How a rando YouTuber ruined the LCD-1 thread

You seem to have a lot of misguided or flat out incorrect preconceived notions about our community, based on recent posts. For someone that claims to have been reading these parts for a while, I am disappointed in these beliefs you've crafted about us, but even more so that you are posting disinformation that will only confuse or hurt less tenured readers. These are dangerous, blanket statements.

Yes, in general we are not fans of giant bass boosts, of which the Harman curve can be, for example. Or there's the fact that a lot of bassy headphones are tuned like ass. But there are a lot of site favorite headphones with appreciable bass boosts. ZMF stuff, the Fostex biocellulose stuff, as just a couple examples. Many of the longest standing members are not at all shy about preferring some amount of color in their sound, or at least enjoying a spectrum of tones and timbres, within reason, and being honest about such.

 

This is quickly turning into a dumpster fire, with plenty of overreaction from both sides.

@metal571, you're kind of right, but also wrong. Yes, the SBAF compensation curve exists. Measurements were a basis of Changstar and continues to be a basis here. To my knowledge, the curve does attempt to capture some basis of "neutral," but really, the curve more or less only exists to allow for some degree of comparative use when the tendencies of the measuring rigs used are taken into account. In no way have we ever claimed that our curve is the Holy Grail and everyone else is wrong. We are first and foremost about good sound, and we use both measurements and subjective impressions to evaluate gear before passing impressions.

All that being said, I find this community generally doesn't care about tonality as long as it's not FUBAR'd and has sonic merit. As @Hands said, most of the senior members aren't shy about admitting our likes and preferences, even when they run far away from neutral.

For the other members: it's fine for someone to have an opinion to the contrary. At the end we're all trying to enjoy ourselves here. I'm all for constructive debate, but passionate cries filled with anecdotal evidence does not add to any discussion. Leave that shit on HF.

I am not going to lock the thread or take action (I'll leave that to @zerodeefex's discretion), but I will politely ask that this thread be kept about impressions about the LCD-1.

 

A target curve that attempts to describe perceptive neutral <> personal preferences
Disliking people not understanding Sean Olive's curve is a polled consumer target (with a bass shelf and upper midrange / lower treble lift) <> SBAF people liking (or not liking) a lot of bass
SBAF target <> liking or disliking anything (it's just a reference target).

BTW, new user registrations is yet delayed another week because of you.

Doubling down on being obstinate or dense? Yeah, that thing.

 

If you prioritize detail, soundstage, and dynamics, there is only one to rule them all: RAAL/Requisite SR1a.

 

Are you being purposely dense and obtuse?

"Dangerous" doesn't have to be used just for situations that will cause serious bodily harm. Per the definition, one use of the word is "likely to cause problems or to have adverse consequences." It can be used broadly, and that I'm pretty sure you know this suggests you're trying to be contrarian for the sake of putting yourself above others than it is you actually finding ways to be helpful.

But, to elaborate, we have a poster with what appears to have a decent following across multiple sites. This means they have some level of sway in how people participate in this hobby, with folks buying the LCD-1 based on their video as evidence. Said influencer posted about SBAF preferences, measurements, and our general approach to things (of which, yes, we absolutely do have a culture and methodology here, which isn't "stereotyping"). Their statements were inaccurate, or at least ignorant enough, to warrant comment. I might also argue the general tone seemed snide to me, but I can't assume intention here based on written word alone.

So, let's say one of their followers happens to come across SBAF on a Google search, and they read these posts. They could then get a wrong idea about how to interpret our subjective and objective findings. They could get the wrong idea about the site's culture. They could then go off to Reddit or wherever else and spread misinformation, or at least perpetuate ignorance.

That doesn't help customers looking for different data points to make a purchasing decision. That doesn't help enthusiasts that might fit into our culture, and could be valuable contributors, but get the wrong idea from someone else and, thus, decide to stay away. It doesn't help us grow our site.

I'm not saying people can't trash talk SBAF. We certainly have our problems and thorns. But if they want to do so, they should at least be accurate in their claims.

 

LOL, you are so full of shit. After accusing SBAF of "hating Audeze", despite there being fans of the LCD-4 (myself included) and the LCD-2C receiving a great review. The criticisms of variability, including one recently with two different LCD3s, are fair (considering that we kept this more or less under the radar).

We have our likes and dislikes in terms of brands, yet we always give each product a fair shake. We don't let personal reasons prevent us from reviewing products.