Subjective: Audeze LCD-4z Headphone Review

I was really keen on purchasing the Audeze 4z before I read Sonis review and this one. What I find baffling is that there is a general consensus that the 4z sounds similar to the LCD-4. I say general consensus because i've now spent countless hours reading reviews and impressions of the 4z and people seems to think they sound similar. Even Audeze claim that they sound similar and they are in fact based on the LCD-4. Yet most people would not describe the LCD-4 the way you and Sonis have described the 4z. Is it not likely then this pair is defective? I can say with confidence having done so much reading around 4z that your impressions do not align with the general public. I'm certainly not saying however that you are not hearing what your are. 

Would it not have been better to audition a new pair of Audeze 4z? By reviewing the same pair you have vindicated Sonis and his review of the 4z and thats great an all... But If you had reviewed a new pair sent by Audeze (which they've offered to send you) at least we can know whether Sonis pair sounds as it should. This would be been much better me thinks. 

Personally I have listened to the LCD-4 at gatherings countless times and never would I describe it as shrill, having loose bass, lacking in detail, sloppy sounding. Yet going back to my point from my extensive reading most people seem to agree that the LCD-4 and 4z sound similar. How is this so? If anyone has an explanation I would love to hear it. 

1 hour ago, Kozwoz said:

I was really keen on purchasing the Audeze 4z before I read Sonis review and this one. What I find baffling is that there is a general consensus that the 4z sounds similar to the LCD-4. I say general consensus because i've now spent countless hours reading reviews and impressions of the 4z and people seems to think they sound similar. Even Audeze claim that they sound similar and they are in fact based on the LCD-4. Yet most people would not describe the LCD-4 the way you and Sonis have described the 4z. Is it not likely then this pair is defective? I can say with confidence having done so much reading around 4z that your impressions do not align with the general public. I'm certainly not saying however that you are not hearing what your are. 

 

Would it not have been better to audition a new pair of Audeze 4z? By reviewing the same pair you have vindicated Sonis and his review of the 4z and thats great an all... But If you had reviewed a new pair sent by Audeze (which they've offered to send you) at least we can know whether Sonis pair sounds as it should. This would be been much better me thinks. 

 

Personally I have listened to the LCD-4 at gatherings countless times and never would I describe it as shrill, having loose bass, lacking in detail, sloppy sounding. Yet going back to my point from my extensive reading most people seem to agree that the LCD-4 and 4z sound similar. How is this so? If anyone has an explanation I would love to hear it. 

Good points. Audeze agreed that sending me a pair didn’t make sense because I received Sonis review pair. 
 

also, the measurements back up our subjective reviews pretty well. Mitch used a different pair for measuring than we used for the subjective reviews. 

3 hours ago, Kozwoz said:

I was really keen on purchasing the Audeze 4z before I read Sonis review and this one. What I find baffling is that there is a general consensus that the 4z sounds similar to the LCD-4. I say general consensus because i've now spent countless hours reading reviews and impressions of the 4z and people seems to think they sound similar. Even Audeze claim that they sound similar and they are in fact based on the LCD-4. Yet most people would not describe the LCD-4 the way you and Sonis have described the 4z. Is it not likely then this pair is defective? I can say with confidence having done so much reading around 4z that your impressions do not align with the general public. I'm certainly not saying however that you are not hearing what your are. 

 

Would it not have been better to audition a new pair of Audeze 4z? By reviewing the same pair you have vindicated Sonis and his review of the 4z and thats great an all... But If you had reviewed a new pair sent by Audeze (which they've offered to send you) at least we can know whether Sonis pair sounds as it should. This would be been much better me thinks. 

 

Personally I have listened to the LCD-4 at gatherings countless times and never would I describe it as shrill, having loose bass, lacking in detail, sloppy sounding. Yet going back to my point from my extensive reading most people seem to agree that the LCD-4 and 4z sound similar. How is this so? If anyone has an explanation I would love to hear it. 

