Jump to content
  • Sonis

    By Sonis

    Sonis

    By Sonis •

    Audeze LCD-4z Review

    Audeze is an American company producing high-end dynamic (magnetic) headphones. The LCD-4zs are marketed as  a high-sensitivity model of the popular LCD-4 which has been the company’s flagship model for some time. The “z” edition was produced to meet the growing demand for headphones that will not only work with high-end, stationary high-powered amplifiers, but can also be driven by line-level devices such as pre-amps and built-in headphone amps in line level equipment. The inference here is that these ‘phones are suitable to be powered by members of the increasingly popular high-quality market for portable gear such as the Chord Hugo-2 battery-powered DAC/headphone amp, the iFi Xcan headphone amp, and indeed, such stand-alone devices as iPhones and iPads as well as the  Android-based competition from such companies as Samsung, Lenovo, Motorola, and the like. But more about that later.

     

     

    First Glance

     

    The LCD-4z's phones look, pretty much exactly like their direct ancestor the Audeze LCD-4. Both models have over-sized round earcups with thick leather ear pads (although non-leather pads are available). These phones are of the circumaural type meaning that they fit over the ear, not touching any part of it. This makes the phones more comfortable, especially for long-term listening, than the on-ear type in which the ear cups sit directly upon the outer ear. Circumaural phones usually can accommodate a larger driver element (though that’s not always the case) for deeper bass due to more driver area. 

     

    The headband on the LCD-4zs is likewise, structurally just like that of the LCD-4. It consists of a cast yoke to encompass the earcups, and allow them to tilt on axis. These are connected to a central pillar  which allows each phone to independently swivel right and left. The pillar is notched where it passes through the headband assembly so that they may be adjusted for different head sizes. The actual headband itself is made from a composite material resembling carbon fiber and the part that rests on one’s head is perforated leather-like material, ostensibly, for air circulation. One can tell a pair of LCD-4s from a pair of LCD-4zs immediately by two cosmetic differences. The LCD-4s have a silver colored earcup back plate while the 4z model’s back plate is black. The pillars on the headband mount are likewise of different colors. The LCD-4 is chrome colored and the 4z’s pillar is gold colored. Both the Audeze LCD-4 and LCD-4z's retail for US$3995. 

     

     

    The Details

     

    The main differences between the LCD-4 and the LCD-4z's are in the details, and not very many of those, at that.  The LCD-4’s have a sensitivity of 97 dB at 1 mW and the LCD-4zs have a sensitivity of 98 dB at 1 mW. The LCD-4s have a nominal impedance of 200Ω while the LCD-4zs have a nominal impedance of only 15Ω. Both headphones have identically specified magnets of Neodymium N50 and both are push-pull phones with magnets on both sides of the diaphragm. The LCD-4s weigh 735 grams and the LCD-4z's weigh-in at 600 grams (the lighter weight of the z’s is due to the fact that Audeze opted to make the earcups on the them out of a magnesium alloy rather than the aluminum of the LCD-4).

     

    Both headphones come in a beautiful, form fitting “Pelican”-style case of ballistic polycarbonate and the case also contains a 1.9m 1/4'' to dual 4-pin mini-XLR cable, as well as a thumb drive containing the headphones’ manual and warranty information.

     

    While I question what the difference one dB in sensitivity would make in a headphone’s suitability for portable, battery-powered use and really wonder why a low impedance of 15Ω would be suitable for such devices as battery-powered amplifiers, I find that a cable that sports only a standard quarter-inch headphone plug (and doesn’t even include a 3.5mm adaptor) is not sending the message that the LCD-4zs are made to be more portable device friendly. Indeed, Audeze’s own spec sheet doesn’t really mention portable devices like iPhones and Chord Hugo-2 devices. The main thrust of Audeze’s description of these headphones is that they are designed to be driven by the line outputs of one’s preamp or the headphone jacks on tape recorders (digital or analog), pre-amps, tuners and the like. While a 15Ω impedance might be fine for these purposes, Ohm’s Law tells us that that the LCD-4 with a sensitivity of 97dB/1mw @ 200 Ω requires a lot less current from the driving device than does the LCD-4z's with a 98dB/1mW sensitivity at 15 Ω. While the lack of full information restricts the actual ability here to calculate these relationships, we can, nonetheless show an example which will illustrate the point:

     

    Using the formula where I (current in Amperes) = E (electromotive force or voltage) divided by Resistance or nominal impedance (in Ohms) arbitrarily using the following parameters – 5 volts at 15 Ω (representing the LCD-4z's’s) and then 5 volts at 200 Ω (representing the LCD-4) we get:

     

    I = 5/15  so I = 0.33 Amperes (LCD-4z's)
    I = 5/200 so I = 0.022 Amperes (LCD-4)

     

    While the numbers in this example are arbitrary and have nothing, per se to do with the either Headphone being discussed here, the mathematical relationship is accurate. In reality, under any conditions of drive voltage the LCD-4z’s will draw more than an order of magnitude more current from the source than will the LCD-4’s. This does not make the z’s more compatible with portable devices than are the LCD-4’s, it makes them LESS likely work well in those applications!

