Article: Subjective: Audeze LCD-4z Headphone Review

[Sonis]

I want to thank Chris for taking the time and the considerable effort to give a critical listen to the Audeze LCD-4z headphones. Of course, I’m delighted that Chris and I found an almost identical sonic signature to these phones, and vindication of my findings, is, on a personal level, very satisfying. Like I have said to my critics all along, I have no axe to grind with Audeze, the manufacturer of these headphones, and, in fact, in the past, I have heard a number of Audeze’s headphone models and found them to be exemplary of what a high-end phone pair should be: comfortable, well made using the best materials, and, most importantly (for me, anyway) sounding very much like real music! That the LCD-4z model does not meet the goal of “sounding like real music” is unfortunate, and at $4000, a price point where there are many jaw-dropping headphone models from which to choose, this failure is all the more troubling. I wrote my negative review of these phones because I felt that the Audiophile Style community needed to be warned that if they bought these phones, they’re going to be disappointed. These days with most purchases in audio being done on the Internet due to the decline in brick-and-mortar stores, audio buyers need all the information that they can get to make a wise and satisfying purchase. Hopefully, Audeze will see clear to introduce a v.2 version of the LCD-4z, and perhaps these will actually sound like a $4000 headphone.

[Sonis]

3 hours ago, audiobomber said:

@The Computer Audiophile Any plan to review the Benchmark DAC3? If you aren't interested, maybe another reviewer would take a crack at it, @austinpop, @mitchco, @Sonis?

I had one for a while last summer (2018). Compared directly to the Schiit Yiggy (which is a “ladder DAC” while the DAC3 is a single-bit, Delta-Sigma DAC), I found the Benchmark to be lacking in detail, and rather homogenous. Not bad, you understand, just not as good as either the Yiggy or the Chord Hugo2. I have an Oppo  UDP-205 Blu-Ray/media player and it too (like the Benchmark) uses the ESS SabreDAC Pro DAC (although the Oppo supposedly uses a more advanced model). I found that they sound very similar.

[Sonis]

1 hour ago, audiobomber said:

The Yigg and Hugo2 are not under consideration, as neither operates as a preamp. 

Remind me again where I asserted that they did operate as a preamp? The Benchmark is primarily noted as a DAC with a headphone amp. The fact that it has a couple of line-level inputs does not, in my humble opinion, a “preamp” make.

[Sonis]

2 hours ago, audiobomber said:

You said nothing about preamp operation. I was merely clarifying the fact that my short list only includes DAC/preamps only, as I've sold my preamp. The DAC's you preferred to the DAC3 are not under consideration. 

 

The DAC3 has analog and digital inputs, gain control and multiple outputs. According to the manufacturer: "Benchmark DAC1, DAC2, and DAC3 converters are designed to directly drive power amplifiers and speakers." 

Please explain how that is not a preamp.

In your previous post on the subject, neither did you. You merely asked if one of us was going to review the Benchmark3. I responded that I had already evaluated one (as a DAC/headphone amp), and found it not my cup of tea. The manufacturer can call it anything they like, but it’s not enough of a pre-amp for me. The couple of line-level inputs on some Benchmark models looks to me like almost an afterthought. I mean, even Benchmark calls it a DAC3, not a “Preamp3”.

[Sonis]

22 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

 

The Hugo 2 includes a remote control and can be used to directly drive an amp.  

True, but without any line-level or phono inputs, it can’t be considered a “pre-amp” which seems to be what Audiobomber is on about!

[Sonis]

1 hour ago, audiobomber said:

Thanks for the info but not enough inputs for my system. I don't need an analog input but it would be nice to have. I do need two Toslink inputs, one coax and USB. 

 

Here's an opinion that contrasts with @Sonis: The Hugo 2 doesn't quite deliver the best sound in this price range – that would be the incredible Benchmark DAC3 HGC. The Benchmark delivers that sound at a lower price - $2,195, a good $500 cheaper than the Hugo."

https://www.themasterswitch.com/review-chord-hugo-2

 

The DAC3 is listed A+ by Stereophile, with the Dave. The Hugo 2 is not listed, the TT is rated Class A.