If you read both reviews, then you know that the pair of LCD-4Zs in question were returned to Audeze early in the process and were completely overhauled with brand new, closely matched drivers and that the newly-rebuilt phones sounded exactly like they did before they were returned to the factory! Also, the pair of phones that were measured by "mitchco" and posted by Chris as the objective review, was a different pair, and showed a frequency response graph that pretty much tracks with what both Chris and I heard. In other words,  in spite of other reviews, OUR findings are pretty much exactly what this model of phones sounds like!  

If you want to spend that kind of money on headphones, there are plenty of other makes and models that sound like music (and most of them don't cost anything like the $4000 that Audeze wants for the LCD4-Zs! I recommend that you audition the HiFiMan HE-1000se, for $3500, or for an incredible listening experience, the HiFiMan Jade 2 electrostatic system for $2400. Even the HifIMan Ananda's at just under $1000 is light-years ahead of the LCD-4Zs in terms of SQ! There are also several models of Mr. Speakers dynamic 'phones that are excellent as are the Abyss AB-1266 Phi for $4995 or the Abyss Dianas for around $4000. 

In short, I don't see how one could spend more and get less than to buy a pair of Audeze LCD4Z headphones (although I heard a pair of LCD-3s at a HiFi show once and thought that they sounded like real music). My advice, is to keep looking. You'll find something that fits your private listening needs perfectly, and you may not have to spend $4000 to get i the sound you require. 

8 hours ago, Kozwoz said:

It would be great to get your take on the LCD-4 - Sonis and The Computer Audiophile. The LCD-4 is widely accepted as a great headphone although as you say Sonis i'm sure there also other headphones that have better sound quality for the price. As the 4z is based on LCD-4 it would make sense that you have similar impressions... I think the LCD-4 is a great headphone and I can personally attest to that having spent many hours listening to them. You only have to walk around a Canjam meet and you can see how many amp and dac manufacturers are using the LCD-4 to demo their own equipment. Audiophiles such as yourself wouldn't have to look far to get your hands on a pair at one of these gatherings and I encourage you to audition them. If it is the case LCD-4 and 4z are vastly different then that would make Audeze blatant liars and also from what i've read the general Audeze community that agree that they are in fact similar. In which case everyone should question their faith in such a company. If however your impressions of the LCD-4 are the same - sloppy sounding, lacking in detail, loose bass and so on... then I would have a strong difference of opinion with you and I think you would be going against the grain as most do agree the LCD-4 is a great sounding headphone. 

 

 

The problem here is that where I live, there are no audio dealers, there are no HiFi shows, and there are no can-jams! The nearest places where such things might be found (except for the audio shops) would be either Sacramento, CA (I believe that there are two audio dealers there. They are over a hundred miles away), San Francisco (250 miles away), Salt Lake City, (300 miles away) or, Las Vegas - in January for the CES (400 miles away). So, the only way I could get my hands on a pair of LCD-4s would be for some-one to send me a pair. I can tell you right now someone who probably won’t be sending a pair to either Chris or myself, and that’s Audeze! Can’t blame ‘em though, as we seem to be the only two reviewers who had the chutzpah to come out and say that the emperor had no clothes.

37 minutes ago, Sonis said:

I can tell you right now someone who probably won’t be sending a pair to either Chris or myself, and that’s Audeze!

Actually this is incorrect. Audeze has been really great in all of this and very open with communication. The company has already sent us another pair of headphones for review. I have a lot of respect for Audeze after all this. 

38 minutes ago, Sonis said:

we seem to be the only two reviewers who had the chutzpah to come out and say that the emperor had no clothes.

This seems to be the case unfortunately. I stand by my thoughts on the 4z. I’m 100% confident in my subjective opinion of the headphones. The faults were very easy to hear. This wasn’t a case of making a mountain out of a mole hill. It really was night and day. 
 

