Article: Audeze LCD-4z Review

[The Computer Audiophile]

10 minutes ago, rando said:

@The Computer Audiophile this plan appears to avoid both headphones being in one location for testing to settle the disputed claims.  

 

What if anything am I missing?

One step at a time. We will cross bridges if needed. 

[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?

 

[rando]

15 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

One step at a time. We will cross bridges if needed. 

 

So what is the second in this two step around?

 

You put your left foot in and shook it all about.  Do you next take it out?  Hokey reasoning and then pokey investigating? 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, rando said:

 

So what is the second in this two step around?

 

You put your left foot in and shook it all about.  Do you next take it out?  Hokey reasoning and then pokey investigating? 

It's all under control, except if you think of some wacky scenario where we need 10 pairs of the 4z in order to generate an average listening and measurement score. 

 

Relax. It's all taken care of. People won't be disappointed in our final methodology, but some will never be satisfied with whatever they wish.

[Ralf11]

it's not the average score that is so critical; it's the 95% Confidence Intervals around the averages...

 

 

(or for audiophiles, 99% - no wait!!  we need Six Sigma!)

[rando]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Relax. It's all taken care of. People won't be disappointed in our final methodology

 

You're right, my interest is waning.  

 

At least in the car racket you get two other supercars Ferrari is holding up the big story being written on.  Months in who cares if one goes up against itself.  Chances are better than good a new variant shows up in the meanwhile anyways.  

[KDinsmore]

Wasn't there a whole debate when the LCD-4 was released about sound sig and disparity between supposedly the same phones'? Also blown driver debate? I tried a cursory look at forums with nada but it comes to mind. 

Audeze definitely need a damage control rep. At their level this shouldn't have even bothered them. If they had a problem then send a bunch of phones out to parties concerned to make double sure. I've owned my LCD 2.2's for years and love them but my big question would still be are they worth a $3000 (retail-you can get these either used or new for around $2500 or less: that alone gives me pause) premium over what I own>

[Graham Luke]

This is extraordinary given the history of this well-respected manufacturer. But then look at the HD 800; it took the 800s to correct the bizarre oversight in the original.

[rossb]

I cannot imagine what is wrong with Sonis's LCD4Zs to be able to review them this badly.

 

I own a pair of LCD4Z. I also have the LCD4, and have owned the LCD3 and LCD-X. I have HD800s and have owned HD800S and Focal Utopias. I have three pairs of Noble custom IEMs and two pairs of JH Audios. I have some Mr Speakers Ether Flow. I have Sennheiser HD580s, 600s and 650s. I have owned more headphones than I can count over the last 20-30 years.

 

The LCD4Z sound fantastic. I sold my Focal Utopia because I preferred the 4Z. Ditto the HD800S., The only headphones I like better are the LCD4, but they are not always practical because they are harder to drive. The LCD4Z sound nothing like the way they are described in this review.

 

There is either something fundamentally wrong with the review sample or there is something fundamentally wrong with Sonis's hearing. In either case this should have been checked before it became a front page review on a reputable website.

[Sonis]

15 hours ago, rossb said:

I cannot imagine what is wrong with Sonis's LCD4Zs to be able to review them this badly.

 

I own a pair of LCD4Z. I also have the LCD4, and have owned the LCD3 and LCD-X. I have HD800s and have owned HD800S and Focal Utopias. I have three pairs of Noble custom IEMs and two pairs of JH Audios. I have some Mr Speakers Ether Flow. I have Sennheiser HD580s, 600s and 650s. I have owned more headphones than I can count over the last 20-30 years.

 

The LCD4Z sound fantastic. I sold my Focal Utopia because I preferred the 4Z. Ditto the HD800S., The only headphones I like better are the LCD4, but they are not always practical because they are harder to drive. The LCD4Z sound nothing like the way they are described in this review.

 

There is either something fundamentally wrong with the review sample or there is something fundamentally wrong with Sonis's hearing. In either case this should have been checked before it became a front page review on a reputable website.

You aren’t paying attention, apparently. 

1) There couldn’t be anything fundamentally wrong with the review sample, because it was sent back to the manufacturer (Audeze) and completely rebuilt with new matched drivers. Audeze thought that the returned  LCD-4zs met their specifications when they were returned. The phones, before going back to Audeze and after coming back from Audeze sounded identical!

2) If there is something wrong with my hearing, then the same thing is wrong with the LCD-4z’s owner, because we found virtually the same flaws with the Audeze headphones.