 

It's difficult to assess the SQ situation without being able to home trial (I live in a smaller city, a long way from the action).

We must have vastly different ideas about what sounds good. I have spent many weeks listening to both the Benchmark DAC3 and the Hugo2. The Hugo2 resolves things in my own recordings that the Benchmark doesn’t even see, much less resolve. For instance, in my own recording of Ravel’s ‘Daphnis Et Chloe’ complete ballet with full symphony orchestra and full chorus, the Hugo2 allows the listener to separate individual voices from the chorus, while the DAC3 just reproduces it as a monolithic mass. This is a major step up in resolving power. It is also easier for the Hugo2 to separate individual voices in the orchestra. For instance there is more space between the oboe and the cor anglais, than there is with the DAC3. The triangle sparkles over the left side of the orchestra, like it’s floating above the percussion section -just like it does in a live concert. With the DAC3, the triangle is merely on the extreme left. I have to be honest here, I have listened to this true stereo recording many times, and frankly, Before I heard it on the Hugo2, I was totally unaware that these details had even been captured by the original recording!

People’s tastes are different, of course, bu when you say that the DAC3 is a better DAC than the Hugo2, you are just wrong, my friend!

[Sonis]

12 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

 

This time, Sonis, I’m in full agreement with you.  

 

I have a strong preference for Chord DACs as they align perfectly with my preferences.  I want to experience musicians playing live for me in my room.  Chord’s focus on achieving superb time domain performance comes closer to my target than any of the ESS DACs that I’ve heard - and that includes the Benchmark DAC 3.

 

I know some folks have a preference for the Benchmark sound.  When reading positive reviews consider why the reviewer liked it and see if his likes align with yours.

 

I stopped reading Stereophile when they gave the Benchmark DAC 1 a Class A+ rating.  I had borrowed one and found it painful to listen to.  It was not at all musical.  But that was just me.

Giving full allowance for differences in “taste”, my comments, vis-a -vis, the Chord Hugo 2 vs the Benchmark DAC3, have nothing to do with taste. When one component lets the listener hear things in a recording that another, similar component completely misses, then the former component is simply better at its job than the latter one. If one has two amps, and one has so much distortion that the sound is just this “blob” of ill defined sound while the other amp lets you hear everything in the music, is it really a matter of taste as to which amp is best? Of course not. And it’s the same with these two DACs. One is clearly superior, because it allows the listener to hear deeper into the music.

[Sonis]

3 hours ago, Kozwoz said:

I was really keen on purchasing the Audeze 4z before I read Sonis review and this one. What I find baffling is that there is a general consensus that the 4z sounds similar to the LCD-4. I say general consensus because i've now spent countless hours reading reviews and impressions of the 4z and people seems to think they sound similar. Even Audeze claim that they sound similar and they are in fact based on the LCD-4. Yet most people would not describe the LCD-4 the way you and Sonis have described the 4z. Is it not likely then this pair is defective? I can say with confidence having done so much reading around 4z that your impressions do not align with the general public. I'm certainly not saying however that you are not hearing what your are. 

 

Would it not have been better to audition a new pair of Audeze 4z? By reviewing the same pair you have vindicated Sonis and his review of the 4z and thats great an all... But If you had reviewed a new pair sent by Audeze (which they've offered to send you) at least we can know whether Sonis pair sounds as it should. This would be been much better me thinks. 

 

Personally I have listened to the LCD-4 at gatherings countless times and never would I describe it as shrill, having loose bass, lacking in detail, sloppy sounding. Yet going back to my point from my extensive reading most people seem to agree that the LCD-4 and 4z sound similar. How is this so? If anyone has an explanation I would love to hear it. 