I look forward to Josh’s review Of a new headphone from Audeze in the coming weeks. 

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Actually this is incorrect. Audeze has been really great in all of this and very open with communication. The company has already sent us another pair of headphones for review. I have a lot of respect for Audeze after all this. 

 

 

This seems to be the case unfortunately. I stand by my thoughts on the 4z. I’m 100% confident in my subjective opinion of the headphones. The faults were very easy to hear. This wasn’t a case of making a mountain out of a mole hill. It really was night and day. 
 

I look forward to Josh’s review Of a new headphone from Audeze in the coming weeks. 

Ok. Maybe they’d ship a pair of LCD-4 to YOU but I doubt if they’d ship to me, but if you want to try to get a pair to me (without the “Z”, of course), I’d be happy to compare them to Ted’s LCD-4z (he still has them), for contrast. Might be interesting to do while I still have the $7000 LTA Z10e OTL electrostatic/dynamic headphone amplifier! Your call, though.

13 hours ago, Kozwoz said:

It would be great to get your take on the LCD-4 - Sonis and The Computer Audiophile. The LCD-4 is widely accepted as a great headphone although as you say Sonis i'm sure there also other headphones that have better sound quality for the price. As the 4z is based on LCD-4 it would make sense that you have similar impressions... I think the LCD-4 is a great headphone and I can personally attest to that having spent many hours listening to them. You only have to walk around a Canjam meet and you can see how many amp and dac manufacturers are using the LCD-4 to demo their own equipment. Audiophiles such as yourself wouldn't have to look far to get your hands on a pair at one of these gatherings and I encourage you to audition them. If it is the case LCD-4 and 4z are vastly different then that would make Audeze blatant liars and also from what i've read the general Audeze community that agree that they are in fact similar. In which case everyone should question their faith in such a company. If however your impressions of the LCD-4 are the same - sloppy sounding, lacking in detail, loose bass and so on... then I would have a strong difference of opinion with you and I think you would be going against the grain as most do agree the LCD-4 is a great sounding headphone. 

 

 

Kudos for bringing new life into this. I am still in a state of disbelieve about the - to my own and many others' references - totally absurd assessment of this headphone.

59 minutes ago, skatbelt said:

 

Kudos for bringing new life into this. I am still in a state of disbelieve about the - to my own and many others' references - totally absurd assessment of this headphone.

I certainly hear you and am ok with what you say, but two subjective and one objective reviews that match isn’t something to ignore. 

3 hours ago, Sonis said:

Might be interesting to do while I still have the $7000 LTA Z10e OTL electrostatic/dynamic headphone amplifier!

@Sonis Are you doing a review of this? 

3 hours ago, k-man said:

@Sonis Are you doing a review of this? 

Can’t say, but stay tuned!

7 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I certainly hear you and am ok with what you say, but two subjective and one objective reviews that match isn’t something to ignore. 

As with speakers and other TOTL stuff, in the end it is all subjective and comes down to taste. If you like the sound of Magico, YG acoustics or Raidho, you won't like Vandersteen, Harbeth or Devore and vice versa. Do you search for musicality and emotion or do you care for a pinpoint soundstage, perfect separation and listen more analytical? With headphones these differences are even more apparent because the interference with the room is out of the equation. Then you have the factor of upstream gear and music sources. Good headphones will reveal weak spots in these areas but these weak spots can easily be mistaken for flaws in the headphones themselves.

Your subjective review basically says that you like the more analytical approach of the Sennheiser which is perfectly fine for me. And I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome of your assessment would be even more subtle if Sonis's 'review' never happened but this we will never know. Above this - no offence - I don't attach much value to your opinion on headphones because I think I read between the lines that you don't have a lot of experience and interest in this field.

I found the objective review informative but the big problem (in general) with frequency response measurements based on sine waves is: we humans don't listen to sine waves, we listen to complex sound waves. Back to the speaker analogy, if a speaker measures perfect in an anechoic environment it is absolutely no guarantee that it will sound good in normal listening environments. Also, with headphones, there are a lot of factors that are really hard the objectify in measurements. The material structure of ear-pads alone can already make a big difference in how a headphone sounds.

