No, I don't cut and paste my work, and if I handed my workload over to AI, it would be grammatically better.
One of the more common complaints directed at high-end audio reviews is the absence of comparisons. Because of my throughput, I can go some way toward making those comparisons – or at least allude to them – through commonalities. It's often functionally impossible to perform direct comparisons in high-end because of logistics and swap-out times. However, with exposure to so many bits and pieces, I can work up something that comes close to a comparison, which doesn't involve having an orthopaedic surgeon on speed dial.
Yes, that means reviews can end up self-referential and 'meta', but I maintain it's a helpful shorthand that most people who have got this far can understand. I feel it's as relevant as relying on the limited vocabulary and overused analogies we have in audio reviewing; I have to do that in reviews where I can't apply some direct comparative benchmarks. Some (myself included) have attempted to extend this vocabulary by introducing neologisms and even terminology from music and music technology, but there is a lot of pushback whenever we try.
Similarly, we are limited to drawing parallels to cars, cameras, and watches because even though they are desperately trite, they are also universally understandable. When you use anything else in an audio review, the resulting analogy can appear awkward, calculated, or parochial. Worse still, if you try to avoid using analogies altogether, you can seem aloof in some regions.
In truth, I would like to review fewer products, but my workload is an unfortunate by-product of chronic insomnia. Writing tens of thousands of words a month gives me something to do at 4 am and it's slightly healthier than drinking myself unconscious regularly.
Now... if you excuse me, I have to catch up on all the work I didn't do thanks to my latest tussle with COVID-19.