Article: Audeze LCD-4z Review

[kennyb123]

22 minutes ago, ShawnC said:

That's a terrible idea.

 

So any negative review gets a retry.  

 

I couldn’t disagree more.  It demonstrates Audeze’s confidence in their product and their willingness to put their product in the hands of someone who will perform a fair evaluation.

[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.

[kennyb123]

7 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

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

 

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.  

[stuck limo]

@AudezeLLC I recently had the pleasure of listening to the LCD-4z through a dealer in Las Vegas. I ended up loving the headphone and thought it was fantastic in all aspects. My experience with sound quality was 100% the complete opposite of what the reviewer has stated his experience was like. Keep the up the good work and I appreciate you coming onto the forum and clearing up this matter.

[ShawnC]

15 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

 

I couldn’t disagree more.  It demonstrates Audeze’s confidence in their product and their willingness to put their product in the hands of someone who will perform a fair evaluation.

This is why no magazines give bad reviews, so they don't have to do deal with this.  AudezeLLC even said he/they didn't mind a negative review, he was upset about other aspects of the review that were not potentially 100% correct, location of there business and a Technical Director.  Neither has any impact on the review of the headphones themselves. So a new review of the product is useless.  Then to offer more people to review these headphones in hoping to get positive reviews, means they were pretty upset about the negative review of the sound quality after all.  I have nothing against either party here, ultimately Chris will make a decision on AudezeLLC offer.

 

BTW,  If I was looking at headphones in this price range, I would still listen to these and others before I made my decision.  I take all reviews with a grain of salt.

[kennyb123]

4 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I don’t get it. A rose by any other name, and all that. Audeze might not have someone called a Technical Director, but they surely have someone who does that job, no matter what he or she might be called.

 

He relayed in conversation in the first person - that’s the issue - not him screwing up the title.  Had he actually spoken to this person himself, likely he would have gotten this person’s title correct.  

[kennyb123]

13 minutes ago, ShawnC said:

This is why no magazines give bad reviews, so they don't have to do deal with this.  AudezeLLC even said he/they didn't mind a negative review, he was upset about other aspects of the review that were not potentially 100% correct, location of there business and a Technical Director.  Neither has any impact on the review of the headphones themselves. So a new review of the product is useless. 

 

 

 

These errors  provide insight into the reviewer’s credibility and trustworthiness.  

 

True story:  the other day a good friend purchased a Qutest.  It was only afterward that he read Sonis’ review posted here.  I agreed with some of the other commenters that “it does seem odd that (his) findings contradict the majority of other users”: 

 

I suggested to my friend that he “check out some this author’s other posts and reviews to see if he’s worth taking seriously” and voila this review gets posted.  

 

I think we each have to make our own decisions about a reviewer’s credibility.  I’ll say no more on this.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Guys - Let’s take a breather here. Nobody is killing puppies or saving babies.  This is audio. Yes, it’s serious because we all love it, but considering the world today this is a first world problem at its finest. 

 

I’m getting the 4z headphones because I want to know how they sound and another opinion won’t hurt this community. Heck, I may hate them, I may love them. Nobody knows. 

 

Let’s all sit back, relax, and turn up the volume on our favorite albums. 

[ShawnC]

52 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m getting the 4z headphones because I want to know how they sound and another opinion won’t hurt this community. Heck, I may hate them, I may love them. Nobody knows. 

I would think the ones that were reviewed would be the headphones you should try.  If I was the dealer I'd make sure you got a cheery picked pair for your listening pleasure.  Both pairs would be the best test.  Then send em' across the Pond for mansr to test 😉

[rando]

41 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I’m getting the 4z headphones because I want to know how they sound and another opinion won’t hurt this community.

 

Will you be examining the offer to write an article length paper on the subjects detailed in that request as well?

 

Doubt my rivalry with Dr. Scott is under threat of dissipating by agreeing with him.  So obvious was his statement above.  My part (if indeed I did play one) involving Audeze was aimed solely at bringing the accusation towards resolution in a straightforward manner.  

 

Willingness by all parties to submit to testing of the reviewed device and accept the results might still be possible here.  With the forthcoming review sample acting as control.   

 

 

[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!

[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.