5 hours ago, skatbelt said:

 

As with speakers and other TOTL stuff, in the end it is all subjective and comes down to taste. If you like the sound of Magico, YG acoustics or Raidho, you won't like Vandersteen, Harbeth or Devore and vice versa. Do you search for musicality and emotion or do you care for a pinpoint soundstage, perfect separation and listen more analytical? With headphones these differences are even more apparent because the interference with the room is out of the equation. Then you have the factor of upstream gear and music sources. Good headphones will reveal weak spots in these areas but these weak spots can easily be mistaken for flaws in the headphones themselves.

 

Your subjective review basically says that you like the more analytical approach of the Sennheiser which is perfectly fine for me. And I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome of your assessment would be even more subtle if Sonis's 'review' never happened but this we will never know. Above this - no offence - I don't attach much value to your opinion on headphones because I think I read between the lines that you don't have a lot of experience and interest in this field.

 

I found the objective review informative but the big problem (in general) with frequency response measurements based on sine waves is: we humans don't listen to sine waves, we listen to complex sound waves. Back to the speaker analogy, if a speaker measures perfect in an anechoic environment it is absolutely no guarantee that it will sound good in normal listening environments. Also, with headphones, there are a lot of factors that are really hard the objectify in measurements. The material structure of ear-pads alone can already make a big difference in how a headphone sounds.

 

 

Hi skatbelt - I agree when making personal decisions about this stuff it comes down to taste. It would be foolish to purchase a product that is supposedly better, but isn’t liked by the buyer. 
 

Much of the time these sonic differences are like tubes vs solid state. Pros and cons to each technology. With the 4z I found no redeeming quality to put in the pro column or which to stress for readers who may like a certain sound. 
 

In general I like most speakers or headphones, even if they are commonly considered opposites by many. There are things to like and appreciate in both Magico speakers and Vandersteens. 
 

I don’t seek analytical or musical sound. To me the term musical is troublesome because it connotes less than accurate in the minds of many. In my view nothing can be more musical than the music. A song can’t be made more musical by adding something that the artist didn’t intend. Thus, when I think about musical I think about real music reproduced as close as possible to what’s delivered on the album. 
 

No worries about not attaching much value to my opinion about the 4z. I don’t use headphones much but I listen to music all day every day. I’m able to listen through speakers place 10 feet in front of me or 10 mm in front of my ears. Music is music. 
 

There is also the elephant in the room that nobody knows which sound is correct. I listen to Pear Jam and know without a doubt which headphone sounds better and what I believe is more accurate. But, it’s really impossible because every instrument is different. People fool themselves because they think they know what a violin sounds like thus they can judge accuracy. That’s a joke. Ask any violinist if all violins sound the same. Even if one uses his own recording it’s hard because audio memory is so short. 
 

Anyway, thank you very much for the frank discussion and honesty. It’s a pleasure to communicate with you even though we have a few major differences. 
 

8 hours ago, skatbelt said:

 

As with speakers and other TOTL stuff, in the end it is all subjective and comes down to taste. If you like the sound of Magico, YG acoustics or Raidho, you won't like Vandersteen, Harbeth or Devore and vice versa. Do you search for musicality and emotion or do you care for a pinpoint soundstage, perfect separation and listen more analytical? With headphones these differences are even more apparent because the interference with the room is out of the equation. Then you have the factor of upstream gear and music sources. Good headphones will reveal weak spots in these areas but these weak spots can easily be mistaken for flaws in the headphones themselves.

 

Your subjective review basically says that you like the more analytical approach of the Sennheiser which is perfectly fine for me. And I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome of your assessment would be even more subtle if Sonis's 'review' never happened but this we will never know. Above this - no offence - I don't attach much value to your opinion on headphones because I think I read between the lines that you don't have a lot of experience and interest in this field.

