Article: Audeze LCD-4z Review

[wgscott]

38 minutes ago, rando said:

 

What he might care to do is proffer a world wise view to his article writers when they meet challenges that would otherwise bring an unceremonious halt.  Even to the point of reassigning a new product that is reviewable.  Make them feel validated in their efforts. 

 

I'm not being critical of @Sonis by saying we never left the ground here.  Safety announcements were issued and seatbelts fashioned.  After twice leaving the gate a cancellation was issued.  The person piloting this is the one left in the lurch.

 

 

Whatever that fourth is I wish you the best reaching the fifth estate if this challenges you.  If not, friendlier media relations in a company more suited to enabling your continued reviews here.  Except for rare exceptions.  Writing these articles should be something you enjoy and that should show through.  

 

There must be something seriously wrong with my Videudeze LCD monitor; I can't make heads or tails of this randomized word-salad gibberish. 

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, rando said:

Glad to see I deflected

 

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, 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. IE that they cannot build a pair of phones costing $4000 that’s as good as a competitor’s offering costing less than half as much!

 

That is truly remarkable (and I appreciate his candor).

 

1 hour ago, Sonis said:

I popped the ear pads off and saw no way of getting the ear cup apart without voiding the warranty, and I saw no serial numbers that I could access without taking each cup apart. Not my phones, didn’t want to do that...

 

A bit of 32P radio-label would have been perfect.  

[wgscott]

35 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

 

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

 

Currently, it stands as an accusation.  It has not been established.

[wgscott]

4 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

 

In the review, Sonis wrote:

 

“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.”

 

in a subsequent comment he wrote:

 

”Nobody from Audeze called ME at anytime, they called the owner of the phones as I have mentioned before. “

 

Clear cut case of misrepresenting the truth to readers of AS.  It should have been stated in the review that he didn’t participate in this conversation and was only passing on what his friend shared.  

 

It is a clear case of ambiguity at worst.

 

 

 

[wgscott]

An old legal cliché comes to mind:

 

If the facts are not on your side, stick to the law.

If the law is not on your side, stick to the facts.

If neither the facts are on your side, nor the law is on your side, assassinate your opponent's character.

 

 

[wgscott]

It serves two functions:

 

(1) It distracts from the inconvenient fact that a pair of $4K headphones has inferior sound quality.

 

(2) It serves as an example for what happens when one has the temerity to deviate from the industry-supplied script of veil-lifting, pricepoint-punching sycophantic drivel, putting future reviewers and publications on notice.

[wgscott]

19 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

I was fooled into thinking that you had worked directly with Audeze to allow them to put their best foot forward so you could give their product a fair chance.  

 

So paying the company nearly $4K for a set of headphones (which most normal people would consider insane) somehow isn't enough incentive "to allow them to put their best [product] forward"?

 

Are you suggesting that just a normal run-of-the-mill customer with $4K to burn isn't entitled to the same quality of product as a reviewer who gives a wink and a nod?

 

Why would you feel so compelled to shamelessly shill for them like this?  

 

[wgscott]

Good point.  Putting on a pair of headphones is an exceptionally complex process.

[wgscott]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Why?

 

Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose_Corp._v._Consumers_Union_of_United_States,_Inc.

[wgscott]

1 minute ago, kennyb123 said:

 

Consumer reports reviews the $100,000 Tesla?  My assumption was that their reviews were primarily of products the mass market would consider.  For example, the best mid-size car.  

 

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.  (CU gave Tesla the highest possible ratings for a few years.  Until their cars started catching fire.)

 

But while you are playing catch-up, read the Bose vs. Consumer Reports wiki article I posted.  It is right up your ally.

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

 

I stand corrected. Yeah I was way off on the mark on that one.  And after further thought I agree that there is a place for a consumer reports approach for a $4000 headphone.  I was coming at this from the perspective that AS was aiming for a different clientele:  an audiophile who would be visiting a boutique site site like AS.

 

I also have to admit that I got a little steamed after being accused of “shamelessly shilling” for Audeze.  I should have just walked away and not responded further.  I will do so now. 

 

And lastly, I apologize for my snarky reply to you @kumakuma

 

Oh, cheer up.  You accomplished your main mission:  total distraction

 

[wgscott]

11 minutes ago, audiobomber said:

An audio system built around CR reviews will be very inexpensive and appallingly mediocre. 

 

Is that a fact??? Or simply your snobbery? You seem to believe that CU is too pedestrian to appreciate sound quality. Perhaps your expectation bias is set by the price tag.

 

Lenin had a term for this.

[wgscott]

10 hours ago, AudezeLLC said:

When measuring drivers just by themselves in an IEC baffle,  both LCD-4 and LCD-4Z provide a textbook/theoretical response. This forms the basic foundation. We shape this response to our desired target response through the design of the housing and earpads. After the transducers, the earpads have the largest influence on the sound signature.

 

Is there any chance you could post images of those measurements here?  This would be the most definitive way to refute the criticism.  

[wgscott]

I can see how the frequency response curve is consistent with the reported observations.  However, it also seems rather similar to the other headphones that are said to sound much better, so that has me puzzled.

[wgscott]

18 hours ago, Sonis said:

Oh, yeah. I have quirky hearing, all right. I have 8 pairs of high-end headphones in my possession or at my disposal, all of which have decent bass, excellent midrange and clean highs. Some are isoplanar like the Audeze LCD-4z, some are electrostatic, and the Sennheiser HD-800 and the Koss Pro4AA are classic, apex driven designs. None of them sound as unacceptably bad as  the Audeze LCD-4z. Not even the Koss (which are nothing to write home about, but come-in handy when I’m recording due to their closed-back, gel-filled ear pad design which is highly isolatory.). I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating. When eight high-end headphones all sound decent using the same sources and the same ancillary equipment and one sounds badly designed or defective, or is it logical to assume that the one “odd man out” is likely the poorly designed or defective phone here? Is it likely that the listener’s hearing is bad, or quirky, so that he selectively hears eight other phones as being decent, and this one phone from Audeze as being very poor sounding?

The phone’s owner and myself both assumed that any headphone costing $4000 and sounding as bad as these did simply must be defective. We both agreed that the owner should send them back to Audeze to get them checked out and repaired. Imagine our collective chagrin, when the repaired headphones were returned to the owner and they still sounded EXACTLY like they did before they were sent back to the  manufacturer!

Yeah, I have quirky hearing.

 

Don't forget the second part of the question:

 

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?