2. misc-audio
  3. 174422-20253

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

Showing 6 responses by erik_squires

erik_squires OP
15,630 posts
 

Since no two setups ever sound exactly the same there will always be some difference in the details of the sound and the details of the new sound may or may not have been heard before.

 

Which is exactly what makes this sentence an over-used cliche.  The implication is that this new piece of gear is better than everything else heard before when in reality it's just different.

erik_squires OP
15,630 posts
 

@yoyoyaya 

 

I feel I'm conflating it because reviewers conflate it. We live in a world of S/N of 100 dB or more. 
 

As I've agreed above, yes there are instances where reducing noise or improving how the speaker works with a room can actually yield improved detail at your listening location, but usually when I read that sentence it is nothing so benign.

erik_squires OP
15,630 posts
 

Whenever people resort to personal attacks I know I've just run over a sacred cow.  Feelings just got hurt.  I'm sorry, I don't really mean for that, but I do think that many times we are subject to something akin to an ascending scale in music.  We hear it over and over again so we think we've reached some place a thousand octaves higher than where we started.

Yes, it is possible to make things more revealing, but no, most of the times when I read a reviewer using a similar phrase what they mean is that this piece of gear, usually speakers, have noticeable peaks and valleys.  And so the cycle of reviews continues.  Every piece of gear reviewed is better than the last, but only within it's price bracket.

Often, but not always, to my ears and experience gear is different, and rarely better and when you find truly better buy it and don't let go.

erik_squires OP
15,630 posts
 

Not true. I'm surprised you don't understand that you absolutely can pull out more detail from the medium by improving the process. 

It depends, but every single time I've read this from a reviewer they equate "different" with "better."

erik_squires OP
15,630 posts
 

Not always. Listen to a big pair of Magnepans

Here's a good example, line or planar sources!

erik_squires OP
15,630 posts
 

@jperry You bring up a great point, the Ayre line is a good example here.

More to discover