Heed Canamp review: can someone decipher this?

[pp312]

Just reading a review here:

Heed Audio CanAmp :: AboutHIFI

Came to the eagerly awaited conclusion only to find this gobbledygook:

"My motto (one of them actually) is that a lie is the truth’s human interface. The reason? A convincing lie has to be >90% percent truth, but the truth must solely consist of 100% true elements. Therefore, a good lie is so deceivingly close to the truth whilst so much more appealing, it works fine for most if not all – let alone it is the only way that can lead you there eventually, if you wish so. Well, this is where the Canamp’s mature sonic ID is lying about.

Avoiding to easily resort in a light, detail-bespeckled phantasmagoria, in order to weave a permeable, see-through, harmonic fabric, the Canamp had rather follow a more tangible, more earthly musical scope, where it will even show some teeth, if cornered.

Religiously preserving each instrument’s body as an essential structural fund of large, dense musical ensembles, it transmutes level fluctuation into rhythm and air into pause and breath, filling the gaps of an otherwise flimsy harmonic web with real timbre and resonance, as light would fill a kaleidoscope. Therefore, the Canamp does not so much invest in recasting delicate melodic outlines as it excels in reading between them."

I've read it several times and still can't make any sense of it. Am I dumb, or are audio reviews getting more and more arty these days?

 

[Nooc]

I dunno, but mine sounds pretty f'n sweet.

 

[SemiAudiophile]

Sounds like the author is trying to say the CanAmp is more musical vs. analytical sounding, but trying too hard and using way too many words. That's what I decipher from that passage.

 

[lecky]

The Canamp's OK, but this 'review'... miserable. To call it arty does art a disservice: it's pretentious, not arty. He doesn't seem to even say what equipment he's using with the amp. It says almost nothing, and does so in a way that is all but indecipherable. It's almost as if it's a badly executed pastiche, but I'm guessing it isn't.

 

[oqvist]

It´s bad because it only make some sense if you have already heard or own the Canamp I suppose. And then you can´t be sure exactly what he means.

The way I see it is that is not neutral it´s instead as mentioned giving more weight to the sound more like you are used to with speakers. All without shrinking the soundstage quite the opposite which is a total contradiction

That is the most impressive feature of it.

I wouldn´t mate it with bass heavy headphones to much of the good. Main reason I went away from it. There is a reason why it´s much more popular with the K701 then the HD 650 for example.

 

[gbacic]

I second that.
It sounded gross with my HD650 when I was auditioning it.

 

[cegras]

Terrible english?

 

[estreeter]

I think was the reviewer was trying to say was I am a pretentious audiophool with a thesaurus, bad breath and a wardrobe consisting entirely of black clothing.

fwiw, I am with gbacic, but perhaps we need to hear a run-in Canamp with the K701.

 

[itsborken]

I make it a point of hitting the back arrow when I run across rubbish like that. If someone can't make their point clearly it is not worth consideration.

 

[tintin47]

Writing and writers like that make me wish that I could take away the hit that the website got as a result of my visit.

 

[MomijiTMO]

What I don't get is the HD650 and Canamp mismatch that Head Fi spurts out every single time. Go back to 2006 and it was recommended by several long standing members.

I gave it a whirl and it sounds alright. It makes it have even more low end than it kind of needs. I wouldn't say it's sloppy either. Maybe it's because I have the new version which supposedly isn't the same bass monster. Still, can't really confirm that either because for all I know it's just another Head Fi tall tale.