If you read both reviews, then you know that the pair of LCD-4Zs in question were returned to Audeze early in the process and were completely overhauled with brand new, closely matched drivers and that the newly-rebuilt phones sounded exactly like they did before they were returned to the factory! Also, the pair of phones that were measured by "mitchco" and posted by Chris as the objective review, was a different pair, and showed a frequency response graph that pretty much tracks with what both Chris and I heard. In other words,  in spite of other reviews, OUR findings are pretty much exactly what this model of phones sounds like!  

If you want to spend that kind of money on headphones, there are plenty of other makes and models that sound like music (and most of them don't cost anything like the $4000 that Audeze wants for the LCD4-Zs! I recommend that you audition the HiFiMan HE-1000se, for $3500, or for an incredible listening experience, the HiFiMan Jade 2 electrostatic system for $2400. Even the HifIMan Ananda's at just under $1000 is light-years ahead of the LCD-4Zs in terms of SQ! There are also several models of Mr. Speakers dynamic 'phones that are excellent as are the Abyss AB-1266 Phi for $4995 or the Abyss Dianas for around $4000. 

In short, I don't see how one could spend more and get less than to buy a pair of Audeze LCD4Z headphones (although I heard a pair of LCD-3s at a HiFi show once and thought that they sounded like real music). My advice, is to keep looking. You'll find something that fits your private listening needs perfectly, and you may not have to spend $4000 to get i the sound you require. 

[Sonis]

8 hours ago, Kozwoz said:

It would be great to get your take on the LCD-4 - Sonis and The Computer Audiophile. The LCD-4 is widely accepted as a great headphone although as you say Sonis i'm sure there also other headphones that have better sound quality for the price. As the 4z is based on LCD-4 it would make sense that you have similar impressions... I think the LCD-4 is a great headphone and I can personally attest to that having spent many hours listening to them. You only have to walk around a Canjam meet and you can see how many amp and dac manufacturers are using the LCD-4 to demo their own equipment. Audiophiles such as yourself wouldn't have to look far to get your hands on a pair at one of these gatherings and I encourage you to audition them. If it is the case LCD-4 and 4z are vastly different then that would make Audeze blatant liars and also from what i've read the general Audeze community that agree that they are in fact similar. In which case everyone should question their faith in such a company. If however your impressions of the LCD-4 are the same - sloppy sounding, lacking in detail, loose bass and so on... then I would have a strong difference of opinion with you and I think you would be going against the grain as most do agree the LCD-4 is a great sounding headphone. 

 

 

The problem here is that where I live, there are no audio dealers, there are no HiFi shows, and there are no can-jams! The nearest places where such things might be found (except for the audio shops) would be either Sacramento, CA (I believe that there are two audio dealers there. They are over a hundred miles away), San Francisco (250 miles away), Salt Lake City, (300 miles away) or, Las Vegas - in January for the CES (400 miles away). So, the only way I could get my hands on a pair of LCD-4s would be for some-one to send me a pair. I can tell you right now someone who probably won’t be sending a pair to either Chris or myself, and that’s Audeze! Can’t blame ‘em though, as we seem to be the only two reviewers who had the chutzpah to come out and say that the emperor had no clothes.

[Sonis]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Actually this is incorrect. Audeze has been really great in all of this and very open with communication. The company has already sent us another pair of headphones for review. I have a lot of respect for Audeze after all this. 

 

 

This seems to be the case unfortunately. I stand by my thoughts on the 4z. I’m 100% confident in my subjective opinion of the headphones. The faults were very easy to hear. This wasn’t a case of making a mountain out of a mole hill. It really was night and day. 
 

I look forward to Josh’s review Of a new headphone from Audeze in the coming weeks. 

Ok. Maybe they’d ship a pair of LCD-4 to YOU but I doubt if they’d ship to me, but if you want to try to get a pair to me (without the “Z”, of course), I’d be happy to compare them to Ted’s LCD-4z (he still has them), for contrast. Might be interesting to do while I still have the $7000 LTA Z10e OTL electrostatic/dynamic headphone amplifier! Your call, though.