 

I found the objective review informative but the big problem (in general) with frequency response measurements based on sine waves is: we humans don't listen to sine waves, we listen to complex sound waves. Back to the speaker analogy, if a speaker measures perfect in an anechoic environment it is absolutely no guarantee that it will sound good in normal listening environments. Also, with headphones, there are a lot of factors that are really hard the objectify in measurements. The material structure of ear-pads alone can already make a big difference in how a headphone sounds.

 

 

Well, there is subjective and there is subjective. Sure, people like different things, and certainly there is no accounting for taste. But, when somebody tells you that they listen to a ghetto blaster boom-box and believe that it is the best sound possible at any price, one has to wonder about this person’s hearing, or at least his qualifications for his rather odd opinion. Most people have two types of opinions. Some are informed, and some are uninformed. If someone tells you that they hate Mexico, but you find out that they have never even been there, nor have they ever known anyone who has been there, then, that is surely an uninformed opinion. Another person with the same opinion who, on a trip to Mexico, was abducted by members of a drug cartel, and barely got away with his life, has formed that informed opinion based on experience.

My opinion of the LCD-4Z is based on many years of listening to reproduced music. I’ve heard and owned literally hundreds of pairs of headphones. As a recording engineer, I have used headphones to monitor what I’m recording for more than 30 years. I know what live music sounds like and I strive for accuracy with all the equipment I use, whether for recording live music or playback. There is an old saying: “Opinions are like anuses, everybody has one”. But as I said, some opinions are informed and some aren’t. You need to ask yourself which type are more important, which should be taken seriously, and which should be taken with a  grain of salt?

Ultimately, it’s up to you to decide who’s opinions to believe, but I strongly suggest that whichever reviews you choose to believe, that you listen closely and critically to the LCD-4Z before you decide to plunk-down four big ones for a pair. I really think that you will find, as did I, that they are the worst sounding so-called “high-end” headphones that you have ever heard. Good luck! 😃

11 hours ago, skatbelt said:

 

I found the objective review informative but the big problem (in general) with frequency response measurements based on sine waves is: we humans don't listen to sine waves, we listen to complex sound waves. Back to the speaker analogy, if a speaker measures perfect in an anechoic environment it is absolutely no guarantee that it will sound good in normal listening environments. Also, with headphones, there are a lot of factors that are really hard the objectify in measurements. The material structure of ear-pads alone can already make a big difference in how a headphone sounds.

 

 

Thanks, but I also included music samples that one can compare to the original track and to another set of phones. Did you listen to those?

No doubt audio is subjective, however, when it comes to measurements, some are pretty straight forward and indeed account for (very) audible differences between sound reproducers. For "accurate sound reproduction" if that is your goal means then the sound reproducer, whether headphones or speakers, should accurately track the input so the output is the same or as reasonably close to it as possible. So when it comes to frequency response, which accounts for a large part of what we hear and judge sound reproducers on, a smooth frequency response is a basic requirement. Unfortunately, both measured and in the recordings, the LCD-4z does not meet this basic requirement in the top end. It is not smooth. While one's preference may differ, the LCD-4z's are not accurate sound reproducers.

Wrt speakers, Floyd Toole and Sean Olive with many years of research has shown that a speaker that measures well on and off axis in an anechoic environment will indeed subjectively sound good in a normal listening environment. In fact, their results show a high correlation (86%) between their objective measurements and controlled subjective listening tests with many test participants. Their predictive model in estimating the in-room frequency response based on "spinorama" anechoic measurements is so good it is included in the CTA 2034 A Standard Method for Measurement In Home Loudspeakers that you can download for free. Look at Fig 11 on page 37 that shows the predicted in-room response based on anechoic measurements compared to the actual measured in-room frequency response - they are identical.

