I partially agree, but think this falls much more on a specific writing style, whether by author, or format dictacted by magazine/media.
I think they are useful, though obviously this depends on context, in the same way that someone 'gets' how one person writes and another wouldn't. Certain people that write audio reviews I take something from -- part because of writing style, part because they give impressions against wide variations of music, part because there's something besides technical description and frequency ranges.
I would agree that there are plenty of reviews or reviewers that are awfully close to useless. I can read, and will read, eight pages of technical descriptions, descriptions of how things look and how a volume knob feels, and then read two or three pages of description of sound and be left cold and lost.
Things I definitely don't like:
- Representing one genre of music in a review
- Only using/mentioning one quality of recording (really good, really bad)
- Being ignorant to basical technical knowledge regarding
system matching and audio concepts. If I'm aware of
them, a reviewer sure as heck better.
- Within the concept of synergy, not trying different things,
or things that make sense -- everyone doesn't have your
system -- get a bit of perspective, and understand that
your readers have varying tastes and they're the one
that are buying your writing.
Without reviews, you're at the mercy of what you're able to hear, and in context, and in said time period. For a lot of people, these options just don't exist, or in an awfully limited context. Reviewers need to put themselves in the perspective of their potential reader base, covering all angles, rather than writing personal diaries, or limited reviews that end up helping nothing but themselves. Extremely brief or extremely cold reviews help no one -- they read like a brochure and most likely, we've already done that....and for free Pretend to be someone that would be interested -- in sound changes, in budget, in context, and realize that there are varying groups of these people.
People that can put themselves in other people's perspectives as well as describe their our, people that can appeal to the human element make reviews useful, but I would agree that there are plenty of people out there that fail horribly at this, whether its as an audio reviewer, writer, or someone that ends up shedding any light on what people are actually looking for...
I read show reviews by individuals describing many, many rooms -- their informal reviews reveal the human element, and in part by describing multiple setups, reveal their preference. From that, its easy to get an idea if the rest of their comments will mean something to you or not. Those that have heard many systems, and have opinions that disagree with their perspective have the capability to at least understand and identify other's preferences. These are the people we could use out there.
We need context and balance and synergy in people's reviews as much as we need it in systems. When its coming from 'paid professionals', this is at least what we hope for. Again, as long as people are consistent with their opinions/experience/preference, you can at least gain perpective on their comments. If we don't have that, a review is completely useless.
I guess all we can do is hope for improvement?
