Article: Audeze LCD-4z Review

[The Computer Audiophile]

16 minutes ago, skatbelt said:

But I did not come across any negative rating of owners of this headphones and this includes the very critical head-fi .org community. You stand alone in this

 

Someone has to be first. 

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, skatbelt said:

Come to think of it and acting very suspicious for a moment: why the Hifiman promotion in your review? Does Chris do background research?

 

Sonis reviewed the HiFiMAN for us earlier and loved them. That’s why he recommended them in this review. Your skepticism knows no bounds. 

 

Do do you have a hidden agenda that includes keeping resale value above s certain point for LCD-4z owners?

 

This is one person’s opinion. Not that big of deal if he doesn’t like a pair of headphones. Your resistance to his opinion is puzzling. 

[skatbelt]

13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Someone has to be first. 

 

 

 

 

 

Sonis reviewed the HiFiMAN for us earlier and loved them. That’s why he recommended them in this review. Your skepticism knows no bounds. 

 

Do do you have a hidden agenda that includes keeping resale value above s certain point for LCD-4z owners?

 

This is one person’s opinion. Not that big of deal if he doesn’t like a pair of headphones. Your resistance to his opinion is puzzling. 

 

 

I am not a skeptical person. And seldom flabbergasted but now I am...

[The Computer Audiophile]

25 minutes ago, skatbelt said:

 

 

I am not a skeptical person. And seldom flabbergasted but now I am...

No worries. We can’t all agree all the time. 

[firedog]

51 minutes ago, skatbelt said:

 

 

I am not a skeptical person. And seldom flabbergasted but now I am...

Not a skeptical person, but because you don’t like his opinion, you start throwing around the idea he has an ulterior motive for his bad review. 

You know, sometimes people just have opinions. There are even people that have an opinion that isn’t a result of some sort of conspiracy. 

[rando]

2 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

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

 

Glad to see I deflected unwanted disruptions while acutely touching on an issue the article author anticipated and was openly willing to address.  This could have gone so much worse if you had been capable of interfering.  I'm actually thankful for your reply and those caught by upvoting it. 

 

2 hours ago, Sonis said:

Frankly Rando, I was expecting a heck of a lot more of this kind of attitude following the LCD-4z review than I have received (so far). I feel pretty comfortable with my conclusions as they are an honest assessment of this product’s performance as experienced by two very experienced audiophiles, who, under very different sets of personal circumstances (equipment, musical tastes, etc.)came to exactly the same conclusions about the sound of these headphones

 

I don't refute your assessment (or the owner's).  The article balanced on a consumer good not a manufacturer demo.  That alone stands out in the field.  I think there was value in your approach and both of your patience wore thin... as consumers with justified expectations.  A little more input from someone reading this beforehand might have greatly changed how the article was received with minor revisions.  That's all, smoothing a wrinkle some are getting upset about.

[Sonis]

1 hour ago, skatbelt said:

 

In my first comment I already stated that I did listen to the LCD-4z. So I have a good view on its position in the field of higher-end cans. And I auditioned quite a few. In this price category it is all a matter of taste but I would - without any hesitation - take the 4z over the HD-800S, every Focal and also over the LCD-3 (which I own myself).

 

My problem with your review is that it isn't really a review. You basically say 'This thing sucks and sounds no better than any entry level headphones. If you want to know why? Well, figure it out yourself. And btw, the company sucks too!'. I am aware of the fact that a lot of reviews are commercially driven and have an editorial character. But I did not come across any negative rating of owners of this headphones and this includes the very critical head-fi .org community. You stand alone in this.

 

Come to think of it and acting very suspicious for a moment: why the Hifiman promotion in your review? Does Chris do background research?

I have no ties to HiFiMan but I do have a number of HiFiMan ‘phones in my collection. Every one, from the $299 HE-400s to the $2600 Jade 2 electrostatics, and everything in between sound far better, and are far more comfortable than the Audeze LCD-4z.