[Sonis]

3 hours ago, k-man said:

@Sonis Are you doing a review of this? 

Can’t say, but stay tuned!

[Sonis]

8 hours ago, skatbelt said:

 

As with speakers and other TOTL stuff, in the end it is all subjective and comes down to taste. If you like the sound of Magico, YG acoustics or Raidho, you won't like Vandersteen, Harbeth or Devore and vice versa. Do you search for musicality and emotion or do you care for a pinpoint soundstage, perfect separation and listen more analytical? With headphones these differences are even more apparent because the interference with the room is out of the equation. Then you have the factor of upstream gear and music sources. Good headphones will reveal weak spots in these areas but these weak spots can easily be mistaken for flaws in the headphones themselves.

 

Your subjective review basically says that you like the more analytical approach of the Sennheiser which is perfectly fine for me. And I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome of your assessment would be even more subtle if Sonis's 'review' never happened but this we will never know. Above this - no offence - I don't attach much value to your opinion on headphones because I think I read between the lines that you don't have a lot of experience and interest in this field.

 

I found the objective review informative but the big problem (in general) with frequency response measurements based on sine waves is: we humans don't listen to sine waves, we listen to complex sound waves. Back to the speaker analogy, if a speaker measures perfect in an anechoic environment it is absolutely no guarantee that it will sound good in normal listening environments. Also, with headphones, there are a lot of factors that are really hard the objectify in measurements. The material structure of ear-pads alone can already make a big difference in how a headphone sounds.

 

 

Well, there is subjective and there is subjective. Sure, people like different things, and certainly there is no accounting for taste. But, when somebody tells you that they listen to a ghetto blaster boom-box and believe that it is the best sound possible at any price, one has to wonder about this person’s hearing, or at least his qualifications for his rather odd opinion. Most people have two types of opinions. Some are informed, and some are uninformed. If someone tells you that they hate Mexico, but you find out that they have never even been there, nor have they ever known anyone who has been there, then, that is surely an uninformed opinion. Another person with the same opinion who, on a trip to Mexico, was abducted by members of a drug cartel, and barely got away with his life, has formed that informed opinion based on experience.

My opinion of the LCD-4Z is based on many years of listening to reproduced music. I’ve heard and owned literally hundreds of pairs of headphones. As a recording engineer, I have used headphones to monitor what I’m recording for more than 30 years. I know what live music sounds like and I strive for accuracy with all the equipment I use, whether for recording live music or playback. There is an old saying: “Opinions are like anuses, everybody has one”. But as I said, some opinions are informed and some aren’t. You need to ask yourself which type are more important, which should be taken seriously, and which should be taken with a  grain of salt?

Ultimately, it’s up to you to decide who’s opinions to believe, but I strongly suggest that whichever reviews you choose to believe, that you listen closely and critically to the LCD-4Z before you decide to plunk-down four big ones for a pair. I really think that you will find, as did I, that they are the worst sounding so-called “high-end” headphones that you have ever heard. Good luck! 😃

[Sonis]

1 hour ago, skatbelt said:

@The Computer Audiophile and @mitchco thanks for taking the time to respond. It would be hypocritical to thank @Sonis because I don't feel like doing so. He keeps repeating himself and hammering on the 4K price point while I pointed out already a few times that I have spent enough time with the LCD-4z to know its characteristics, its value and its position in the field of higher end cans.

 

For all you guys, there isn't a lot of difference between te sound character of the LCD-4z and LCD-4 when both are driven with synergetic upstream gear. They excel and have almost no competition in low end definition and impact, have a very smooth midrange and are non-fatiguing in the highs. They are not as airy as some competitors. Dark sounding is a term that is often used but to me this is not a negative aspect. Especially for longer periods of listening. So here is where taste comes in. I also think this is a deliberate choice Audeze made. Call it their house sound. And with good quality PEQ software one can alter these characteristics anyway without real compromises. True to the source is a very difficult concept. Sound staging even more, especially with headphone listening. Cross-feed compensation can help somewhat. And binaural material but this is scarce and mostly only available on an experimental basis.

