'Review speak' bullsh*t

[Firebottle]

OK OK I know reviewers have got a job to do but some of the stuff they write is tosh.

It's not difficult to engineer something with a very flat frequency response, or to achieve very accurate RIAA equalisation. So when I read something like this I think 'oh dear':

The xxxxx's wide open, glass-clear midband integrates smoothly with a strong bass and crisp, extended treble. This makes for a very neutral reading of whatever LP you care to play, with the unusual combination of a well lit and highly revealing upper midband, and very low record surface noise.

What? the? F? Well lit 'upper midband', did they fit the front panel LED'd in the wrong place

Plus I thought record surface noise performance was dependent on the stylus and cartridge.

[ianlenco]

...............and the condition of the LP!

[YNWaN]

You don’t say what they are reviewing.

[Bigman80]

You don’t say what they are reviewing.

Is that important??

[Firebottle]

You don’t say what they are reviewing.

Indeed, as the actual piece of kit is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make about the tosh being written.

'with the unusual combination of a well lit and highly revealing upper midband'
What does one combine with a traditional phono circuit to give this? Is this unusual? Utter bollocks if you ask me.

[JohnG]

I'm all up for running with the pack today.
Can you tell me where to buy one

[Pharos]

We are in sad times regarding the English language.

Whilst speech is IMO at an all time low, and the written word rarely seems to express beauty in fine poetic usage, the popular written word is mainly related to artefacts, and we know in these cases, there may well be an agenda which undermines ay aesthetic.

I can imagine the writers trying to convince themselves that they are being faithful to the truth, when really they are subconsciously very concerned with earning a living.

[Martyn Miles]

[QUOTE=Pharos;1147197]We are in sad times regarding the English language.

Whilst speech is IMO at an all time low, and the written word rarely seems to express beauty in fine poetic usage, the popular written word is mainly related to artefacts, and we know in these cases, there may well be an agenda which undermines ay aesthetic.QUOTE]

I agree.
Correct teaching of English, both written and spoken, is appalling.
I was reading an old review ( 1970s ) in Hi-Fi Sound and Gordon King really had a grasp of the English language.
It made the review really interesting to read, with the correct terms applied where required.

As for spoken English, even on Radio 4 you get awful examples such a ‘drawring’ for ‘drawing.’
My real hate is ‘bin’ for ‘been.’
Surely R4 newsreaders know the difference.
I wonder how they would cope with, ‘ A dead cat has been found in a bin.’
My English Master had you out the front of the class to explain your mistake and then correct it.
Not a pleasant experience, but we ( eventually...) got things correct.

[Opti-cal]

As Alan eludes to, gear can be made to measure well (or not). Can gear convey the emotion and feeling of the MUSIC? That should be the question the reviewer answers.

What is written about the gear here can only really be asked about the actual music in the recording. Crisp bass/glass like treble or whatever.
The gear recreates the recording well or it does not.

Where equipment can impart a sound signature is usually related to timing(digital jitter)/alignment of cart (vinyl)/power supply/synergy of components etc, resulting in a better sound overall.

Having said that I don't believe all reviewers are bad or insincere. I've bought a lot of good kit purely based on the enjoyment the reviewer (seemed) to get out of it. Sometimes they do seem genuine. Mainstream reviewers like WHF etc, nah, they DO just pander to their advertisers.

I tend to gravitate towards the more independent (and rather well off reviewers who don't need to advertise anything or prove anything to anyone). 6moons comes to mind. Although they do grant themselves a big slice of poetic licence when it comes to babbling on about the texture of the mid-range etc. But they're often good reads none the less.

[Macca]

.

I tend to gravitate towards the more independent (and rather well off reviewers who don't need to advertise anything or prove anything to anyone). 6moons comes to mind. Although they do grant themselves a big slice of poetic licence when it comes to babbling on about the texture of the mid-range etc. But they're often good reads none the less.

If you want your product reviewed on 6 Moons you have to pay a fee. Okay so maybe that would not stop them giving a bad review....but does not make them completely independent to my mind.