 

 

 

[rando]

10 hours ago, MarkS said:

 I don’t think the alleged factual misstatements are material in any regard.

 

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.

[davide256]

19 hours ago, Sonis said:

Nobody from Audeze called ME at anytime, they called the owner of the phones as I have mentioned before.  He is the person who characterized the caller as “The Technical Director”.  But what’s The difference? It’s just a title. Obviously the ‘phone’s owner meant “Some technical guy who had the power and the responsibility to handle problems of this sort.”

I don’t see any reason to make a federal case out of this.

so basically you have no standards for truthful reporting...

[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.

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, davide256 said:

so basically you have no standards for truthful reporting...

So basically you have no standards for putting things into perspective?

 

Come on, your statement is way over the top, as was mine used to illustrate my point. 

[ednaz]

17 hours ago, ShawnC said:

This is why no magazines give bad reviews, so they don't have to do deal with this.  AudezeLLC even said he/they didn't mind a negative review, he was upset about other aspects of the review that were not potentially 100% correct, location of there business and a Technical Director.  Neither has any impact on the review of the headphones themselves. So a new review of the product is useless.  Then to offer more people to review these headphones in hoping to get positive reviews, means they were pretty upset about the negative review of the sound quality after all.  I have nothing against either party here, ultimately Chris will make a decision on AudezeLLC offer.

 

BTW,  If I was looking at headphones in this price range, I would still listen to these and others before I made my decision.  I take all reviews with a grain of salt.

 

I'm with you on this. Many audio media outlets have a standing policy of only publishing positive reviews. Sometimes mixed reviews (I can remember that the Yggy DAC got mixed reviews in a couple of places, generally super positive on listening and not so positive on measurements). But they avoid negative reviews, because silence doesn't threaten ad revenue like a bad review would. And after a few decades as a consumer, and as a consultant to a lot of well regarded companies, I know for certain that no company produces nothing but great products, so over time, with the accumulation of products that weren't great... no advertisers.

 

I've seen the evidence of the "no bad reviews" policy. I've watched as some of the media report on what they've got in the review cycle, and then a review never comes out.  They wouldn't  comment on why, just that they'd decided to not review a product.

 

I'm also sure that any single component's review is highly dependent on the other component's used in the review process. In a case like this, the bad review wouldn't make me run away, particularly if I'd heard the headphones myself and liked them, but it certainly would make me absolutely want to try the product with the gear I'd use with it. It's altogether possible that, for no easily discernible reason, these headphones had a hate/hate relationship with this reviewer's gear.

 

Twice in my life I've had two very well reviewed products, that I'd heard in different systems, sound great in those listening environments but sound awful together. A few years back I upgraded my integrated amp and it made my system sound flat, dull, and muddy - I'd listened to that integrated with four different speakers at the specialty audio retailer - just not MY speakers (since they didn't carry them). Those speakers had sounded great with the two different integrated amps I'd owned over the years before, from two different brands. 

 

So for all of those bemoaning a negative review of headphones they think are amazing - first, think hard about whether you'd rather have people NOT review stuff that they thought was bad, or whether you'd rather have the caution flag raised to warn you to insist on your own testing. And second, if these headphones sound fantastic to you,  it just may be that your system is perfectly suited to them... and then this review should caution you that if you decide to upgrade some component or another, you should only do so after YOU test.

[stuck limo]

10 minutes ago, ednaz said:

I'm also sure that any single component's review is highly dependent on the other component's used in the review process.

 

I listened off Questyle Golden Reference system and a Headamp GS-X mk2 + Chord Qutest, just fwiw.

[DuckToller]

There seems to be a small fault in my fabric of this matrix:

I can't find the post of gmgraves (18h ago) which kennb123 is referring to ? Neither logged in nor logged out. And not on his timeline?
Explanation anyone ? Anything else missing ?
Cheers, Tom
 

kennyb123

Posted 18 hours ago

 18 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I don’t get it. A rose by any other name, and all that. Audeze might not have someone called a Technical Director, but they surely have someone who does that job, no matter what he or she might be called.

 

He relayed in conversation in the first person - that’s the issue - not him screwing up the title.  Had he actually spoken to this person himself, likely he would have gotten this person’s title correct.  

