its own right]

The acoustic around the images is less charged by the music. [there again, less "realism" with the solid state amplifier vs. the tube amplifier]

The texture (grain size of noise) is a bit larger and more noticeable and in the plane of the music but only rarely intrusive. [this might be the 3rd harmonics that are characteristic of solid state and sometimes noticeable vs. the less intrusive aspect of 2nd harmonics in tube amplifiers]

There is a nice sense of air and space [solid state does a very respectable job of rendering the ambient information I the recording, but the next phrase gives the edge to the tube amplifier]

Gives less of a 'they are here' perspective and more of a 'you are there' sense to the music [as above, this gives the edge of "realism" to the tube amplifier, although the solid state amplifier is "very nice"]

A little less continuous -- a little larger grained -- but still very liquid and flowing and still making the music come across as connected from moment to moment to be musically compelling. [all in all, a very respectable solid state amplifier, if you are into solid state amplifiers, but it seems like this reviewer will keep the higher end tube amplifier when all is done]

 

WTF?

 

 

Wow...Your ability to ferret out meaning from this is very scary!

 

 

 

Nope, instead of using words that seem like they could be found in certain renaissance-period poetry (or maybe one of Metropolis' acid trips), I just typed the most common "stereo-typical" common-person descriptions that have been stated thousands upon thousands of times across various internet forums. 

 

 

 

Pulling weeds is more entertaining.

 

 

 

I agree and I switched from reading reviews to pulling weeds back in the 1990s.  Although the vocabulary may change, reviews today do not seem much different than they were 40 years ago.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Fjd

[paul79]

Good stuff!!  MLO, I would totally read all of your reviews!

Edited May 6, 2016 by paul79

[JJkizak]

That's why I did no listening tests in 1965 when I bought the K-horns and Cornwall. I've been in the "quantum zone" ever since. 

JJK

[moray james]

I am so tired of audio reviews. When I read a car review, I can understand what they are saying. When I read a hotel review, I understand what the reviewer is saying is good or bad about the particular site. When I read a resturaunt review, I either get hungrier or decide to start a diet. But when I read an audio review,it reminds me of the children's story about the Emperor who had no clothes.

 

Here are lines from the last review I read.

 

More dynamic at the macro level and about the same as you scale down to the micro level.

Imaging is similar in density and edge definition (i.e. very good) but with a little less layering.

A nice sense of natural flesh and blood solidity comes through.

The acoustic around the images is less charged by the music.

The texture (grain size of noise) is a bit larger and more noticeable and in the plane of the music but only rarely intrusive.

There is a nice sense of air and space

Gives less of a 'they are here' perspective and more of a 'you are there' sense to the music

A little less continuous -- a little larger grained -- but still very liquid and flowing and still making the music come across as connected from moment to moment to be musically compelling.

 

WTF?

the problem is NOT that people write this sort of stuff but that people READ it. People need to go forth and listen then they will know first hand.