3) If the LCD-4zs sound fantastic, then real music sounds bad as do the Sennheiser HD-800s, the HiFiMan HE-1000, the Edition X’s, the HiFiMan Anadas, the HiFiMan Jade 2 electrostatics, the Mr. Speakers Voce electrostatics, and the Audeze Isine 20’s. The chances of all these headphones sounding bad and the LCD-4z being the only pair in the group that sound good, is basically between zero and none at all.

I do a lot of location recording. I know what live music sounds like. Live music does not have shrill, distorted treble, the LCD-4zs do. Real music does not have midrange that sounds like one is listening to music through a pillow, the Audeze LCD-4z does. 

Finally, Chris has the “review sample” LCD-4zs and the Audeze owner’s Sennheiser HD-800s. When he chimes-in with his opinion, we’ll find out if he agrees with my findings about these phones, or he will agree with those who think that distorted highs, muffled midrange, and loose bass is what real, live music sounds like.

[Veovis]

I don't disagree with the review. I have never listened to any Audeze headphones and probably never will. It's the premise of and facts in your review that have a million wrongs. And if you (and more importantly Chris) can't see that I don't want to be a number in this site's list of subscribers.

[Veovis]

20 minutes ago, Veovis said:

I don't disagree with the review. I have never listened to any Audeze headphones and probably never will. It's the premise of and facts in your review that have a million wrongs. And if you (and more importantly Chris) can't see that I don't want to be a number in this site's list of subscribers.

Just to clarify this was in response to Sonis saying I was angry because he/she thought I disagree with his/her review after me calling the review a travesty. My and his/her posts were deleted by someone who could. I have made two requests the last few days to have my account deleted with nothing happening. Go figure.

[kennyb123]

4 hours ago, Sonis said:

Finally, Chris has the “review sample” LCD-4zs and the Audeze owner’s Sennheiser HD-800s. When he chimes-in with his opinion, we’ll find out if he agrees with my findings about these phones, or he will agree with those who think that distorted highs, muffled midrange, and loose bass is what real, live music sounds like.

 

It’s great that someone else will get a chance to hear these.  But this will put Chris in a tough spot if he disagrees with your assessment.  

 

Better that he hands it over to another AS member who can call it as he hears without having to be concerned with the implications whereas Chris would have to be concerned with the implications of potentially throwing one of his reviewers under the bus.

[The Computer Audiophile]

26 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

 

It’s great that someone else will get a chance to hear these.  But this will put Chris in a tough spot if he disagrees with your assessment.  

 

Better that he hands it over to another AS member who can call it as he hears without having to be concerned with the implications whereas Chris would have to be concerned with the implications of potentially throwing one of his reviewers under the bus.

I hear your concern but don’t share it. I have no issue calling it like I hear it. Sonis is a big boy as is Audeze and can handle any outcome. 

 

This is the subjective part and nobody can be wrong by definition. If I say these are the best headphones I’ve ever heard, it’s just another opinion. If I agree with Sonis, it’s just another opinion in agreement with him. 

 

I’m most interested to listen to these headphones, not to prove anything but rather out of curiosity and a responsibility to the AS readers. 

[rossb]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

This is the subjective part and nobody can be wrong by definition. If I say these are the best headphones I’ve ever heard, it’s just another opinion. If I agree with Sonis, it’s just another opinion in agreement with him. 

 

 

Of course someone can be wrong. It is subjective whether someone likes the headphones or not. But "distorted highs, muffled midrange and loose bass" are objective facts, not personal preference.

 

And unless there is something wrong with the review sample - quite possible since Audeze disclaim all knowledge of it - this contradicts the overwhelming majority of user experience and reviews. In other words, it is just wrong. 

 

 

[kumakuma]

7 minutes ago, rossb said:

 

And unless there is something wrong with the review sample - quite possible since Audeze disclaim all knowledge of it 

 

 

 

I'm not sure I understand this point. The company in Point 5 of their response clearly said that they replaced the drivers in the headphones and returned them to their owner.  

[The Computer Audiophile]

36 minutes ago, rossb said:

 

Of course someone can be wrong. It is subjective whether someone likes the headphones or not. But "distorted highs, muffled midrange and loose bass" are objective facts, not personal preference.

 

And unless there is something wrong with the review sample - quite possible since Audeze disclaim all knowledge of it - this contradicts the overwhelming majority of user experience and reviews. In other words, it is just wrong. 

 

 

Perhaps you missed my use of the word subjective when you said “... are objective facts.” 

 

People hear what they hear. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about sound and it can’t be wrong. If Sonis think the bass is loose, it’s loose to him. 

 

I don’t get why people are up in arms over a subjective opinion. 

[rossb]

Chris, I didn't miss your use of "subjective", I was specifically responding to it.

