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

@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.

@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.

...I think the phrase mentioned is a 'fall back' taught in Reviewers' Skool:

"If all else is 'meh', use Stock Comment #2C in your handbook."

After all the equipment of various types over X years, things have just Got To start to 'blur' into each other....

Editor needs 1~1.5K words about Item #483 by midnight, or they run with the stock "RIP, Fred 'retired' infill piece' to CYA the mag....

"This was an amazing amp....(...amazing that I was able to stay awake during listening..) that, despite it's shortcomings...(...willingness to put your privates into The Vice...but gives' one 'the out'....)...exhibits a velvety black background." 

(...because I had to be woke up after the first hour by the cleaning staff....).

Reading between the lines is so much more....'entertaining'.  Write Nice, or the client will pull their ad contract, and mgmt. will jump up yer tush and begin to speak for you...esp. with the aforementioned 'RIP/Ret.' piece....

That, and mags are assembled months ahead of the cover date....so the Big Fear is to review well an item that the competition mag just called "eh, meh'....

Mho, the reviewers have to be bending elbows at the same watering hole...if only to keep from stomping on each others' printed insteps'

*taptaptappitytap....*    hmmm...."Cortana, have I used the previous phrase before?"  

>Yes, you've used the exact wording 251 times. 463 variations, 1,974 referrals to that phrase or it's varia<

"...hmm, thanks..."  *damn...*...

If you can't say something nice, say nothing.
Except where print, and the distribution of, comes into play.

Then Nothing

Is Death.

The reviews are more often than not similar to a horoscope, where we can read into them what we want.