Thanks!

You, sir, just gave me an idea.

No argument from me to the contrary about the quality of the LCD2. Its instead an issue of the company. They’re entitled to sell them at a high price but they are not entitled to make excuses to not offer warranties.

@@NoThemeReviews "SOLD THROUGH" already ,that was quick....

Sadly, some American companies don’t have customer service at their core. Audeze for years has been very bad with communication RE build issues, and instead focuses on finger pointing to deflect their responsibility-eg, when a few years ago people complained about Audeze drivers making a crinkling sound, the company and its reviewer collaborators said that’s normal and users should know better how to handle the headphones; when Monoprice started selling PD headphones, Audeze all but claimed it was theft, when PD drivers predate Audeze by a wide margin; when the Mobius had serious build issues, the company didn’t offer an extended warranty. The list goes on. Years ago I contacted DCA about my Ether C’s idiotic headband adjustment being broken, and was told they’re too busy to warranty it, and I should use tape to secure it. That fixed the issues, but you can imagine my annoyance after spending so much money. The reviewer community and fanboys combine to mitigate or hide faults, then shout down anyone who warns about problems-which leads to people getting less than stellar experiences with products and companies in the long run. That’s true for every hobby.

​@@NoThemeReviews The Ether C was a lot of money, I can't believe they responded that way. I eventually went on Headfi and contacted Dan [at least I think it was him] and he got the ball rolling on replacing my set, but....no one should have to do that. Tape though...that is a new level of stupidity. Ah, as for the fans of Audeze, I have learned to tune it out but it gets mighty loud in comment sections and posts. Needless to say I won't be buying from either again.

That’s a simplistic analysis. What are “authorized channels”? Audeze would say anything they don’t approve of is not authorized, but if their contract with resellers doesn’t clearly state what is and is not permissible, then it’s not “outside of the Audeze authorized channels”. Audeze has a bad habit of lying to and cheating consumers-and they never provided any proof that the resellers who sold Drop these headphones violated any contract.

@@NoThemeReviews That's what I mean though. Anything outside of a dealers contract is unauthorized thus grey marketing. We don't know the contracts so really that seems plausible. I don't know Audeze, ironically I have your favourite headphones ever coming today (Mobius) which brought me here. But from a company perspective there actions seem pretty normal for a brand trying to protect their channels. Rightly or wrongly.

Share the same opinion ... hello by the way ... any chance to see you back on the KZfaq stage ?

@@stephanej.871 Hi :-) maybe some day

Whether they want to punish the reseller is one thing. But to punish customers who didn’t breach any contract is a totally different matter. These customers didn’t grab headphones from the black market nor did they pay materially less than MSRP. Audeze already made money off the headphones they delivered to the original reseller, and their tactic here is nothing more than vindictiveness. Unfortunately, their childish reaction hurts customers, which for Audeze is par for the course.

@@NoThemeReviews customers are not screwed in this case since audeze disclaimed ahead of time that they won't receive warrantee protection. it's up to them to take the risk.

Ha. Right. The gymnastics one has to do In order to make excuses for Audeze. You seem to overlook the inconvenient fact that Audeze still made its money off those headphones, and now doesn’t even have to provide support for them. No, customers definitely got screwed. Your position that customers “take the risk” is incredibly callous. These are legitimate Audeze headphones, not knockoffs or stolen. The only difference is that an approved reseller sold off their stock to Drop who then passed along a questionable discount. Nevertheless, Audeze’s treating this like their warehouse got broken into and Drop is selling the goods. If that were the case, then I’d agree with you that those headphones should not be warrantied. But that isn’t the case, and Audeze already made their money. I wish you’d stop defending this company for a moment and at least think from a customer’s perspective.

@@NoThemeReviews i am thinking from a customer perspective and afaik there are no customers who purchased said headphones from drop. so audeze didn't screw anyone. what you call screw is hypothetical as it never actually happened. i am not defending audeze. but, the actions you speak of that audeze conducted are 1) legal 2) within industry norms and 3) the screw didn't actually happen. if anyone who are screwed are 1) original purchaser who is stuck with overstock 2) drop who ended up with the overstock and 3) audeze with a channel management issue due to overstock and reseller trying to dump stock under map. however, if original purchaser has overstock issue, they should have dealt with the mfg first as mfg of luxury goods usually do not want overstock existing in market as it depreciates the brand so they should be willing to help. of course, this part is industry norm but also hypothetical as we don't know whether this happened. in each scenrio, customer is in the clear.