 

I'm very far from being an audio objectivist. But some things are just objective facts. The frequency response of a pair of headphones is one of those things. The Sennheiser HD800, for example, have a peaky treble - this is an objective fact. If someone reports that they have a rolled-off, warm treble, that would just be factually wrong even if that is their genuine opinion. 

 

"Distorted highs" for the LCD4z is a statement of fact. If there is distortion in the high frequencies it should be measurable, and audible to most people. But no one else has reported this. 

 

As it happens, I don't really care for the Sennheiser HD800S, and that is my subjective opinion. But I would never question that objectively it is a very good pair of headphones and has many strengths for a lot of people.

 

I really don't mind that Sonis didn't like the the LCD4z. That is his prerogative. My objection is not to his dislike of the headphones, but to this travesty of a review.  The conclusion that these headphones sound "wretched" and worse than cheap, entry level headphones is beyond ridiculous and calls into question the credibility of the reviewer and the venue hosting the review.

 

I should add for completeness that I have absolutely no affiliation with Audeze, beyond owning and liking some of their headphones, along with many other brands. 

[Sonis]

2 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

 

It’s great that someone else will get a chance to hear these.  But this will put Chris in a tough spot if he disagrees with your assessment.  

 

Better that he hands it over to another AS member who can call it as he hears without having to be concerned with the implications whereas Chris would have to be concerned with the implications of potentially throwing one of his reviewers under the bus.

No it won’t put Chris in a tough spot. If he agrees with me (which I expect), it means that my assessment of these phones as being very poor performers (especially for the money) was spot on. If he disagrees, it means that my assessment of these phones is merely my opinion. This is unlikely. I don’t see how I could find other phones like the Sennheiser HD-800s or the various HiFiMan planar-magnetic models or models such as the Mr. Speakers “Voce” electrostatics or the HiFiMan Jade 2 electrostatics to be so consonant with the sound of music while I found these Audeze planar-magnetic so inconsonant with the sound of real music (of which I hear a lot). But, if it is just my opinion, then something is still wrong, but since I have no axe to grind vis-a-vis Audeze, not now, not ever, I don’t know what that could be.

[kennyb123]

1 hour ago, rossb said:

I really don't mind that Sonis didn't like the the LCD4z. That is his prerogative. My objection is not to his dislike of the headphones, but to this travesty of a review.  The conclusion that these headphones sound "wretched" and worse than cheap, entry level headphones is beyond ridiculous and calls into question the credibility of the reviewer and the venue hosting the review.. 

 

It was brought to my attention that there was another write-up where Audeze LCD-4 headphones were said to sound “wretched”.  Weird how closely George’s narrative tracks with what Sonis conveyed in his review.  

 

 

[rando]

Yes, the discussion was quite levelheaded.  

[Sonis]

6 hours ago, rossb said:

 

Of course someone can be wrong. It is subjective whether someone likes the headphones or not. But "distorted highs, muffled midrange and loose bass" are objective facts, not personal preference.

 

And unless there is something wrong with the review sample - quite possible since Audeze disclaim all knowledge of it - this contradicts the overwhelming majority of user experience and reviews. In other words, it is just wrong. 

 

 

What do you mean “Audeze disclaim all knowledge of it” ? The phones were returned to Audeze who rebuilt them with new drivers. How can Audeze disclaim knowledge of a pair of phones that they themselves rebuilt? without any one mentioning any names in the review, Audeze even knew who the owner was. Sorry, but I think you need to enroll in some remedial reading skill classes.😉

[Sonis]

7 hours ago, Veovis said:

I don't disagree with the review. I have never listened to any Audeze headphones and probably never will. It's the premise of and facts in your review that have a million wrongs. And if you (and more importantly Chris) can't see that I don't want to be a number in this site's list of subscribers.

There is a simple solution to your “dilemma”. If you don’t like it here,  just don’t read this forum or post to it. Since it is a free forum, there is really no need for you to formally quit. 

[Norton]

3 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

Weird how closely George’s narrative tracks with what Sonis conveyed in his review.  

 

They do appear similar, both in narrative (so bad could be defective,  returned to Audeze etc) and through the use of the term “wretched”, which is certainly distinctive phraseology for an audio review.  

 

On the other hand, maybe it’s simply that the nature of the phones is such that 2 reviewers do come independently to the same conclusions. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

As noted by others via email and PM, Sonis is a pseudonym used by George when he writes reviews for us. I would never reveal the identity of a writer that asks to remain anonymous. In this case George did it himself and I was notified that this was the case (LINK). 

 

In the interest of making sure people have facts and don't mistake one person's opinion for two separate opinions, I needed to make sure everyone else understood the details here, not just those who sent me emails and PMs.