The phones do suck, and I succinctly explained how they sucked. And I didn’t say why, because I don’t know why. And apparently neither does Audeze. They said that they fixed them when they were returned to the manufacturer for testing. Yet the fix sounded exactly like they did before they were “repaired”. Nowhere did I say that Audeze sucked, nor did do any more than suggest a failure on their part as a possible reason why sounded so bad out of the box and why, perhaps that the factory couldn’t (or wouldn’t) repair them. I have had other pairs of Audeze phones in my hands (like the LCD-2 and the LCD-3) and they sounded excellent. I also owned a pair of Isine 10s by Audeze and thought that they sounded superb. Unfortunately, I sold them because they didn’t fit in my ears very comfortably.

 

All I care to say about your other comments is that we must have WILDLY different views about what sounds good. Believe me if I had spent $4000 on a pair of phones that sound that bad, I wouldn’t just be disappointed, I’d be majorly PISSED (and this pair’s owner certainly and rightly is).

 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m neither intimidated nor bothered by your contrary view. As a recording engineer, I think I know what real live music sounds like, and I also believe that I know when A piece of audio gear does not sound like real music. I trust my experience when evaluating these products. The LCD-4z’s are the worst really high-end headphones that I have ever heard. Period!

[Sonis]

10 minutes ago, rando said:

 

Glad to see I deflected unwanted disruptions while acutely touching on an issue the article author anticipated and was openly willing to address.  This could have gone so much worse if you had been capable of interfering.  I'm actually thankful for your reply and those caught by upvoting it. 

 

 

I don't refute your assessment (or the owner's).  The article balanced on a consumer good not a manufacturer demo.  That alone stands out in the field.  I think there was value in your approach and both of your patience wore thin... as consumers with justified expectations.  A little more input from someone reading this beforehand might have greatly changed how the article was received with minor revisions.  That's all, smoothing a wrinkle some are getting upset about.

But that “wrinkle” is good. Bad components should be discussed just as openly and often as good components. Chris seems to agree. Anyway, I would not have liked for him to change the review with editing. editing fixes spelling and grammatical errors as well as technical and informational errors, not review conclusions.

[ShawnC]

In some sense, this review makes me want to demo the headphones now more then ever.  If anything, this is what consumers have to deal with everyday.  I'm sure we've all bought something that we thought was going to work or be fantastic, only to be extremely let down.  Then thinking it was broke or malfunctioning returned it, tried a new one and were let down again.  Unfortunately it happens, and it often leaves a sour taste in your mouth towards that product or manufacture.  Such is life.  

 

Ever heard of the REL subwoofers catching fire? 😉

 

 

[rando]

40 minutes ago, Sonis said:

But that “wrinkle” is good. Bad components should be discussed just as openly and often as good components. Chris seems to agree. Anyway, I would not have liked for him to change the review with editing. editing fixes spelling and grammatical errors as well as technical and informational errors, not review conclusions.

 

Doubt many here, myself included, have any issue with a packaged complimentary 'review' simply not existing here.  Nor was I suggesting anyone else do touch up work by injecting the idea faulty behavior on part of product (twice) and whatever repairs were claimed provided inroads you might explore if faced with a similar review example. 

 

Since I've gone this far I'll offer one example.  Before sending them off for repair.  Noting the drivers serial numbers (or some other significant mark) is an experienced move that may not have occurred to you.  This simple addition to the article is damning if proven unchanged when returned.  End of story unless you care to pursue it during, or by forcing Audeze to respond after publishing.  This one canny move establishes any negativity as factual instead of debatable.  Blunts any attempts to blame the victim from discrediting yourself or the equally experienced owner.

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, rando said:

Glad to see I deflected

 

[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. 

[Sonis]

1 hour ago, rando said:

 

Doubt many here, myself included, have any issue with a packaged complimentary 'review' simply not existing here.  Nor was I suggesting anyone else do touch up work by injecting the idea faulty behavior on part of product (twice) and whatever repairs were claimed provided inroads you might explore if faced with a similar review example. 

