Article: Audeze LCD-4z Review

[Sonis]

54 minutes ago, wgscott said:

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.

Kind of looks that way, doesn’t it? One would think that everyone would just say, “thank you for the heads-up” (weather the reader decides to listen for themselves - which I encourage - or not) and move on.

 

[Sonis]

47 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

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. 

Thank you Chris, you’ve hit the nail on the head. On the other hand, everyone here has the right to take me to task for any breach of etiquette or wrong-doing whether real or imagined!

[kennyb123]

2 hours 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!

 

Yes you’ve made it quite clear you see no reason to let accurate story telling get in the way of the need to trash a product in a review.  I get that.

 

Why deceive?  Well 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.  That’s something that the really good reviewers do.  You even tossed this into the comments:

 

”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.”

 

As such, I was left with the impression that you sought out a senior person at Audeze to seek a response - and they declined. Quite obviously they did no such thing!  And quite obviously you did no such thing.  

 

Nice touch on the “hemming and hawing” remark.  Really makes it seem like you were speaking directly with this guy.  You should get an Oscar for that performance.  Bravo!

[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?  

 

[kumakuma]

30 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

 

Why deceive?  Well 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.  That’s something that the really good reviewers do.  

 

 

I disagree.

 

I think NOT working with the manufacturer is a  better approach:

 

Quote

Most automotive publications evaluate cars and trucks lent to them by manufacturers. But we purchase every vehicle we test from a dealership, just like you do. (Last year we spent over $2 million buying cars.) That way, we can maintain our independence and test cars with the trim and options people actually buy rather than the special versions that manufacturers want to showcase.

 

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars-how-consumer-reports-tests-cars/

[kennyb123]

4 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

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"?

 

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

 

 

I’ve been focusing my comments on the conduct of the reviewer.  I’ve said nothing about their products.

 

What I do care about is people and the harm a bad review can do to them.  Audeze is staffed with real people who have real bills to pay and real mouths to feed.  A bad review can do real harm to these people.  The question then becomes was the review bad because the product was bad?  Or was the review bad because the reviewer did a hack job?  You seem to have made up your mind based on the product’s price tag.

 

And yes, some products at that price point do need to be utilized in a particular way to get the best out of them.  That’s what the good reviews will tell us.  The good reviewers will do some due diligence to at least try to bring the best out of the product.  Check out any of Rajiv’s reviews on this site to see how this is done.  There could not be a greater contrast between two approaches to reviewing.  

[kennyb123]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I disagree.

 

I think NOT working with the manufacturer is a  better approach:

 

 

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars-how-consumer-reports-tests-cars/

 

Boutique products like $4k headphones should be reviewed exactly like consumer reports reviews cars?  That is really funny.  

[wgscott]

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

[kumakuma]

2 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

 

Boutique products like $4k headphones should be reviewed exactly like consumer reports reviews cars?  That is really funny.  

 

Why?

[wgscott]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

Why?

 

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

[The Computer Audiophile]

11 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

 

Boutique products like $4k headphones should be reviewed exactly like consumer reports reviews cars?  That is really funny.  

Interesting comment. Can you explain a little more about your logic? I’m seriously interested. 

[kennyb123]

15 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Why?

 

Because the respective review audiences have very different needs.  More care and nurturing is needed when it comes to boutique headphones. Quoting Audeze from their initial response:

 

“We may not recommend using a phone to drive the LCD-4Z, however we will not hesitate to recommend good mobile DACs such as Hugo 2. LCD-4Z can sound 'loud' out of a phone or other devices, but would scale better with better DACs and amps. When driving headphones with high sensitivity such as LCD-4z, there is a question of synergy. 4Z can easily expose flaws in the upstream gear. For example, components with a high noise floor would cause diminished sound-stage. High sensitivity would require some amps to operate at low gain and if the noise floor of the amp is high, this would result in a lower SNR and the noise is no longer buried in the background.”

 

This kind of input from a manufacturer can be a great starting point for a reviewer.  Knowing this for example, might steer a reviewer away from a match that would not yield the best results.

 

Quite different to hop in a car and put it through a standard set of tests.

 

[kennyb123]

12 minutes ago, wgscott said:

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

 

I guess you haven’t spent much time on head-fi to see what’s important to a person who would be in the market for a $4k headphone.  The fit is one thing, but more important is knowing how well it might perform in the way the buyer would intend to use them.

[kennyb123]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Interesting comment. Can you explain a little more about your logic? I’m seriously interested. 

 

See post 102

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

 

See post 102

That didn’t answer my honest question about why you think a consumer reports style review of a $4,000 headphone isn’t appropriate but it is for a $100,000 Tesla. 

 

Seriously, help me out.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

 

I guess you haven’t spent much time on head-fi to see what’s important to a person who would be in the market for a $4k headphone.  The fit is one thing, but more important is knowing how well it might perform in the way the buyer would intend to use them.

We don’t review stuff here solely for the benefit of the people on Head-Fi. There are all kinds of consumers as you know. 

[kennyb123]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That didn’t answer my honest question about why you think a consumer reports style review of a $4,000 headphone isn’t appropriate but it is for a $100,000 Tesla. 

 

Seriously, help me out.  

 

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.  Those reviews wouldn’t be satisfactory to those in the market for $4000 headphones.

[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.

[kumakuma]

Deleted

[Ralf11]

mmm... actual malice

[kennyb123]

37 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

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.

 

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

[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

 

[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!

[audiobomber]

5 hours ago, wgscott said:

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

 

Is that a fact??? Or simply the preference of this particular reviewer? You seem to believe that the review is negative, therefore it's correct. Clearly everyone does not share the same opinion of these headphones. Sonis' opinion may well be honest, but is it fact? Given you are an objectivist, shouldn't you cite some distortion or FR failing to show how "wretched" the 4Z actually is? Maybe Sonis has been fooled by expectation bias, or has quirky hearing, or different preferences than some others.

 

I've always owned headphones but I've only been serious about headphone audio for the past couple of years. One thing that I find striking about head-fi is the wide variation in opinion over what is phenomenal, and what is trash. Price doesn't seem to enter into it. Partnering gear, hearing biology and personal preference do.