@@etm3398 Nonsense. Here we go again with the Audeze is the victim argument. Poor Audeze and their so-called depreciated brand. You clearly aren't considering the end-user. Your continual defense of Audeze's practice based upon "industry norms" is 1) unsupported, other than your own purported expertise; 2) indefensible in light of Audeze's history of shipping faulty products; 3) not an excuse for amoral behavior towards customers; and 4) treats customers as pawns in Audeze's stupid game. You have no idea what the original reseller tried with Audeze--whether negotiating a return for the overstock was even an option. You don't know, and you can't speak to that whatsoever. I have no idea where you're getting the notion that Audeze's brand was depreciate just because people buy some headphones at slightly lower prices. That's an incredible argument to make. Depreciation would occur if the headphones Drop sold were knockoffs, and there is no evidence that happened here. You claim you're not defending Audeze, but your words speak for themselves. Blaming customers, using amorphous MAP policies, vague industry standards, and an unhealthy dose of speculation all for the benefit of Audeze's "brand name" is hardly looking at things from the customer's perspective It's obvious this debate is going nowhere. You have your particular view, and I have mine. Audeze behavior is reprehensible, and "industry standards" is not a legitimate, moral shield.

No problem

The brands that hate the grey market, hate it because they set different prices in different markets, so you can buy the product in a low price market (Asia) then sell it at a profit in a high price market (US, Europe) while still undercutting the official sellers in that market. Those officially sellers are understandably upset by this, so they complain about the the brand working with a competing seller to undercut them, and demand a reduced MAP to compete. Brand then freaks out. Of course, they could've avoided the entire problem by setting one global price instead of trying to gouge certain markets more than others.

That’s the Golden Age preamp. It adds that old time hum. It’s less prevalent in some mics but the E100S is more sensitive to it.

First of all, these are NOT grey market items. Stop repeating Audeze's bullshit. Audeze never showed their reseller agreements that limit resellers selling the headphones to a company like Drop for distribution. It is not normal for an audiophile company to constantly bitch about other companies stealing their planar designs--again, totally unproven--nor is it normal for an audiophile company to fail to inform its customers about a particular usage scenario that will render the drivers useless, nor is it normal for an audiophile company to lie to customers about needed repairs on headphones. All of this has been well-documented by frustrated Audeze customers. And don't get me started on Audeze's blatantly false marketing about the performance of their headphones. Villains? No. Untrustworthy cheats and liars--yes they are. It's funny you think I'm "extremely biased." I suppose I am. I'm biased against the bullshit Audeze does and the way it treats customers. I should know. I have 12 of their headphones and their discontinued amp. I suppose of the two of us, I probably have more experience with their products and treatment of customers. Now, what's your excuse for defending a shit company like Audeze. Have you bought one of their products and have a positive story to tell?

If it’s impossible to k ow, then he shouldn’t repeat the claim. It’s basically throwing dirt because he’s got nothing else.

@@NoThemeReviews I can't see where he repeats the claim , the text you show is from him and states the opposite .

“Drop has refused to tell Audeze the serial numbers, but it's very unlikely to impossible that any of these are fake of course. But it's a real concern due to the Audeze burglary a number of years ago.” He has no idea what he’s talking about. He’s only regurgitating Audeze’s 2nd tweet that alleges the Massdrop headphones are not “official” Audeze products. Metal has no evidence the alleged theft that occurred “years ago” is in fact linked to the headphones Massdrop obtained. But he’s using the theft as an excuse anyway. It’s as if I say I have no way of knowing you scratched my car but I’m going to tell everyone that you likely scratched my car and I have “real concerns” because you’re my neighbor. It’s complete bullshit.

There's always room for personal opinion. If he says he really liked the sound of the LCD1, that's totally fine. But he went far beyond that. His total lack of transparency was shocking. He briefly mentioned Audeze sent him the headphones--that comment flew under the radar. I mean, companies send gear out regularly. Come to find out, it is absolutely apparent Audeze selected him for a very particular reason. They used his name, reputation, status, influence to peddle the LCD1. And Metal must have known that was to happen. Unless he's totally dense (which I doubt) he had every reason to believe he was working FOR Audeze. Then there are the other issues. He provided an EARS graph of the LCD1, and he started commenting on one of my videos in late 2019. My video discussed graphs, and a viewer was educating me on the different versions of graphs. Metal chimed in, and then the conversation opened up...we all recognized that Metal's EARS graph for the LCD1 was faulty by nature (EARS is not accurate at all). I asked him in the comments why he didn't correct this in his video since he clearly knew the graph was not accurate (he admitted he knew this to be the case). He said he would correct it. As far as I know, he didn't. We know from reputable reviewers and user comparisons that the LCD1 is NOT what Audeze and its collaborators promised. Consequently, providing people incorrect graphs of the LCD1 was a further step towards misinformation. I can't say that Metal did it on purpose--he may not have. But his failure, and then refusal, to correct the EARS graph or tell people flat-out that the graph should not be considered accurate...well...draw your own conclusions. My biggest problem with reviewers is how blatantly bought they are. Zeos is in a special group by himself--he'll peddle absolutely anything. He's a mercenary and doesn't care what he hypes. We all know it, and accept it. But then there are those who pretend to be objective. All of us reviewers need to be careful we don't let our subjectivity overrule our objective analysis. It's not always easy. We all make mistakes. I'm not the only reviewer who tries very hard to keep an objective distance...but those of us who do are rather small channels. I say all this because Metal is influential. Many see him as a reliable source of information. He might be in other respects, but as far as the Audeze situation goes, his close relationship with the company and his secretive behavior about the relationship, is unacceptable. He and other big reviewers whine about being called out, and I'm gobsmacked when I see them complain. They simply don't get it. I just can't watch this nonsense any more.

