Quote:
I recognize the Great Divide between audiophiles and those in pro audio (not that there should be one), but this is only a matter of semantics driven by necessity, not a broader conspiracy to obfuscate or mislead. A language needed to be established at the beginnings of the audiophile hobby and by chance Harley's definitions caught on. That it is different from pro audio's definitions is unfortunate but now that the language is established we should enforce what we have rather than force people to change. L'Académie française is all well and good when you only have one language, but not when two languages are already in use.
I do sometimes wish that people would stick with actual frequency ranges in reviews, like Erick Lichte does at Stereophile. For starters, it would stop a lot of people from writing really quite useless reviews, owing to a simple lack of technical knowledge.
Coming slightly back to topic: what frequency band contributes to my observation that I can understand lyrics better on an LCD-2 than on any other headphone (except the Etymotic ER-4S)? Is it transient speed, dynamic ability, etc? Surely it's not because the 1.5-4 kHz region is shelved down?!
Edit: BTW, there is no "false knowledge" as long as reviewers are clear what they mean when they use certain terms. Things that are a matter of definition cause mere inconvenience: only ignorance causes true misunderstanding. Harley's frequency definitions are quite clearly advertised every time a Stereophile reviewer uses them, and are in his book. No one said they were the same as pro audio, and as proof of that, I challenge you to find a reviewer on any audiophile magazine that uses "upper/lower cloud" instead of "upper bass" or "lower midrange".
Maybe not quite "false knowledge", but certainly
misinformation. I wasn't aware that Stereophile had their own definitions separate from "pro audio" or
even that of other audiophiles / speaker-building hobbyists (at least the ones that I know.) Then again, the last time I read Stereophile was when I was in high school in the early eighties. I doubt these Stereofool reviewers even know what 5kHz sounds like (they are after all adverse to EQ - which is a good way to keep even more people unsatisfied than necessary.)
Despite statements to the contrary (from people without authority, without credentials, or just plain talking out of their ass), terms such as bass, midrange, and treble are fairly universal and have been firmly established for long time now, pro-audio or audiophile not withstanding. I can communicate to LFF: "Push down the lower mids - Snoop sounds a bit nasal on your Katy Perry remaster" or to Mr. Eddie Current: "That amp lacks bass, low to sub bass" or to Anax: "too much upper mids"; and these people know
exactly what I am talking about. Sure, LFF uses "cloud", and I use "high-bass". You know what? It doesn't matter because they are terms with the same meaning in a compatible system. We can still communicate.
I can't help but think this whole thing got started because some prissy LCD# owners couldn't handle the
fact that the LCD# really does start its roll-off from the lower midrange and by the time it hits the upper midrange, it's fully shelved down:
Oh my, the LCD# isn't shelved in the midrange, it just can't be! It just can't be! It's completely neutral! It's only slightly shelved down in the treble.
Get real folks. Learn what the terminology really means and accept how you like to hear things. Don't think of it as if
you are somehow defective, but rather as you having a personal preference. Knowing the vocabulary helps us to communicate what our preferences are to others. Twisting an established vocabulary to fit what our own individual preferences is nothing but perversion and narcissism. There are people I know who would love the LCD3 and others I know who would hate it. The reason I can know is because these people I am talking about can express their preferences to me with terminology, which has more or less, maybe with some minor variation, the same meaning.
Only on a Head-Fi LCD# thread can this kind of nonsense occur.
So please, let's not invent stuff nor quote people like Robert Half who are either excessively narcissistic (re-interpretation of commonly understood terminology) or just don't know what they are talking about. I would again advise Head-Fi'ers to examine the glossary here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/220770/describing-sound-a-glossary by fordgtlover (who evidently knows what he's talking about.)