     

     

    Sound

     

    I’m going to be brutally honest here – the LCD-4z's sound wretched! Not only do they sound wretched for $4000 headphones, they would sound wretched for $200 headphones! At first, I assumed that the review pair were defective so they were sent back to Audeze in San Diego. The tech director of Audeze  called a few days later and confirmed that the 4z’s were, indeed defective. He said that they would be replacing the drivers with a new, matched pair. When talking about other headphones in comparison with the 4z’s he cautioned not to expect as good of a midrange as is exhibited by say, the Sennheiser HD-800s (a magnetic phone listed at US$1700). The newly rebuilt phones were soon returned and I have to report that I heard no difference at all through either my Schiit Asgard 2 headphone amplifier, or my friend’s Hugo 2 (also the owner of the Audeze LCD-4zs).

     

    I tried the headphones through the monitor headphone jack of my Otari DTR-8S studio DAT recorder and driven by the line-level headphone output of that DAT machine, I must say that the LCD-4zs did sound a skosh better than through the headphone amplifiers or the Hugo 2 (through which, I might add, my HiFiMan Edition X v.2 sound spectacular!). But the LCD-4zs are still unacceptable! What do they sound like? Well that’s easy. The top end sounds shrill and distorted, even though they are better driven by line level headphone drivers than by portable devices, they are still shrill and distorted. The midrange is a mess, the LCD-4z’s sound like one is listening through an earcup filled with cotton wool. So veiled and muffled are the mids, that I can’t imagine any company releasing anything that sounds like that!

     

    Bass? While there is plenty of it, it’s tubby and loose-sounding. With their 106 mm (4.17 inches) diameter drivers, I would expect good low frequency extension, but with only deep, poor quality bass to commend them, I cannot imagine what Audeze was thinking in releasing these phones to the public at any price, much less almost $4000!

     

     

    Conclusion

     

    Looking for high-end headphones for general or portable listening? My advice is to stick with the aforementioned Sennheiser HD-800s, the HiFiMan Ananda (or even the HiFiMan HE1000se at US$3500). And for your stationary listening, I can heartily recommend the HiFiMan Jade 2 electrostatics at US$2500, with amp, they are a steal! I’ve never heard a pair of Audeze LCD-4’s (without the z) and can’t comment, but I’d definitely give the LCD-4z’z a hard pass! 
     

     

    Product Information:

     

     

     

     

    Audeze Responds To This Review of the LCD-4z headphones

     

     Some of us at Audeze visit CA/Audiophile Style on a regular basis to keep up with current developments in computer audio. Which is why, when we recently came across this review of LCD-4z on the home page of Audiophile Style, it was quite a shock. We were shocked not because Sonis did not like the sound signature, we understand that is a taste preference. We were shocked because of a number of factual errors. Since this was a review commissioned by a reputed forum such as Audiophile Style, we wish we were given the opportunity to respond or clarify as the manufacturer before publication. So, we reached out to Chris and he gracefully agreed to publish our response.

     

    (We have redacted real names for privacy reasons and refer to the reviewer as 'Sonis' and the friend as ' his friend')

     

    Here are a few facts we would like to point out:

    image.png

     

    1. We have no record of speaking to Sonis,  yet he claims the 'Tech Director called a few days later'.  Audeze does not have a 'Technical Director'. We have a CTO, CEO,  VP of Sales and Director R&D. None of us spoke to, emailed or otherwise communicated with either the Friend (the owner of the reviewed 4z)  or Sonis. The only person who contacted us was his friend  who mentioned he passed his LCD-4Z to Sonis for review. The only person his friend was in contact with was our Customer Support staff and we have offered to provide the full email exchange to Chris if needed.

     

    2. We are not located in San Diego and we never were, we are located in Santa Ana.  

     

    3. Sonis makes it appear as if he was the person purchasing/returning/communicating with Audeze, when he clearly was not. 

     

    image (1).png

     

     

    4. In the comments Sonis states that 'I would like Audeze to respond, but they declined to comment'  we very much would have like to respond, but he did not reach out to us for comments, if he did, he did not identify himself and ask to speak to the right person. He goes on to say 'and their technical director said on the phone ...'. Again we do not have a technical director and no one at Audeze would make a statement about HD800 as above. We stand behind our products and take pride in what we create. We create neutral sounding headphones (please take a look at the shoot out done by Bob Katz, a well regarded mastering engineer and this review of LCD-4Z by Rafe of innerfidelity). HD800 is better known for it's wide sound stage and a treble response some like. The only time HD-800 was mentioned in any of the communications was by his friend, who said  'Can’t wait to get HD-800 mids and highs with Audeze authority and lows!'. At the end,  our Customer support staff politely said that LCD-4Z is perhaps not what he is looking for and offered a return. If  his friend or Sonis wanted a HD800 with better bass, the better option would have been get a HD-800 and  try to improve the bass through EQ.

     

    5. He seems to insinuate that we did not replace the drivers, when our customer support clearly told his friend that we have a record of the serial numbers and that they were changed. We offer a generous warranty and we go out of the way to please our customers, it is upsetting to question our integrity when as a reviewer he could have posted it to us directly if he had doubts. We informed his friend that the drivers were out of spec, but out of spec does not mean a broken driver; we replace the drivers even if we notice minor imperfections in order to keep our customers happy, and it will not alter the sound in a discernible fashion.

     

    image (2).png

     

     

    6. If he had doubts regarding the reasoning behind our decision to provide a low impedance option, he could have asked us and we would have explained it; instead he chose to use numbers to support a conclusion he already made. The math is quite simple, reduced impedance would of course draw more current for a fixed voltage, that is simple Ohms law. But reduced impedance increases voltage sensitivity which is needed to provide an increased headroom in portable devices that often max out at 2-3V RMS.

