Article: Audeze LCD-4z Review

[rossb]

I cannot imagine what is wrong with Sonis's LCD4Zs to be able to review them this badly.

 

I own a pair of LCD4Z. I also have the LCD4, and have owned the LCD3 and LCD-X. I have HD800s and have owned HD800S and Focal Utopias. I have three pairs of Noble custom IEMs and two pairs of JH Audios. I have some Mr Speakers Ether Flow. I have Sennheiser HD580s, 600s and 650s. I have owned more headphones than I can count over the last 20-30 years.

 

The LCD4Z sound fantastic. I sold my Focal Utopia because I preferred the 4Z. Ditto the HD800S., The only headphones I like better are the LCD4, but they are not always practical because they are harder to drive. The LCD4Z sound nothing like the way they are described in this review.

 

There is either something fundamentally wrong with the review sample or there is something fundamentally wrong with Sonis's hearing. In either case this should have been checked before it became a front page review on a reputable website.

[rossb]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is the subjective part and nobody can be wrong by definition. If I say these are the best headphones I’ve ever heard, it’s just another opinion. If I agree with Sonis, it’s just another opinion in agreement with him. 

 

 

Of course someone can be wrong. It is subjective whether someone likes the headphones or not. But "distorted highs, muffled midrange and loose bass" are objective facts, not personal preference.

 

And unless there is something wrong with the review sample - quite possible since Audeze disclaim all knowledge of it - this contradicts the overwhelming majority of user experience and reviews. In other words, it is just wrong. 

 

 

[rossb]

Chris, I didn't miss your use of "subjective", I was specifically responding to it.

 

I'm very far from being an audio objectivist. But some things are just objective facts. The frequency response of a pair of headphones is one of those things. The Sennheiser HD800, for example, have a peaky treble - this is an objective fact. If someone reports that they have a rolled-off, warm treble, that would just be factually wrong even if that is their genuine opinion. 

 

"Distorted highs" for the LCD4z is a statement of fact. If there is distortion in the high frequencies it should be measurable, and audible to most people. But no one else has reported this. 

 

As it happens, I don't really care for the Sennheiser HD800S, and that is my subjective opinion. But I would never question that objectively it is a very good pair of headphones and has many strengths for a lot of people.

 

I really don't mind that Sonis didn't like the the LCD4z. That is his prerogative. My objection is not to his dislike of the headphones, but to this travesty of a review.  The conclusion that these headphones sound "wretched" and worse than cheap, entry level headphones is beyond ridiculous and calls into question the credibility of the reviewer and the venue hosting the review.

 

I should add for completeness that I have absolutely no affiliation with Audeze, beyond owning and liking some of their headphones, along with many other brands. 

[rossb]

5 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Ross - Thanks for the honest opinion. I believe you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You vehemently disagree with this review, yet you call the entire site into question. Certainly your call to make, but I think it's a bit over the top. We've been publishing reviews for nearly 12 years. Sure there have been some controversial ones, but such is life. We can't please everyone all the time and I'm OK with that. Some people really liked this review, some people hated it. That's OK. I just don't think it's indicative of the entire site.

 

Chris, I'm all in favour of controversial and honest reviews. There have been plenty of reviews over the years - including on this site - whose conclusions I have completely disagreed with, and yet I had no issue with the review. Reviews which come to unpopular conclusions, and which take a critical approach to products when others will not, are to be applauded.

 

But as others have noted above, a bad review is not a matter of "it's just audio, no biggie" and you can say whatever you like, without consequences. A negative review has a major impact on someone's livelihood. A reviewer has a responsibility to the small businesses who predominate in this business to take care to ensure their reviews are well-considered. Reviewers also have a responsibility to their readers because they are influencing their expenditure of, in some cases, as with these headphones, a very significant amount of money.

 

If the review appeared in the forum then it would not be an issue. People express strange and ill-considered views in hi fi forums all the time and it really is no big deal. But if it appears as a headline review for this website, or similar websites such as Audio Stream or Innerfidelity  or in a published magazine, then the review is implicitly endorsed by the publishers of the website or magazine.

 

Imagine if Stereophile published a review of Wilson speakers in which the reviewer borrowed a pair of speakers from his friend, gave a brief history of Wilson speakers, a few technical details and then concluded that his friend's Wilsons sounded "wretched", shrill, no bass, distorted highs and worse than the $200 speakers he picked up at Circuit City. Well, I'm sure your first thought is that Stereophile would never publish such a review, and you would be right. Because to do so would carry their endorsement, and putting their reputation on the line. A very negative review would only be published after it had been carefully peer reviewed by others on the  editorial staff, discussed directly with the manufacturer, compared against other review samples (again, obtained directly from the manufacturer) and subject to detailed measurement, with the entire process published along with the review. To do otherwise would lead to readers questioning the credibility of the magazine.

 

In this case, a review was conducted of a borrowed pair of headphones, with no direct contact between the reviewer and the manufacturer, and with no right of reply being offered. No supporting measurements were given, a second opinion was not provided. And yet the conclusion was extreme, simplistic and lacking any nuance other than that the headphones were just bad. Worse than bad, "wretched". An almost childish conclusion to a childish review.

 

As I said, if this was on the forum, no one would have cared. But as it is a front page review on the site it carries  the endorsement of Audiophile Style and this is why it is a question of judgement and of credibility for the forum.

[rossb]

54 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

 

Don't forget Tyll's review of the LCD-4... My own impressions of the LCD-4 matched his. In fact I was really worried there was something wrong with my own hearing/unit but when I read Tyll's review later, it matched very closely.

 

 

The headphones in that review were the LCD4, not the 4z. Also, a reminder that that there was a problem with that initial sample of the LCD4, and Tyll adjusted his views in a subsequent review.

 

And even in that initial review, Tyll did not trash the headphones. He pointed out a slight treble imbalance - supported by measurements - and noted that Audeze fans would like them. In his follow up he did add the LCD4 to the Wall of Fame, and his remaining reservations about the LCD4 were in the context of a discussion of other high end headphones, all of which had (in his view) issues of one sort or another. And all of his comments, again, were backed by measurements and were balanced in their approach. 

 

This is not to say that Tyll was either right or wrong about the LCD4, but that his methodology was sound. He listened, he measured, he drew meaningful comparisons, and noted what would work for which types of listeners. That is very different from what we are dealing with here.