Olive did the same work with headphones with hundreds of participates over several years, which shows most everyone has similar preferences when it comes to what makes for a good sounding headphone. Hence the Harman Target Curve. Those are linked in my objective review.

While I agree that audio is subjective, there is considerable research into correlating objective measurements with subjective listener preferences, to the point where industry standards are developed from this research. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater and perhaps raise the bar a little to what constitutes good sound, which can be objectively measured.

Here is yet another data point using Harman's test rig on the LCD-4 (not Z) but has the same issues my measurements show with non smooth high frequency response. The next measurement is the calculated score based on deviation from Harman Target Curve using their predictive model. Score is 65%. It suffers from having 5-6 dB less bass and treble.. which you can see by looking at the RED error target curve and with the non smooth high frequency response.

@The Computer Audiophile and @mitchco thanks for taking the time to respond. It would be hypocritical to thank @Sonis because I don't feel like doing so. He keeps repeating himself and hammering on the 4K price point while I pointed out already a few times that I have spent enough time with the LCD-4z to know its characteristics, its value and its position in the field of higher end cans.

For all you guys, there isn't a lot of difference between te sound character of the LCD-4z and LCD-4 when both are driven with synergetic upstream gear. They excel and have almost no competition in low end definition and impact, have a very smooth midrange and are non-fatiguing in the highs. They are not as airy as some competitors. Dark sounding is a term that is often used but to me this is not a negative aspect. Especially for longer periods of listening. So here is where taste comes in. I also think this is a deliberate choice Audeze made. Call it their house sound. And with good quality PEQ software one can alter these characteristics anyway without real compromises. True to the source is a very difficult concept. Sound staging even more, especially with headphone listening. Cross-feed compensation can help somewhat. And binaural material but this is scarce and mostly only available on an experimental basis.

I stated earlier that I would take the LCD-4z without hesitation over my own LCD-3 (fazor version) if I had the funds at the moment. And this is the area were I feel a lot of friction: Sonis - in one of the comments on his own 'review' - mentioned that he found the LCD-3's to sound excellent. His exact words. The general opinion (as well as mine) is that the LCD-4/4z deliver all the qualities and characteristics of the LCD-3 but on a even higher level. 

@mitchco: I did not listen to the music samples but I will in the upcoming days. To put things into perspective I attached the FR graphs of the HD-800S and the Hifiman HE1000 (one of Sonis favourites). As you can see, both not really Harman TC schoolbook performers as well.... I don't know the exact level of smoothing that was applied but my impression is that is more or less the same as in the graph you posted.

HD-800S (left and right channels)

Hifiman HE-1000 (left and right channels)

1 hour ago, skatbelt said:

@The Computer Audiophile and @mitchco thanks for taking the time to respond. It would be hypocritical to thank @Sonis because I don't feel like doing so. He keeps repeating himself and hammering on the 4K price point while I pointed out already a few times that I have spent enough time with the LCD-4z to know its characteristics, its value and its position in the field of higher end cans.

 

For all you guys, there isn't a lot of difference between te sound character of the LCD-4z and LCD-4 when both are driven with synergetic upstream gear. They excel and have almost no competition in low end definition and impact, have a very smooth midrange and are non-fatiguing in the highs. They are not as airy as some competitors. Dark sounding is a term that is often used but to me this is not a negative aspect. Especially for longer periods of listening. So here is where taste comes in. I also think this is a deliberate choice Audeze made. Call it their house sound. And with good quality PEQ software one can alter these characteristics anyway without real compromises. True to the source is a very difficult concept. Sound staging even more, especially with headphone listening. Cross-feed compensation can help somewhat. And binaural material but this is scarce and mostly only available on an experimental basis.

 

I stated earlier that I would take the LCD-4z without hesitation over my own LCD-3 (fazor version) if I had the funds at the moment. And this is the area were I feel a lot of friction: Sonis - in one of the comments on his own 'review' - mentioned that he found the LCD-3's to sound excellent. His exact words. The general opinion (as well as mine) is that the LCD-4/4z deliver all the qualities and characteristics of the LCD-3 but on a even higher level. 