     

    We are familiar with Chord Hugo 2 and we use it as one of our mobile DACs for testing. Let me explain using Chord Hugo 2 as an example. Hugo 2 has a maximum power output rating of about 1W into 8 ohms (based on specs), extrapolating from that, about 0.5W into 15 ohms. Many use Chord Hugo2 to directly drive high efficiency speaker such as Omega Super Alnico Monitors which have a low 8 ohm impedance and a 94.5dB sensitivity, and I have done so myself with very good results for near-field listening. So, current draw is certainly not the issue here as long as the power required is within spec. If it is not an issue for driving a even lower impedance 8 ohm near-field Monitor, why should it be an issue for LCD-4Z with 15 ohms that is inches from the ear drum?

     

    Here is an example, Hugo 2 has a max voltage output of about  3 VRMS, so the current draw at 15 ohms will be 0.2A and the power output will be 0.6W. This enough to cause serious damage to ears with LCD-4Z whose sensitivity is 98db/mW, even if the listening at half the volume (1.5V), LCD-4Z would be very loud with a lot of headroom to spare. Now compare that with With LCD-4 with 200 ohm impedance, the current draw would be 0.015A and a max power draw of about 0.045W. Yes the LCD-4 would draw less current (an order of magnitude less), but it would not be anywhere as loud even at the maximum volume as the power into LCD-4 would also be an order of magnitude less. Though no one would listen even at maximum volumes, at normal listening levels the extra headroom is needed to accommodate the transients and dynamic range of music. 

     

    We may not recommend using a phone to drive the LCD-4Z, however we will not hesitate to recommend good mobile DACs such as Hugo 2. LCD-4Z can sound 'loud' out of a phone or other devices, but would scale better with better DACs and amps. When driving headphones with high sensitivity such as LCD-4z, there is a question of synergy. 4Z can easily expose flaws in the upstream gear. For example, components with a high noise floor would cause diminished sound-stage. High sensitivity would require some amps to operate at low gain and if the noise floor of the amp is high, this would result in a lower SNR and the noise is no longer buried in the background. 

     

     

    image (3).png

     

     

    7. We understand someone not liking a specific signature, but we cannot help but wonder if it were exaggerated for the sake of sounding more dramatic. 'Shrill and distorted top end' is the last thing one would hear in any Audeze not just LCD-4Z and one would be hard pressed to see anyone saying that in comments or in reviews. Audeze drivers have the lowest levels of distortion of any headphones currently being in production. We have measurements to show this and other reviewers such as Tyll Hertsens have published measurements showing the same. Some  with preference to more treble presence have used terms such as 'dark or warm' to describe the sound but certainly not shrill or muffled.  Audeze's are know for their tight and controlled bass going down to 10Hz, tubby and loose sounding is not a phrase one would find in any review positive or otherwise. In fact, in the email response to our support, his friend used to describe the sound were 'Great bass, but muffled midrange and shrill highs'

     

    In conclusion, though we can understand a reviewer not liking a specific signature and educating readers with similar expectations, exaggerating and providing misleading information does not help the reader either. We wish the reviewer had contacted and communicated with us directly. We are thankful to Chris and Audiophile Style  for letting us publish our response. We are also thankful to the readers of Audiophile Style for hearing our side of the story.

     

     

    Go to articles

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Sonis

    I would like to rebut Audeze's corporate response to my review: First of all, I welcome Audeze' s participation in this process and in fact I annonymously called them last week and told them about the review in an effort to get them to participate with a "cross examination" of my findings. I do not know to whom the switchboard put me through, but I asked for someone technical. When I mentioned the review was somewhat negative (I REALLY WANTED  Audeze to respond to the forum) I was told that they didn’t care, and that they built products for people who liked the sound of their equipment, and since tastes vary, they weren’t really interested in a bad review. I did mention this in response on this forum to a post about letting Audeze know so that they could comment. Nowhere In my review did I say or intimate in any way that I was the one who returned the phones for diagnosis (and if necessary) repair. My friend, who purchased the phones and brought them to me to “review” did not want to be involved with his name known, etc. So, I kept him out of it except to acknowledge that the phones weren’t mine. I have copies of all the E-mail exchanges between him and Audeze and followed the events as closely as possible. 

     

    1) They are right, they have no record of speaking to me, because, except for the aforementioned anonymous phone call on Wednesday, I never personally called them.

     

    2) Yes, I was wrong about Audeze being in San Diego, I don’t know where I got that from, it was an error, Mea Culpa, and I apologize to Audeze for that error.

     

    3) No, I did not make it appear that it was I who was the person purchasing/returning/communicating with Audeze, when I clearly was not.  That is Audeze's take on this matter. My job is to clearly communicate the series of events and impressions on any product I review. I made a call here not to muddy the waters on this review with “I said, he said”. Keep the action focused on a single point of contact and avoid confusion. The owner of these phones was trying desperately to fix a problem with a very expensive product that he purchased and I was only reporting about it.

     

    4) Already covered.

     

    5) I have not intimated that Audeze did not replace the drivers. What I said is that when the ‘phones came back from the factory with the new drivers, the sound was unchanged from the original drivers almost as though the factory did nothing. The owner was clearly told by someone Audeze with whom he spoke that the LCD-4zs were certainly defective and the owner rightly expected that the repaired phones would fix the problems that both he and I were able to hear. This led to the inescapable conclusion by both of us that this must be the way the ‘phones are supposed to sound. And I reported that as my conclusion.