•  

wgscott reacted to this

• Report post

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, DuckToller said:

There seems to be a small fault in my fabric of this matrix:

I can't find the post of gmgraves (18h ago) which kennb123 is referring to ? Neither logged in nor logged out. And not on his timeline?
Explanation anyone ? Anything else missing ?
Cheers, Tom
 

kennyb123

Posted 18 hours ago

 18 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I don’t get it. A rose by any other name, and all that. Audeze might not have someone called a Technical Director, but they surely have someone who does that job, no matter what he or she might be called.

Read more  

 

He relayed in conversation in the first person - that’s the issue - not him screwing up the title.  Had he actually spoken to this person himself, likely he would have gotten this person’s title correct.  

•  

wgscott reacted to this

• Report post

The content of the post was removed by the author shortly after submitting the reply. So, I deleted the empty post. 

[DuckToller]

15 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

The content of the post was removed by the author shortly after submitting the reply. So, I deleted the empty post. 

Thank you, Chris ! 😉

[KDinsmore]

The Ferrari you tested couldn't achieve a zero to 100 time of 4.2 seconds? You clearly do not know how to drive the automobile. You wrote: 'it rode like an old truck"? It is obvious you do not know what "sports car handling" is supposed to feel like.

[Sonis]

20 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

 

He relayed in conversation in the first person - that’s the issue - not him screwing up the title.  Had he actually spoken to this person himself, likely he would have gotten this person’s title correct.  

I don’t see that it is an issue. I’ve explained that my decision to focus the side issues of the ‘phone’s review to one point (just me, rather than me and the unit’s owner) was to avoid reader confusion. That this ploy was less than successful on all fronts, and as a journalistic experiment on my part, an abject failure, is beside the point of the review. That point was that the LCD-4z headphones sounded terrible, and they sounded just as terrible when returned from Audeze’s factory with two new, matched drivers.

While I certainly won’t purposely meld multiple person’s experiences into a first person monologue again because it just doesn’t work, I take great exception to many people here, including you, accusing me of using this literary device to purposely deceive. What reason could anyone purposely have for deceiving the readership for dishonest purposes? What could those purposes conceivably be? I certainly have no Idea. The sequence of events that I relayed were certainly factual, as Audeze themselves have acknowledged. The fact that the interaction with Audeze was done by a third person in no way altered. my conclusions about the performance of the LCD-4z’s which were certainly not altered by any of these side issues. And the confusion about the title of the technical person who handled the owner’s complaint about his ‘phones is, in the final analysis, a tempest in a teapot for which I have apologized.

Finally, hate the messenger if you must, not the message! Caveat Emptor!

[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.

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, Sonis said:

I don’t see that it is an issue. I’ve explained that my decision to focus the side issues of the ‘phone’s review to one point (just me, rather than me and the unit’s owner) was to avoid reader confusion. That this ploy was less than successful on all fronts, and as a journalistic experiment on my part, an abject failure, is beside the point of the review. That point was that the LCD-4z headphones sounded terrible, and they sounded just as terrible when returned from Audeze’s factory with two new, matched drivers.

While I certainly won’t purposely meld multiple person’s experiences into a first person monologue again because it just doesn’t work, I take great exception to many people here, including you, accusing me of using this literary device to purposely deceive. What reason could anyone purposely have for deceiving the readership for dishonest purposes? What could those purposes conceivably be? I certainly have no Idea. The sequence of events that I relayed were certainly factual, as Audeze themselves have acknowledged. The fact that the interaction with Audeze was done by a third person in no way altered. my conclusions about the performance of the LCD-4z’s which were certainly not altered by any of these side issues. And the confusion about the title of the technical person who handled the owner’s complaint about his ‘phones is, in the final analysis, a tempest in a teapot for which I have apologized.

Finally, hate the messenger if you must, not the message! Caveat Emptor!

Reminds me of the Steve Jobs movie. Aaron Sorkin melded Steve’s entire life into his presentation of products. I don’t think anyone is telling Sorkin to take a hike because all the events didn’t actually happen surrounding these presentations. 

 

It’s called creative license. Doesn’t mean making things up, rather making things easier to comprehend or digest for the reader/viewer.