I don't know that Lewis Lepnick frequents this site and who cares about a review of a product that has not been in production for about fifteen years, and there are people that prefer all kinds of colorations...
No, I don't think the hyperbole has ended. Sometimes components are so similar that it is very dificult to distinguish them without a certain amount of verbosity. Ironically, this may often exaggerate the differences between the components.
There's also a certain amount of entertainment value in the writing as the authors express their individual personality and style of writing. Over time, we become familiar with a certain reviewer's preferences and biases and adjust our own perception of the review accordingly.
I think that a lot of us don't take as much out of review as the reviewer puts into it. I would distill the review above as an opinion that the Levinson is a bit warmer than the Krell (which I may or may not agree with upon my own listening evaluation). Anything beyond that is the eloquence of the reviewer. We use reviews for general direction, not for gospel truth.
The language of audiophiles is fairly well understood as it has developed over many years. I refer to terms like "sounstaging" or "imaging" or even some of them more subjective terms like "warm" or "clinical". Reviewers build on these basic terms although I do think that sometimes it travels too far into the realm of subjectivity and validity then becomes difficult. If I ask a store to direct me to a sopeaker with good "imaging", I feel comfortable that what he might present to me for audition will have that characteristic. However, God knows what would be put before me if I asked for a pre-amp with "musical honesty".
So enjoy the reviews, but don't get too hung up on them.
This seems like a good post for Mrtennis to get involved in. Are you lurking out there MrT?.