     

    6)  I understand very well the math behind the Audeze specs. My point, which I succinctly stated, was not that I had any issue with Audeze design choices for these ‘phones, I just wanted to show that the suitability for portable use (as intimated by other reviews I’ve read) is not served by the design of these phones, and I wanted to set the record straight, that even Audeze, in their on-line literature, does not mention portable operation as the design goal for these phones. The math was to show how impedance affects current draw, and nothing more. This is not an indictment of either Audeze or their design criteria, merely an exercise which backs up the design decisions that Audeze themselves made. 

     

    7) My characterization of the LCD-4z’s sound is not exaggerated in the least. I have at my disposal many different headphones, ranging from inexpensive  in ear monitors through standard magnetic phones and several planar type phones from different manufacturers all the way to several electrostatic designs. Of all the “high-end” phones at my disposal (including a pair of Sennheiser HD-800s, though, not mine are available to me anytime I wish to listen to them), the LCD-4z are by far the worst. Audeze can brag about their distortion figures all they want, but when I listen to the  LCD-4z’s top end, and then listen to the same material on other phones, the unpleasant shrillness in the treble region (akin to a mis-tracking phono cartridge, but not as pronounced) with the Audeze phones is gone with any of my magnetic or isoplanar examples and with my electrostatics. With what other conclusion, could I come, based on that? My conclusions have been confirmed by others who have heard the same comparison, not the least was the owner, who first brought this disappointing performance to my attention. 

    Whle I acknowledged in the review that the bass is deep and prodigious in level. I never found it to be as tight with as good transient response as other isoplanar phones that I own. Irrespective of what others might think of the bass performance of the LCD-4z’s, to me it is second rate. 

     

    In conclusion, I’d like to say that I went out of my way to get the LCD-4zs, both before and after the drivers were replaced to sound as good as their $4000 price tag would indicate that they should sound. I used multiple devices from the Hugo-2 to the Schiit Asgard 2, to the preamp level headphone amp in my studio DAT recorder and my microphone mixer as well as my 150 W/C dual mono power amplifier. Ted even tried them on his over-the-top AudioGD Master 9 headphone amp that can source 9 watts into a 40 Ω headphone load. Nothing we tried made these phones sound anything like even a decent $200 pair of phones (including my ancient Koss Pro 4AAs that I use for recording because they’re closed back and the oil-filled ear pads offer a high degree of isolation from the surrounding environment). Even they sound better in the midrange and highs!

     

    I want to make one thing perfectly clear.  I have heard a number of Audeze’s products. I found their LCD-2s and LCD-3s to be among the best magnetic phones of their day. I briefly heard the LCD-4 (without the z) at a hi-fi show a while back, and even though no one would characterize a show as the ideal place to seriously audition anything, I heard nothing that I would characterize  as being untoward in that short listening session. 

    I am not at war with Audeze, and I certainly do not wish to make an enemy of them. I applaud their build quality and the fact that they are an American company. I wish them well, and I look forward to continue hearing great things from them in the future. Unfortunately, the LCD-4zs that I auditioned do not, in my estimation, live up to Audeze’s well deserved reputation. Call them an anomaly, someone’s personal idea of what sounds good on a certain genre of music, I don’t know. What I do know is that I gave a thorough, and honest evaluation of the LCD-4z’s with an eclectic variety of music. I wouldn’t expect Audeze to like my conclusions, but I do stand by them, and except for getting their address wrong, I stand by my review as written,  as well and I don’t think that any of my words were misleading or inaccurate in any important or substantial way. 

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    AudezeLLC
    7 minutes ago, Sonis said:

    1) They are right, they have no record of speaking to me, because, except for the aforementioned anonymous phone call on Wednesday, I never personally called them. 

     

    So who was the 'Technical Director' who called you if your only contact was an anonymous phone call?

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Sonis
    5 minutes ago, AudezeLLC said:

     

    So who was the 'Technical Director' who called you if your only contact was an anonymous phone call?

    Nobody from Audeze called ME at anytime, they called the owner of the phones as I have mentioned before.  He is the person who characterized the caller as “The Technical Director”.  But what’s The difference? It’s just a title. Obviously the ‘phone’s owner meant “Some technical guy who had the power and the responsibility to handle problems of this sort.”

    I don’t see any reason to make a federal case out of this.

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    NSX

    I own the LCD-4z of the review.

    Between my beloved Audeze i20's with the genius Cipher lightning cable and accompanying iPhone app and the positive reviews emphasizing the qualities I find important, I decided to add the LCD-4z to my collection.

    I live in an audiophile desert so it is practically impossible to listen to all the equipment I might be interested in.

    I am embarrassed to admit,  I was so exited to get those headphones from the Audeze authorized dealer that I went to the UPS distribution center to pick them up at 10am instead of waiting until 7pm when I would normally get home.

    I had my beloved Chord Hugo 2 and Sennheiser HD800 with me for a quick listen at the UPS parking lot before going back to work.