Watched his videos. I can understand his frustration

What is wrong with the LCD 4z ?

No. Shame on YOU for being ready to defend an unscrupulous company. You're comparing my factual analysis to Audeze's blatant lies and deception? That's how you equate things? Audeze behavior and their statements are lies and fear mongering as excuses to act any way it wants. And you think I should be ashamed. What a load of BS. I don't care what you do with your money, but don't pretend you have any moral high ground from which to lecture any of us actual customers.

@@NoThemeReviews Well I will not get further into this as this is a waste of time but to help you notice just this. It is not because you think something that it is a fact. And when you say Audeze is a mean vindictive company because you had an issue with them and that they are just protecting their own sales channel don't you think you are making the blanket statements with no real justification? Well have a nice day and before reacting just think a second about it maybe you will realise it.

@@philipmoriau599 Don't get passive aggressive. Facts are just that--undeniable instances. Audeze's conduct is not a matter of opinion. Audeze's treatment of customers by refusing to provide warranties, refusing to acknowledge headphones had faulty drivers, not warning customers of the frailty of their drivers, lying about the LCD-1's capabilities, stealing the LCD-2 Classic's design...none of that is justification enough to say they are vindictive and unscrupulous? You're defending a company that makes unverified claims, whereas I explained in detailed why Audeze's claims are meritless. When you say I'm doing the same thing as Audeze, you're implying Audeze's behavior is beyond reproach. But I'll make this even easier. Those of us who paid for Audeze headphones have purchased our right to criticize the company. You don't have to like it or agree with it. But I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't minimize Audeze's conduct.

Lol. Thanks. These rants separate the open-minded from the die hard fans.

What's his gripe with you? I don't read forums and community posts unless I'm doing research. Those places are full of idiots and wannabe experts. I've had 2 people tell me they were going to say derogatory things about me and my channel on every hifi forum--and I laughed at them. It's silly to be worried about what blockheads are going to bitch and whine about in forums. As for Metal...I don't know what his situation with you is. I'd be interested in seeing his posts about you. I have no doubt he's passionate about audio, and we all disagree with each other about personal preference issues. He and I have had some discussions in comments, but I've never personally experienced him harassing me or anyone else. This is why I'm interested in getting more information from you about how you described his behavior towards you.

No Theme Reviews I truly believe that it stems from the same thing most people's disagreements with me start with; I have strong opinions and people find it necessary to slander me to try to invalidate what I have to say when they don't align with theirs. I R&D a lot of gear and have been part of a handful of projects, and have been heavily involved in hifi for about a decade. When I give engineering opinions on gear, the only way to really refute it is to call me a liar, and a lot of people devolve to that level, though they've never had a single shred of evidence to support it, and plenty has been provided to the contrary. Metal has threatened to take out a restraining order against me if I show my face at any events he attends and has made allegations that I've threatened physical assault against him online, which has never happened. I think that at the end of the day, he just wants to hide online and not risk any sort of real consequences or repercussions from his toxic behavior towards people who simply disagree with him.

Interesting. Do you have links to those comments?

@@NoThemeReviews I'll have to dig through discord logs and old screenshots. I'll try to tackle this tomorrow during the day as I have free time. Would you prefer if any of this was sent in a private method, or here, publicly?

Whichever method you prefer. I’d like to dig into this and see where it leads. If your impression of his behavior is accurate, then it might be worth discussing more broadly.

I don’t think so.

I feel you

Apparently u do not know how to read the title. Let me quote it for u: 'Audeze vs The People (The Audeze Debacle)' Explain how is this a review like title? Why did u even click on this video??? BS to u, but not to me. If u do not like it, u are free to go else where.

A content creator is free to do whatever he likes. We can suggest improvements, but this is downright insulting to a person's efforts into the video.