 

Since I've gone this far I'll offer one example.  Before sending them off for repair.  Noting the drivers serial numbers (or some other significant mark) is an experienced move that may not have occurred to you.  This simple addition to the article is damning if proven unchanged when returned.  End of story unless you care to pursue it during, or by forcing Audeze to respond after publishing.  This one canny move establishes any negativity as factual instead of debatable.  Blunts any attempts to blame the victim from discrediting yourself or the equally experienced owner.

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!

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...

[Sonis]

25 minutes ago, MarkS said:

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. 

The review samples WERE the property of the Hugo 2 owner. They were one and the same. We all know that most headphones need some running-in before they sound their best, but the owner let these run at a good volume for about a week, as I understand it , before bringing them to me to see what I thought. Headphone cables, like speaker cables, can have an eff ct, but I don’t think a cable could have wrought this much damage to the sound. Besides, the cable was that supplied by the manufacturer.

 

I too have heard the LCD-3s and thought them excellent. I’ve  heard the plain LCD-4, only briefly at a hi-Fi show, and they sounded fine to me, but, that’s at a show with a high background noise, so I can’t really comment on those.

[audiobomber]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

I guess you could claim that to be “fair” Chris should have had another reviewer listen to the phones and see if he confirmed Sonis impression. 

But do we see that done here or in other places when a review is overwhelmingly positive? Don’t we sometimes criticize the audio press for printing only positive reviews? 

So when someone finally publishes a negative review we are upset about it?

You have a point, however I've always enjoyed reviews with more than one opinion.

 

Headphones seem especially subject to listener bias. I own Grado and Beyerdynamic headphones that some love and some hate. I don't know what these Audeze headphones sound like, and I would never spend this much on headphones, but it would have been interesting to me to hear another opinion, because a pan is, as I said, surprising.

[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.  

[KDinsmore]

Excellent review. I LOVE reading a review that doesn't dance around the "what if's" like so many here are implying. Maybe the Emperor has no clothes. I was interested in these at one time and my go-to is checking what they are selling for used.on eBay, Audiogon, or HeadFi and these were going for around $2500 which is a Red Flag to me for a $4,000+ phone'. Same for the Chord Qutest Sonis reviewed (I asked this question at another forum and they were not happy about my observation) . Why so many for sale at a discount?

Thank you Sonis. Please reveiw the Meze Empyrean!

[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?

[Sonis]

36 minutes ago, MarkS said:

 

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

Absolutely. He's the person who first brought my attention to  how lousy these things sounded. He was upset because they cost him a lot of money and were, in his opinion, useless. He just brought them over one day and left them without comment. He just said: "give these a lesson, will you and let me know what you think. Several days later when we compared notes, we found that we heard exactly the same thing and both of us agree that to sound that bad, they almost had to be defective. 

[seeteeyou]

As a proud owner of LCD-X myself, their QC (or lack thereof) seemed to be a concern a few years back

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/no-shame-on-audeze-buyer-neednt-beware.753171/

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/how-many-times-have-your-lcd3-headphones-been-returned-to-audeze-for-servicing-rma.771760/

https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/are-audeze-really-that-bad-quality-wise.576/

 

Like what their technical director said, stick with Sennheiser etc. and save quite a few backs on top of that.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - I was contacted this afternoon by Audeze's Karthick Manivannan, Ph.D., Research Director - Signal Processing. He kindly asked that Audeze be allowed to publish a response to this review. I stated that I would absolutely publish an uncensored response from the company. Here is a link to that response, directly below the review. 

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/audeze-lcd-4z-review-r833/#1

 

 

[skatbelt]

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi Guys - I was contacted this afternoon by Audeze's Karthick Manivannan, Ph.D., Research Director - Signal Processing. He kindly asked that Audeze be allowed to publish a response to this review. I stated that I would absolutely publish an uncensored response from the company. Here is a link to that response, directly below the review. 

 

https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/reviews/audeze-lcd-4z-review-r833/#1

 

 

Thank you. I will rest my case...

[Summit]

2 hours ago, skatbelt said:

Thank you. I will rest my case...

 

What case 🤨. Someone didn’t like one headphone and rant about it.

[DuckToller]

Thank you, Chris, for publishing the Audeze statement regarding Sonis presentation of the LCD-4z.