    During the first song my jaw dropped and not in a good way. The low frequencies were strong and satisfying but the midrange was muffled to the point were I couldn't follow lyrics that were crystal clear on the HD800 and the highs were shrill and piercing. After swapping headphones several times (and adjusting for volume) I decided, this is one of those products that transform from a moth to a butterfly after a proper burn in. I also thought it would be a good idea to have my friend Sonis listen to the entire setup to make sure I am not missing anything. 

    Without a word on my thoughts, I dropped them off to Sonis's house. A few hours later I got the exact same thoughts I had from Sonis. That's not good.

    Took the LCD-4z to my dedicated listening room, hooked them up to a DAC/head amp I wasn't using at a time, connected them to a server and hit repeat on one of my Tidal playlists. After 24 hours I had a quick listen and there was no meaningful sound improvement. That's not good.

    The LCD-4z burned in for a solid week with no discernible sound improvement at the end. The moth is still a moth.  Back to Sonis for his expert thoughts.

    His assessment was identical to mine. That's not good.

    The dealer directed me to Audeze. After helpful emails exchanged with Mark, at technical support, I got a prepaid return authorization (first class treatment). Before I sent them back hoping there is something wrong with my particular set, I called Mark to get his thoughts on the voicing of the LCD-4z from his point of view. After a very polite conversation of my entire experience and his assurance that Audeze will make right anything that might have being missed, I persisted on his thoughts about the sound signature differences between the HD800 and the LCD-4z. To my surprise Mark told me the midrange of the LCD-4z can not produce the clarity of the HD800. That's really not good.

    I send them back hoping there is something wrong with my particular set.

    A few days later I got the "good news":

    "After some testing, we have determined that your headphones were out of spec, and we'll be replacing the drivers on those with a new matched set".   Fantastic.

    When I got them back I thought there was a mistake. They sounded identical to the phones I sent back to Audeze. After another solid week of burn in, no meaningful improvement to the sound.

    After an other email exchange, I was told that:

    "Unfortunately, this seems to be a case of these headphones just not being right for you. While these were tested thoroughly before they were sent out to you and found to be within specifications, If you'd like to send them in and get them inspected once again, I can arrange that. I can't guarantee that the results will be drastically different if further repairs are made. 

    Best Regards
    Mark M."

    (first class again) 

    Conceivably the second set of matched pair of drivers could be off or the cable might be defective or....

    After a three month ordeal I had enough. These are not $399.00 headphones, they retail for $3,995.00

    After the experience, Sonis and I had a heart to heart about his responsibilities as an honest reviewer and both of our responsibilities to the audiophile community.

    Sonis did the brave thing in the interest of our community and called it as he (and I) heard it.

    Sonis as an electrical engineer in Silicon Valley and incredible recording engineer, knows what he is talking about. His recordings are amazing and one in particular is the best recording of a live Jazz band I have ever heard. It surpasses the highest resolution "Jazz at the Pawnshop" by a magnitude. In my Chord Spectral Wilson JL main system it is frightening.

    Incidentally before I got my beloved Hugo 2, in a sea of glowing reviews, there was one reviewer who had a completely opposite view. "He" took a lot of flack for it. I took it into account and still got mine. As much as I love my Hugo 2, I still understand and appreciate the points "he" was making. If I feel like concentrating on "his" negative points, I see them. I get it. 

    The only absolute in our passion for music is sitting in front of a live, preferably, unamplified band. Everything else is a compromise to some degree.

    Happy listening.

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    AudezeLLC
    Quote

     The tech director of Audeze  called a few days later and confirmed that the 4z’s were, indeed defective. He said that they would be replacing the drivers with a new, matched pair. When talking about other headphones in comparison with the 4z’s he cautioned not to expect as good of a midrange as is exhibited by say, the Sennheiser HD-800s (a magnetic phone listed at US$1700). 

    This is what you say in the review.  There is a huge difference ins saying 'The customer service representative handling the case'said to my friend... ' and 'Technical director called' . And no the Customer service person who was handling the case made no such remark,  then changing it to 'some technical guy ' does not instill any confidence. Based on what you said, there were many readers of your review who believed it was 'The technical Director'.

     

    Then in one of your comments go go on to say the following including details as 

     

    On 9/5/2019 at 7:29 PM, Sonis said:

    I would like very much for Audeze to respond, but they declined to do so and their technical director said on the phone (after a

    bit of hemming and hawing) that there is no way that the Audeze LCD-4z would sound as good as a pair of Sennheiser HD-

    800s phones, which I found to be an incredible confession.

     So we ask the readers of this forum, does the above look like 'some a customer support guy at Audeze talked to a friend of the reviewer'?

    Why misrepresent and make false statements, then conveniently wave a hand at it as you do below?  I do not think it is professional or responsible on the part of a reviewer to do so.

     

    24 minutes ago, Sonis said:

    Nobody from Audeze called ME at anytime, they called the owner of the phones as I have mentioned before.  He is the person who characterized the caller as “The Technical Director”.  But what’s The difference? It’s just a title. Obviously the ‘phone’s owner meant “Some technical guy who had the power and the responsibility to handle problems of this sort.”

    I don’t see any reason to make a federal case out of this.

     

    And finally you say 

    Quote

     in fact I annonymously called them last week and told them about the review in an effort to get them to participate with a "cross examination" of my findings. I do not know to whom the switchboard put me through, but I asked for someone technical. When I mentioned the review was somewhat negative (I REALLY WANTED  Audeze to respond to the forum) I was told that they didn’t care, and that they built products for people who liked the sound of their equipment, and since tastes vary, they weren’t really interested in a bad review.

