[Stouthart]

Hi all, warning...relatively long read ahead.

I am a long-term audiophile from the Netherlands, who recently returned to mobile listening. Seems dongles, DAPs, headphones and – especially IEMs – are a bit of a niche over here, as there are hardly any stores to audition them. Headphone Auditions Amsterdam is the exception, and for DAPs & headphones maybe WifiMedia.

So – before making any purchase – I literally read hundreds of reviews. And this is where the challenge starts: how to interpret what is being said, when to read in between the lines? I think I have a decent understanding of the review & audiophile vocabulary. But what does “there are multiple peaks in the treble, but yet it does not sound bright” mean? Or: “I sensed a bit of background noise, but nothing to be concerned about”.

I personally hate any form of background noise/hiss. But it is either missed or semantically left out of some DAP & dongle reviews. Take the Questyle M15 as an example: most, if not all reviews mentioned it was quiet (besides sounding great). Yet, my Noble Audience Kadence (very sensitive) EIMs picked-up unbearable levels of hiss (owned 1, tested 2 others). Same applies to the Cayin RU6. Months later – in a totally un-related review of some other piece of equipment – I read the following: “Hiss is slightly stronger than the dongles we tested it against including the RU6 and the LP W2. Of the three, the M15 background hiss levels were the highest when paired with a Campfire Audio 2020 though by no means an invasive level of hiss in its own right. It is still relatively low-key and manageable." Talking about ambiguous use of language.

Now, please don’t get me wrong: I highly appreciate the time & effort reviewers put into testing and reviewing equipment. Without them, I - and probably many of us - would be totally lost. And I’d like to give extra credits to Twister6, who seems to be using more straightforward language and is a great contributor to this forum. But damn.... I would really appreciate less ambiguous language, e.g., “it really sounds bright”, “there is too much bass”, or “background noise/hiss is clearly audible”. Thanks for baring with me!

 

[Lindholdt]

Sound is subjective, especially what sounds "good" is extremely subjective. That makes it very difficult to meaningfully convey a message or information about this, from one subjective person to another subjective person. Way too many variables.
I take reviews/opinions as a source of inspiration, then I test devices based on this, and draw my own conclusions from there. I can't trust anyone else, because no one else has my ears, or my brain to translate what my ears hear

 

[Stouthart]

I totally agree, the perceived sound of any device is obviously subjective. So, "too much bass" is probably a bad example of less ambigious use of language. Although "sounds bright", and certainly "hiss is audible" would be more objective descriptions, i.m.o.

 

[Rackhour]

I think I can apply video game review tips to headphones as well: find a reviewer whose preferences align with yours more closely than everyone else. It might not be exactly 1:1, but it’d be better than nothing.

 

[Stouthart]

I think I can apply video game review tips to headphones as well: find a reviewer whose preferences align with yours more closely than everyone else. It might not be exactly 1:1, but it’d be better than nothing.

Fair point, and that is actually what I (in many cases) already do. But that does not change the occosional (purposeful) vague language.

 

[Rackhour]

Fair point, and that is actually what I (in many cases) already do. But that does not change the occosional (purposeful) vague language.

That’s a fair point. Vague language is vague because it purposefully or accidentally hides a writer’s intentions. Unless you know the reviewer well enough, you don’t know whether they’re being vague because they want to hide something, or they’re being vague because it’s hard to vocalize something.

 

[earmonger]

My shortcut is to look at the cons first. Too many reviews accentuate the positive in their conclusion, even after the review notes that the bass is a tar pit, the mids are pumped way up and the treble is shrieky and metallic.