 

@mitchco: I did not listen to the music samples but I will in the upcoming days. To put things into perspective I attached the FR graphs of the HD-800S and the Hifiman HE1000 (one of Sonis favourites). As you can see, both not really Harman TC schoolbook performers as well.... I don't know the exact level of smoothing that was applied but my impression is that is more or less the same as in the graph you posted.

 

 

HD-800S (left and right channels)

 

 

Hifiman HE-1000 (left and right channels)

 

 

 

 

 

Look, if you like the sound of your phones to be shrill and distorted in the highs and to sound like a $2 pair of ear-buds everywhere else, then buy the LCD4-Z and be happy with them. Your insistence that these awful phones are good means only one thing to me: that your idea of high-fidelity sound reproduction and mine are light-years apart! I think they’re terrible, Chris thinks they’re terrible, the man who bought the pair thinks that they’re terrible and so does his 18-year old son. Other friends of mine also agree. I guess it takes all kinds, and frankly, I’m past caring that you don’t agree with my assessment of this fraudulent product. My evaluation was accurate and I stand by it. Chris’s evaluation mirrors mine and Mitchco’s measurements back up what the rest of us heard to a surprising degree. End of story.

I don't really see how things add up here... You found the LCD-3 to sound excellent yet the LCD-4 is widely regarded as a better sounding headphone than the LCD-3 and the LCD-4 sounds very similar to the Audeze 4z. This doesn't make sense. 

@Sonis your over dramatisation and use of language is poor. I have no issue with you not liking the Audeze 4z but comparing them to a $2 pair of ear-buds is not constructive. You can say you don't care all you want but you're just as bad as the people that don't take you seriously. Without trying to sound patronising please try and keep it together as someone that represents this website and community. 

3 hours ago, Kozwoz said:

I don't really see how things add up here... You found the LCD-3 to sound excellent yet the LCD-4 is widely regarded as a better sounding headphone than the LCD-3 and the LCD-4 sounds very similar to the Audeze 4z. This doesn't make sense. 

 

@Sonis your over dramatisation and use of language is poor. I have no issue with you not liking the Audeze 4z but comparing them to a $2 pair of ear-buds is not constructive. You can say you don't care all you want but you're just as bad as the people that don't take you seriously. Without trying to sound patronising please try and keep it together as someone that represents this website and community. 

 

 

All I have to say is that I’m tired of people doubting my veracity, my integrity, and my conclusions with regard to these headphones. I am not here to make people like you feel all warm and fuzzy inside about products you personally like. I’m here to offer my opinion and personal insight into audio components that I review. If my conclusions differ from others, then that’s too bad. Ultimately it is what it is. I am also not obligated to get into these pissing contests with people who do not agree with me. But I will offer this: it is my considered conclusion that anyone who thinks the LCD-4z sounds accurate to the sound of music simply does not know what real music sounds like, and that, in and of itself, is very sad.

In conclusion, I’d like to remind you that I heard the LCD-3 at a Hi-Fi show, under show conditions and I found nothing wrong with them during that brief encounter. I do not remember saying that they were “excellent”. In fact I said that I thought they sounded like “music”. But then, I listened for 5 minutes, to music with which I was unfamiliar, so you should take that opinion with a grain of salt. Also, if you do not like either my conclusions (which I strongly stand by) or my writing style, I have a suggestion for you. Don’t read me! ‘Nuff said.

13 hours ago, Sonis said:

In conclusion, I’d like to remind you that I heard the LCD-3 at a Hi-Fi show, under show conditions and I found nothing wrong with them during that brief encounter. I do not remember saying that they were “excellent”. In fact I said that I thought they sounded like “music”. But then, I listened for 5 minutes, to music with which I was unfamiliar, so you should take that opinion with a grain of salt. Also, if you do not like either my conclusions (which I strongly stand by) or my writing style, I have a suggestion for you. Don’t read me! ‘Nuff said.