    First, if the support staff receive a call, they are polite in their response I do not think anyone responded as stated above. Making an anonymous call would not be the best way to get a response if you really wanted us to respond. If you had contacted us directly before the review was up as a courtesy to the manufacturer whose product you are reviewing,  or as soon as the review was up with the link to the review to our support team or the customer support person your friend was in contact with, much of this could have been avoided. 

     

    We are not disappointed  because the review was negative. We are disappointed because of the way it was handled with many factual errors that paints a very different picture than the truth.

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    KDinsmore

    This is beyond interesting. I believe this is number one of all my years on forums and which include fighting and insults and being banned. Audeze has handled this quite poorly and should have just stayed out of this dialog. 

    The beauty part to me is that the review phones' didn't come from factory.

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    DuckToller

    Thank you, @Sonis  and @NSX for enlightening the case from your standpoint.
     

    I have re-read the review and found some understanding to the fact that Audeze may feel kind of blindsighted, as the reviewer says only at the end of the eighth paragraph that the phones are owned by his friend. And the HP are called once "review model" instead "reviewed model", which would have been correct in my outlandish understanding of the American language . So much for my bookkeepers training decades ago.

    I am not convinced that having made that mention in the first paragraph and avoiding strictly any impression the phones had been a "review model" (usually given to a reviewer by the  manufacturer for the time of the review free of charge) would have any effect on his sound quality assessment other than Audeze wouldn't have had a point to criticize Sonis' style of review.

    Reading NSXs contribution underlined my impression that the customer service call went not as well as Audeze would have wished for.  And perhaps, not as well as it was reported? Which Audeze in my understanding strictly denies.
    Did I understand that correctly, NSX and Audeze???
    This is a question to @AudezeLLC: How would you have imagined to react/to solve the issue in case  if you had been informed before publishing because Sonis would have called you with his real name, laying out his review idea and publisher to your attention???
    Karthick, I understand that you act in the best interest of your company, though my personal imagination on that particular task (company interest vs. free speech) regrettably does not leave too much fantasy for a generous handling of the topic.  Please surprise me!
    Until now I have got the subtle impression that you tried to nail some less important technical faults / factual errors on the writer in order to disassemble his credibility overall, while avoiding to respond in a constructive manner to his core point: The perceived sound quality, perceived by a professional listener. Which is not an unusual strategy these times.

    Best, Tom 

     

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    PeterG

    Hi Sonis, NSX, and Chris,

     

    Thanks for being so frank, and not shying away from delivering disappointing news.

     

    Coincidentally, I've been hoping AS would do more headphone reviews.  I've been thinking about buying IEMs, and finding most headphone reviews almost useless as they come from a site that appears to love everything they review

     

    Cheers!

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Sonis
    1 hour ago, AudezeLLC said:

    This is what you say in the review.  There is a huge difference ins saying 'The customer service representative handling the case'said to my friend... ' and 'Technical director called' . And no the Customer service person who was handling the case made no such remark,  then changing it to 'some technical guy ' does not instill any confidence. Based on what you said, there were many readers of your review who believed it was 'The technical Director'.

     

    Then in one of your comments go go on to say the following including details as 

     

     So we ask the readers of this forum, does the above look like 'some a customer support guy at Audeze talked to a friend of the reviewer'?

    Why misrepresent and make false statements, then conveniently wave a hand at it as you do below?  I do not think it is professional or responsible on the part of a reviewer to do so.

     

     

    And finally you say 

    First, if the support staff receive a call, they are polite in their response I do not think anyone responded as stated above. Making an anonymous call would not be the best way to get a response if you really wanted us to respond. If you had contacted us directly before the review was up as a courtesy to the manufacturer whose product you are reviewing,  or as soon as the review was up with the link to the review to our support team or the customer support person your friend was in contact with, much of this could have been avoided. 

     

    We are not disappointed  because the review was negative. We are disappointed because of the way it was handled with many factual errors that paints a very different picture than the truth.

    Too bad. I really have to say that not only was I disappointed in the sound of your $4000 phones, but in the character assassination that you employ here to try to deflect your product’s poor performance away from the product and on to the reviewer. In my opinion, your character assassination attempt has failed (it certainly has failed to move me). I stand by my review, and while I agree that some errors did creep-in, which I regret and fully apologize for, none of them, in any way, alter my impression of these phones, or the conclusions I have made about them. My review conclusions are accurate to that pair of LCD-4z’s, and stand until I hear another pair that don’t sound that wretched. I’d like to close by noticing that in all your criticisms of me, you mention my characterization of the ‘phone’s only in passing. You mention you low distortion and your deep bass, but don’t take any issue at all with my characterization of the midrange. Mr AudezeLLC, has no one told you that the midrange is where the bulk of the music lies?

    This is my final response to Audeze on this issue. To further “discuss” it would be an empty, circular procedure, sure to give no results.

     

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    rando

    For the larger part we are a group of amateurs.  These type of articles are not penned by professional journalists, but amateur forum members for amateur forum members.  This provides a lot of leeway for large errors and reinforces how small they really are in larger more meaningful ways.  In reality articles on AS are only meant as entertainment for this very small group.  That like many others has intrinsic elements it can struggle to express to itself fluidly.  Much less under a spotlight.  

     

    @Sonis I look forward to seeing more articles published by you and others here.  Don't be shy about taking sticking points before the forum without giving away the article.  The input of a good "editor" shapes outcome.

