Article: Audeze LCD-4z Review

[MarkS]

I appreciate the review and the opinions expressed. Any chance that this model requires a lot of break in?  Any chance of a cable issue?  I’ve observed a dramatic change in phones’ sound from break in and also have had cable issues.  Finally, did the Hugo 2 owner advise if his pair sounded the same as the review sample? 

 

I’ve never heard these phones, but I do own LCD-3’s, among a few other good phones, so I can’t vouch for the reviewed model from my own experience. Just wondering about the issues I noted.

 

I’m not at all criticizing the review and think the reviewer seems very competent. Also, ironically, I agree with another comment that I’m now more intrigued to listen to these phones at the next CanJam or at another show. 

[MarkS]

22 hours ago, Sonis said:

The review samples WERE the property of the Hugo 2 owner. They were one and the same.

 

Again, not a criticism, but did the owner agree with you?

[MarkS]

This is a fascinating thread. While at least one other member disagrees, I don’t think the alleged factual misstatements are material in any regard.  To me, the review still seems competent, thoughtful, and totally legitimate. Finally, I look forward to more reviews from the reviewer!

[MarkS]

13 hours ago, rando said:

 

So the timing of publishing and unavoidable effect it produced are immaterial to your ability to digest the review.  Strictly speaking, that is a seasoned response.  It was quite clear where interests faltered and where they were piqued.

 

There just remains the small matter of how attentions garnered are being managed now that we've collectively lost interest in all but the factual and provable.  The bit where things were being played fast and loose as well as loud. Concluding in the official review that can't by choice include any of that nonsense.

 

I respect your opinion. I guess I”m a bit simple minded. The reviewer didn’t like the SQ.  Some of the facts stated about issues I don’t think are relevant to SQ might not have been written with the absolute precision of a math equation.  I just don’t perceive any malice here. Just my 2¢, and everyone sees things differently, which is interesting. 

 

This is the BEST website of all time and a fascinating thread!  We have a lot of smart and interesting folks here, and I get to come here each day and learn what you all think about various music and pieces of audio equipment. How great is that. 

[MarkS]

6 minutes ago, MarkS said:

 

I respect your opinion. I guess I”m a bit simple minded. The reviewer didn’t like the SQ.  Some of the facts stated about issues I don’t think are relevant to SQ might not have been written with the absolute precision of a math equation.  I just don’t perceive any malice here. Just my 2¢, and everyone sees things differently, which is interesting. 

 

This is the BEST website of all time and a fascinating thread!  We have a lot of smart and interesting folks here, and I get to come here everyday to learn what you all think about various music, audio equipment, etc  how great is that  

 

Error - sorry!

[MarkS]

27 minutes ago, rossb said:

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.

 

I was not aware that Stereophile would not publish a negative review without taking the steps you mention. How do you know this to be true?