You are not integer and honest: 

And calling the LCD-4z a fraudulent product. Wow!

On 11/7/2019 at 6:08 AM, skatbelt said:

 

You are not integer and honest: 

 

And calling the LCD-4z a fraudulent product. Wow!

 

I don’t know what “integer” means in this context. I wasn’t going to respond to your latest hate-fest at all, but you caught an error by me. When I wrote that I borrowed a pair of LCD-3s and thought them great, I was wrong. I had confused the sound of the LCD-2s which I had heard at the 2012 Dagogo San Francisco Hi-Fi show with the sound of the LCD-3s that I heard at the 2013 show. It was the LCD-2s that I was able to borrow back then from a local HiFi shop, not the LCD-3s (confusing, eh?). Anyway, thanks to my “archiving” of all of my reviews and show reports, I was able to go back and straighten it out. I will now go to my computer (I’m on my iPad here), and post the excerpt from my 2013 show report that covers the LCD-3.

"The most interesting headphone exhibit, from a sound quality perspective, was for Audeze, the US manufacturer of a high-end line of isodynamic headphones. These phones work like Magneplanar speakers for the ears and as such are similar in concept to the Hi-FiMan ‘phones reviewed in these pages last year. While the sound was similar, it was obvious that the Audeze LCD3’s were in a whole ‘nuther class. They are certainly cleaner sounding than the HE-400’s I tested and also seemed cleaner than the HE-500’s that I was able to audition and another table at the show as well. They also have more and better bass than any phones I’ve ever heard. The build quality on the Audeze LCD3 is extremely good as well, with ear-cups fashioned from exotic Zebrano wood with lambskin leather ear-pads. They are not cheap at almost $2000 a pair, but these are the first phones I’ve ever heard that could give the fabulous and fabulously expensive Stax SR-009 Electrostatic Ear Speakers an honest run for their money. At less than half the cost of the Stax (without the required dedicated amp), and not requiring a dedicated amp/energizer to power them, they certainly are a lot less expensive and a lot more flexible than are Stax phones with very similar – that is to say – excellent, audio performance."

And believe me, they didn't sound ANYTHING like the LCD-4z! One's sonic memory is not all that specific or all that good, for that matter, but I'm more than certain that if the LCD-3 and the LCD-4z had sounded anything alike, I certainly wouldn't have given them the positive mention in my show report. In fact, I likely wouldn't have mentioned them at all!

Now, let's just end this nonsense. You don't like my review of the LCD-4zs -FINE, you don't like my writing, period, it seems, also FINE, You are able to ignore that my findings have corroborated by Chris, FINE again, and you choose to also ignore that a thorough objective review with comprehensive measurements shows that the measurements and Chris's and my subjective evaluations match, and that is certainly your prerogative. But, let's just end it here, OK? I don't mind answering any legitimate questions about my reviews or my methodology, and I DO appreciate it when people bring to my attention errors and inconsistencies on my part. After all, I'm only human and do admit to relying on my memory a bit too much at times (my laziness, I suspect), but I do not appreciate being harassed, for the sake of harassment. So good-bye, good luck, and please don't read any more of my reviews or posts! 

17 minutes ago, Sonis said:

On 11/7/2019 at 2:08 PM, skatbelt said:

You are not integer and honest:

I don’t know what “integer” means in this context.

It obviously means (he thinks) you're irrational.

Perhaps he meant that Sonis lacks integrity. 

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

It obviously means (he thinks) you're irrational.

I suspect that KumaKuma is right and he meant that I lack integrity. He's entitled to his opinion. But it is obvious to me that Skatbelt just like to stir up sh_t. Either that, or he's a shill for Audeze. Either way, in this case, denial (of the collective opinions of Chris, Mitchco, and myself) is not a river in Africa!