     

     

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    AudezeLLC
    26 minutes ago, DuckToller said:

    This is a question to @AudezeLLC: How would you have imagined to react/to solve the issue in case  if you had been informed before publishing because Sonis would have called you with his real name, laying out his review idea and publisher to your attention???
    Karthick, I understand that you act in the best interest of your company, though my personal imagination on that particular task (company interest vs. free speech) regrettably does not leave too much fantasy for a generous handling of the topic.  Please surprise me!

    Thanks again for asking. If we were reached before publishing, we would have requested the following:

    1. Thanked him for reviewing, and told him we are sorry that it did not meet his  expectation. I would have talked to him about our design philosophy and sound signature and what to expect from LCD-4z in terms of sound signature. I would have asked him about other Audezes he has listened to and why he liked or disliked them.  As a fellow Electrical Engineer, I would have liked to also discuss the design elements and design choices. I am an audiophile myself and addicted to this hobby as much as many here and would have discussed  about his work being Jazz fan myself.
    2. Ask that he mentions it was his friend's pair and and all interactions were through his friend to avoid confusions 
    3. Told him that we were in Anta Ana.
    4. Explained the reason for the low impedance design and discussed possible AMP/DAC pairings.
    5. Told him that there was no Technical director at Audeze and request that  he remove that reference.
    6. Point him to few other sources that had a diverging opinion and try to understand what he disliked and why.

     

    And that would have been the end of it. There would have been no reason for us to respond. I do not have any ill feelings toward Sonis.

     

    If there were no mention of 'Technical Director' we would not have contacted Chris as we feel that statements undermines what we stand for. How can a company do what it does and make many audiophiles happy if the 'Technical Director' does not believe in what or she is creating?

    We do request @The Computer Audiophile and @Sonis remove mention of statements about 'Technical Director' as Sonis has confirmed that was not true. 

     

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Sonis
    2 minutes ago, rando said:

    For the larger part we are a group of amateurs.  These type of articles are not penned by professional journalists, but amateur forum members for amateur forum members.  This provides a lot of leeway for large errors and reinforces how small they really are in larger more meaningful ways.  In reality articles on AS are only meant as entertainment for this very small group.  That like many others has intrinsic elements it can struggle to express to itself fluidly.  Much less under a spotlight.  

     

    @Sonis I look forward to seeing more articles published by you and others here.  Don't be shy about taking sticking points before the forum without giving away the article.  The input of a good "editor" shapes outcome.

     

     

    Don’t worry. I intend to continue to “call ‘em as I see (hear?) ‘em” as they say. I don’t like to write negative reviews, but I certainly wouldn’t be doing this readership (or the audio community at large) any good service by writing good reviews to poor performing products just to avoid the wrath of the manufacturer coming down on me. I don’t mind the wrath, even though, as in this case, it can be a bit wearying. Often that wrath says more about the company and the spokesman responding than it does about either my review or the product itself.

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Sonis
    8 minutes ago, AudezeLLC said:

    Thanks again for asking. If we were reached before publishing, we would have requested the following:

    1. Thanked him for reviewing, and told him we are sorry that it did not meet his  expectation. I would have talked to him about our design philosophy and sound signature and what to expect from LCD-4z in terms of sound signature. I would have asked him about other Audezes he has listened to and why he liked or disliked them.  As a fellow Electrical Engineer, I would have liked to also discuss the design elements and design choices. I am an audiophile myself and addicted to this hobby as much as many here and would have discussed  about his work being Jazz fan myself.
    2. Ask that he mentions it was his friend's pair and and all interactions were through his friend to avoid confusions 
    3. Told him that we were in Anta Ana.
    4. Explained the reason for the low impedance design and discussed possible AMP/DAC pairings.
    5. Told him that there was no Technical director at Audeze and request that  he remove that reference.
    6. Point him to few other sources that had a diverging opinion and try to understand what he disliked and why.

     

    And that would have been the end of it. There would have been no reason for us to respond. I do not have any ill feelings toward Sonis.

     

    If there were no mention of 'Technical Director' we would not have contacted Chris as we feel that statements undermines what we stand for. How can a company do what it does and make many audiophiles happy if the 'Technical Director' does not believe in what or she is creating?

    We do request @The Computer Audiophile and @Sonis remove mention of statements about 'Technical Director' as Sonis has confirmed that was not true. 

     

    I have to wonder why Mr. AudezeLLC is so hung up on this “Technical Director” gaff of mine and not really concerned that his product sounds so disappointing. To me, this speaks volumes. Gotta say, this has become extremely boring for me, and it must be tiring to other readers as well. OK! alright already, Audeze has no “Technical Director”! Now can we move on?

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    AudezeLLC
    24 minutes ago, Sonis said:

    I have to wonder why Mr. AudezeLLC is so hung up on this “Technical Director” gaff of mine and not really concerned that his product sounds so disappointing. To me, this speaks volumes.

    I have already told that we stand behind our product and pride in creating neutral sounding headphones.  That includes bass extension down to 10Hz through mid-range to treble extension by virtue of the control we have on our drivers and the low inertia of our ultra thin diaphragm. Explaining at length would have made it look like marketing material. The best way to judge if one likes them are by listening to them in a setup they are comfortable with. There is a reason we provide a generous return policy as this hobby is all about preferences. 

