There are people who can listen to a system for a short while, and then come up with a couple of lucid paragraphs of prose that describe precisely
what they have heards. You read it, nodding in agreement: yes, I see what that was about. I understand and I would recognize the same traits were I to listen to the same system.
I am most definitely not one of those people. To me, writing about sound is sort of like dancing about architecture. The futile attempt to express specifics of one art using the totally unsuitable tools of the other. I get writer's block just thinking about relaying what I have just heard.
When I do try to describe the sound, nothing but platitudes come out. Resolving or not, full-bodied or thin, bright or dull, coloured or neutral. These are, perhaps, useful expressions, but they don't get you there
. They don't do justice to the magical moment when it all comes together and you're enveloped in gorgeous sound, a passive listener no more.
So I can't help but do some measurements again. They are a lot easier to present. It is perhaps better to let professional writers describe the sound. Of course, I will keep trying, but please don't expect Stereophile
-quality reporting from me.