The worst sentence in audio writing

It is possible, but the reviewer just needs to honestly articulate what specific nuance he or she was able to hear / discern and document what improvements he has made to result in that change, instead of writing a general statement like that. I think it could help the audiophiles grow further into more refined system.

It seems to me that Erik may have reached the limit of one or more of the following:  patience, funding, live music listening experience, the weak link of his particular system. 
 

There are so many diverse aspects of music & musical reproduction that just about everything can make a difference in what you hear from a system & the potential”details”.Could be the low bass or high frequency extension, a beautiful open midrange, dynamics from soft to loud & back again w/ speed & precision, imaging in all directions etc. With some of today’s excellent & relatively inexpensive equipment, you can put together a good sounding system for $5000. If it’s compared to maybe a $50000 we’ll put together one, it’s probably not too close in most if not all of the aspects mentioned. Nothing need be sacrificed to achieve this other than time, $, patience & some skill.

Unfortunately we read those writers that have been mentioned and look their way for suggestions as what to buy! We never think of the “science or engineering “ behind the writers   , if it even exists. I would be shocked if anyone of the writers understand the dB scale, etc etc. I’m am sure none have any working knowledge of  the workings of the inner ear!!!!

their retort is “I have experience “ At what?

Typing!

I find the articles laced with “humor” and what at one time was termed vulgarity , so as to divert the reader from the lack of scientific evidence !

psychoacoustics is complex and should not be handed over to those that have sustained themselves writing about what they have little understanding!

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, I think you are conflating two separate arguments - (A) whether it is possible to increase the resolution of music reproduction in a sonically neutral fashion? The answer to that is absolutely:- by lowering the noise floor, as has been said, by lowering intermodulation distortion, by increasing dynamic range, by improving channel separation etc; and (B)

Do audio reviewers exaggerate the scale of differences they perceive? In response to that question yes, I think some frequently do, especially in regard to high end audio where the differences can be meaningful but often of quite a small magnitude.