     

    I have also stated that it is your preference and you did not like the signature and I respect that, we cannot change your preference. I also pointed to other reviewers having a different opinion rather than saying it myself.

     

    I do not wish to harp on this any more than you do. 

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Ralf11

    Audeze - do you have a trial period and free return?

     

    If so, that would solve the central issue here, which is poor SQ experienced by some people.

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    llmflyfisher

    I am astounded by this so-called "review". I bought my 4z a couple years ago, and have spent several thousand hours listening to them (literally). I have a Hugo 2 with a Gilmore Lite Mark 2 amp. Norne Audio cable. Single-ended until I receive my new Headamp GSX Mini amp. 

     

    These headphones sound even better now after thousands of hours of play time than they did the first time I put them on. Slamming tight clean deep satisfying bass, beautiful sweet soul-stirring mids, clean vibrant beautiful treble. Sound stage, air, decay, instrumental placement, timbre, it's all there. I LOVE THESE HEADPHONES. I paid my own money for them; I am most definitely not an Audeze fanboi. I did replace the pads with some Dekoni fenestrated sheepskin. That was a PITA but they are very comfortable. 

     

    This is the most definitive example of bullshit journalism i have read in a long time. Really unbelievable to read this garbage. My personal experience for several thousand hours listening time is directly opposite. My advice to anyone reading this dredge is to search out many other credible reviews on the web before finally writing off these superlative headphones. This advice from a private person who spent my own green to buy them. Not affiliated with Audeze or anyone else. No reason to lie about these 4z headphones either. 

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    AudezeLLC
    1 hour ago, DuckToller said:

    Until now I have got the subtle impression that you tried to nail some less important technical faults / factual errors on the writer in order to disassemble his credibility overall, while avoiding to respond in a constructive manner to his core point: The perceived sound quality, perceived by a professional listener

    Explaining how everyone perceive's sound and explaining sound preferences and also explaining how our headphones sound would have taken more than a short response. 

     

    I would love to write a detailed technical article and publish it here with permission of @The Computer Audiophile, explaining our design approach and how we tune our headphones and how the different design choices we made  affect the sound.

     

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    PorkChop
    5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

    Audeze - do you have a trial period and free return?

     

    If so, that would solve the central issue here, which is poor SQ experienced by some people.

     

    Yes, I vote for a demo to be sent to @austinpop!!  Or even better , the SAME phones, which could help resolve this variable about them being defective or not.

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    AudezeLLC
    9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

    Audeze - do you have a trial period and free return?

     

    If so, that would solve the central issue here, which is poor SQ experienced by some people.

     

    Yes 30 day no hassle trial period. We ship free within US. Here is our return policy

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Sonis
    8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

    Audeze - do you have a trial period and free return?

     

    If so, that would solve the central issue here, which is poor SQ experienced by some people.

    I’m sorry, Raff11, I don’t understand your question. As I have said, the phones aren’t mine, they belong to buddy of mine who posted here as NSX. So, as to whether he had a trial period and free return from the vendor (Assuming that’s what you’re asking) you had best ask him. I don’t know those details.

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    AudezeLLC
    6 minutes ago, PorkChop said:

    Yes, I vote for a demo to be sent to @austinpop!!  Or even better , the SAME phones, which could help resolve this variable about them being defective or not.

    We will be shipping a LCD-4z to @The Computer Audiophile. We are open to the idea of LCD-4Z be sent on a tour to get a diverse opinion if Chris so chooses.

    I have intently followed the long thread 'A novel way to massively improve...' thread and made many tweaks myself based on Rajiv's input, so I would very much like his thoughts too if he so desires.

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    kennyb123
    1 hour ago, Sonis said:

    I have to wonder why Mr. AudezeLLC is so hung up on this “Technical Director” gaff of mine and not really concerned that his product sounds so disappointing. To me, this speaks volumes. Gotta say, this has become extremely boring for me, and it must be tiring to other readers as well. OK! alright already, Audeze has no “Technical Director”! Now can we move on?

     

    Gaff?  The truth was misrepresented.  That’s a pretty big deal.  

     

    Apologies are owed not only to Audeze but to the forum members as your “gaffe” would have left them believing something that’s not true had not Audeze spoken up.

     

    The reviews posted here have been of such high quality so it has been very unfortunate to see what has transpired here.  

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    ShawnC
    27 minutes ago, AudezeLLC said:

    We will be shipping a LCD-4z to @The Computer Audiophile. We are open to the idea of LCD-4Z be sent on a tour to get a diverse opinion if Chris so chooses.

    I have intently followed the long thread 'A novel way to massively improve...' thread and made many tweaks myself based on Rajiv's input, so I would very much like his thoughts too if he so desires.

    That's a terrible idea.

     

    So any negative review gets a retry.  Someone please give a bad review of Wilson Audio speakers, I'd love to demo them in my home on the retry tour.

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    kennyb123
    22 minutes ago, ShawnC said:

    That's a terrible idea.

     

    So any negative review gets a retry.  

     

    I couldn’t disagree more.  It demonstrates Audeze’s confidence in their product and their willingness to put their product in the hands of someone who will perform a fair evaluation.

    Share this comment

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now



sonore

aurender

Lumin

HEAP

Schiit

SOtM

Mytek

mutec

uptone

jcat

sotm usa

audioquest

Taiko Audio

Teddy Pardo

Eversolo




×
×
  • Create New...