Jump to content
Sonis

Article: Audeze LCD-4z Review

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours 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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sonis said:

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!

Oh, it's real. You misled us regarding your (non-existent) interactions with the manufacturer. Take this thread as a lesson learned and have the grace to bow out now, as Audeze did.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


--

Do facts matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I own a pair of audeze lcd-x but have not heard the 4z. I think sonis is reporting what he heard. Why would he do otherwise? He has nothing to gain by giving a bad review. On the other hand , it is hard to believe that audeze would make such a bad headphone at this price point. Sonis alread said he no problems with the lcd-2 and 3. This leads me to believe that there is something wrong with his friends pair of 4z. Did audeze even listen to the pair that was returned to them before or after the repair? They exchanged the driver but maybe that was not the only problem with the headphones. This speculation but hopefully sonis can listen to the pair sent to Chris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

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.

I've heard the good stuff. You can't get there with a HT receiver.

 

Are you a Marxist? Fine if you are, I'm just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  


--

Do facts matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mitchco said:

@audiobomber thanks for that. Hmmm, something does not seem right. There is a good 13 to 14 dB drop between 1 kHz to 3 kHz and covers across 3 kHz to 7 kHz.

 

fr-lcd4z.png

 

Relatively speaking, a 10 dB increase or drop means that frequency range is perceived as twice as loud or twice as quiet compared to the frequency range next to it. That's a lot.

 

On Audiophile Style, I measured the NAD Viso HP50:

 

NAD Viso HP50.jpeg

 

Much flatter response. My results were consistent with Tyll's and the Harman target curve they were modelled after.

Link to my full review:  

 

 

I am wondering if there was an issue with the measurement rig over at DIY Audio Heaven...? I get excellent results with my setup using SoundProfessional's top of the line in-ear binaural mics.

 

@The Computer Audiophile and @AudezeLLC without stepping on anyone's toes, and if you feel it is worthwhile, I would be happy to measure a pair.

 

Kind regards,

Mitch

 

 

Hi Mitch,

 

DIY Audio Heaven is maintained by Frans, who is @solderdude at ASR. I'm sure he can chime in on his own measurements, but I don't know if he also hangs out here, on AS. Frans is the most helpful person I know,  so I'm sure he'll be able to clarify. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mitchcoLooking up  the DIY Audio Heaven, they state that they use a 'flat bed' DIY rig with no pinna. So, the measurements are likely not going to match a HATS system. But my guess is you may  be able  to compare headphones measured on the same rig relative to each other (with some exceptions, especially with pinna interaction when different ear-pads and positioning are involved). To give some perspective, since you already have the measurement of the NAD VISO HP50, here is their measurement of the NAD VISIO HP50: (https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/measurements/nad-viso-hp50/)

FR HP50

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul, ah, thanks. Yes, Solderdude - good guy for sure. @AudezeLLC thanks for that.

 

I used a blocked in ear approach which is not HATS and using a set of binaural mic's in my own ears that are quite flat, hence the reason why I use this approach and seems to better represent what the actual response of the headphones would be up to about 10 kHz. After 10 kHz, all bets are off due to different shaped pinna's.

 

It is too bad that the headphone industry still does not have a defacto way of measuring headphones that can be related to or deviation from a flat response. In other words, using the approach at solderdude's site, what is flat and how does one compare? And then what is the deviation from flat?  Some sort of normalisation needs to be applied to the raw data or the approach taken if it is not the blocked in ear approach to help relate. Maybe solderdude has already done that, but I have no way of knowing what the deviation from flat is looking at his measurements in this thread.

 

It is figured out in the loudspeaker industry with the free download of ANSI/CEA-2034-A Standard Method of Measurement for In-Home Loudspeakers. It can even predict the in-room response in a typical living room with a high degree of accuracy. Something like that needs to be developed for the headphone industry.

 

Anyway, just a thought and the offer still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


--

Do facts matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The strength of the language used in the review is not consistent with the cost of the headphones, nor with individual variation in sound preferences


"The overwhelming majority [of audiophiles] have very little knowledge, if any, about the most basic principles and operating characteristics of audio equipment. They often base their purchasing decisions on hearsay, and the preaching of media sages. Unfortunately, because of commercial considerations, much information is rooted in increasing revenue, not in assisting the audiophile. It seems as if the only requirements for becoming an "authority" in the world of audio is a keyboard."

-- Bruce Rozenblit of Transcendent Sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2019 at 9:14 PM, wgscott said:

 

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.

I think Audiobomber is right. I remember a CR report on speakers one time where the criterion for quality was the number of times the frequency response graph of the speaker being tested wandered either above or below an arbitrary pair of lines (set, as I recall at +/- 5 dB). The winner was a pair of fairly cheap Marantz mid-Fi speakers. They beat-out A pair of Rogers LS3/5, a pair of fairly large Infinity bookshelf speakers (don’t remember the model), a pair of Proac Tablette speakers and several more that I don’t recall at all.

What I do recall, was that the “winning”  Marantz speaker model in question was surely the poorest sounding of the lot and the pair with the best ACTUAL sound, the Rogers, (a pair of which I owned, at the time), were given the lowest ranking.

These are also the people who disqualified the original Koss electrostatic headphones as being unsafe, because they had a decorative aluminum ring circling each plastic ear-cup. CR’s reasoning was that there was around 600 volts inside the closed-back cup in the driver enclosure. The fact that there was no way for the 600 volts INSIDE  the totally closed headphones to touch the cosmetic aluminum band OUTSIDE the cup even if the phones were ostensibly immersed in salt water never seemed to enter this decision in any way shape or form!

These and a few questionable camera and automotive reviews, completely undermined my confidence in the competence of CR’s ability to properly review anything that I knew anything about. If they couldn’t get HiFi right, cameras right, or sports cars right (all things that I figured that I knew at least as much about as they did) then, how could I trust them about things I didn’t know about like toaster ovens, electric mixers and vacuum cleaners?

Haven’t looked at a CR since. Maybe they’ve changed, but I wouldn’t trust them until they proved themselves over a long haul. Not about to spend the dough to give them that trial.


George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sonis said:

Yeah, I have quirky hearing.

I don't know anything about your hearing, or preferences. I know that headphone preferences are highly individual. I love my Grado GH4 and Beyerdynamic DT 1990 Pro headphones. Some people cannot tolerate them.

 

I find the revered HD 650 boring, coloured and threadbare. I owned a pair of Koss Pro 4AA, and consider them simply horrible; coarse details, lacking in transparency and air. It is very difficult for me to imagine that the 4Z slots below the Pro 4AA, which IIRC you said somewhere.

 

I will be watching the next chapter of this story with interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...