It is important, in my view as contributor to your site, that the facts are reported correctly and can be corrected if this ain't the case.
The point that Audeze has reacted profoundly and professional to a critical review of their product looks for me like a late reaction on a customer support case that went down badly. I honor it a great time, but need to admit did not like the indirect blaming of Sonis playing foul and being biased to the product or the manufacturer.

We, as reviewer, experience often ignorance to our requests and receive only half-baked responses on critical questions, if any. It might be a fair assumption, that for the manufacturer side, given they have achieved a certain market position and standing, there is an allocation of resources based on assessing of the importance of available mediums they are dealing with, before they act. Which could serve the reviewer (un)comfortably well, but in avoidance of that comfort, acting like customer X does help to understand the reality much better.

Assuming that Audeze in Santa Ana could do better than reported in customer service are now proof, the answer of their research director underlines imo, that they are responsive and that in a case of disenchantment with a 4k headphone, the producer rather tend to refund than to allow a critical discussion of the product. In their chair I would try  exactly the same.
Playing the game of open available names inside a research operation otoh does not build a lot of confidence towards Audeze, as usually the product and its qualities should speak for itself, accompanying marketing talk often only accounts as distortion and customer service experience should not at all be executed at a superior level towards reviewer, as we (usually) tend to take the customer's seat and view on the products.
Although, it's ok if a manufacturer does offer technical assistance to get the thing going in case of problems, because the then possible description of available solutions may have a positive multiplying effect on readers.
 

The key point with the critic is that 4k headphone does not sound as it should be expected, given experience with products of the same brand or the same price class; a statement drawn by an experienced reviewer, and definitely established with a subjective gout and, as it appears, with some disappointment in the customer service performance of the company involved.

Therefore, as a reader and possible Audeze customer,  I would be quite interested, how other colleagues specialized  & experienced on high(er) end headphones, would perceive the sound quality of that exact LCD4z HP.  
Perhaps, in accordance with the owner and Audeze, Sonis could send that particular pair, which I have understood from Audeze's response, is now, after the exchange of the old drivers, in no technical deviation to the standard parameters of this model, to other reviewer for Audiophile Style in the US?

This would give both parties a chance to have the confidence of our readers rebuild, based on peer-like review. OTOH, it's kind of a route of last resort, because this can't be a standard procedure for a critical publishing on this site.
 

What would be left over, is the history of both parties' guilt for the miscommunications with each other, assuming - as we have heard a certain time in the forum - the truth often lies in the middle.

Best regards and again Kudos to Audeze to chime in and make a point.
Tom/France

 

[firedog]

So basically Audeze is trying to say Sonis is lying about what went on. 
I'd like to hear what he has to say. 

[AudezeLLC]

@DuckToller I am  Karthick Manivannan, Director R&D at Audeze. I am responding on behalf of Audeze. Thanks for your response and you raise valid points.

 

We do not typically respond to critical reviews. Audio preferences is personal, and negative reviews are inevitable and also good. Don't we all read negative reviews on Amazon when we wish to buy something? When I am researching a  product I am interested in, I look for both positive and negative reviews and make my own decision and I am sure that is true with most in this community too.  As you say a good product should stand on its own merit.

 

That said, the reason we were forced to respond was to set the facts straight. So the readers understand what happened and draw their own conclusions. 

 

1. Sonis did not request a review pair from us. He had borrowed a pair that his friend purchased.
2. Both the original pair and the pair with replaced drivers on his friend's request were returned to us by his friend.
3. Sonis did not interact with anyone at Audeze nor post questions to us at any point during the review process.
4. Audeze does not have a 'Technical director' so why make up a phone call with a technical director that does not exist? and why will the  'Technical director'  make said 'confession'?
5. We were not contacted tor a response by Sonis, so why say that we refused to respond?

 

At the end of all of this, the bottom-line is Sonis did not like the sound of LCD-4z, that is his prerogative and we respect that. We just take exception the all the drama around it and putting words into the mouth of a  non existent 'Technical director'

 

We have already offered to make a LCD-4z available to @The Computer Audiophile for review.

 

-Karthick