 

I stated earlier that I would take the LCD-4z without hesitation over my own LCD-3 (fazor version) if I had the funds at the moment. And this is the area were I feel a lot of friction: Sonis - in one of the comments on his own 'review' - mentioned that he found the LCD-3's to sound excellent. His exact words. The general opinion (as well as mine) is that the LCD-4/4z deliver all the qualities and characteristics of the LCD-3 but on a even higher level. 

 

@mitchco: I did not listen to the music samples but I will in the upcoming days. To put things into perspective I attached the FR graphs of the HD-800S and the Hifiman HE1000 (one of Sonis favourites). As you can see, both not really Harman TC schoolbook performers as well.... I don't know the exact level of smoothing that was applied but my impression is that is more or less the same as in the graph you posted.

 

 

HD-800S (left and right channels)

 

 

Hifiman HE-1000 (left and right channels)

 

 

 

 

 

Look, if you like the sound of your phones to be shrill and distorted in the highs and to sound like a $2 pair of ear-buds everywhere else, then buy the LCD4-Z and be happy with them. Your insistence that these awful phones are good means only one thing to me: that your idea of high-fidelity sound reproduction and mine are light-years apart! I think they’re terrible, Chris thinks they’re terrible, the man who bought the pair thinks that they’re terrible and so does his 18-year old son. Other friends of mine also agree. I guess it takes all kinds, and frankly, I’m past caring that you don’t agree with my assessment of this fraudulent product. My evaluation was accurate and I stand by it. Chris’s evaluation mirrors mine and Mitchco’s measurements back up what the rest of us heard to a surprising degree. End of story.

[Sonis]

3 hours ago, Kozwoz said:

I don't really see how things add up here... You found the LCD-3 to sound excellent yet the LCD-4 is widely regarded as a better sounding headphone than the LCD-3 and the LCD-4 sounds very similar to the Audeze 4z. This doesn't make sense. 

 

@Sonis your over dramatisation and use of language is poor. I have no issue with you not liking the Audeze 4z but comparing them to a $2 pair of ear-buds is not constructive. You can say you don't care all you want but you're just as bad as the people that don't take you seriously. Without trying to sound patronising please try and keep it together as someone that represents this website and community. 

 

 

All I have to say is that I’m tired of people doubting my veracity, my integrity, and my conclusions with regard to these headphones. I am not here to make people like you feel all warm and fuzzy inside about products you personally like. I’m here to offer my opinion and personal insight into audio components that I review. If my conclusions differ from others, then that’s too bad. Ultimately it is what it is. I am also not obligated to get into these pissing contests with people who do not agree with me. But I will offer this: it is my considered conclusion that anyone who thinks the LCD-4z sounds accurate to the sound of music simply does not know what real music sounds like, and that, in and of itself, is very sad.

In conclusion, I’d like to remind you that I heard the LCD-3 at a Hi-Fi show, under show conditions and I found nothing wrong with them during that brief encounter. I do not remember saying that they were “excellent”. In fact I said that I thought they sounded like “music”. But then, I listened for 5 minutes, to music with which I was unfamiliar, so you should take that opinion with a grain of salt. Also, if you do not like either my conclusions (which I strongly stand by) or my writing style, I have a suggestion for you. Don’t read me! ‘Nuff said.

[Sonis]

On 11/7/2019 at 6:08 AM, skatbelt said:

 

You are not integer and honest: 

 

And calling the LCD-4z a fraudulent product. Wow!

 

I don’t know what “integer” means in this context. I wasn’t going to respond to your latest hate-fest at all, but you caught an error by me. When I wrote that I borrowed a pair of LCD-3s and thought them great, I was wrong. I had confused the sound of the LCD-2s which I had heard at the 2012 Dagogo San Francisco Hi-Fi show with the sound of the LCD-3s that I heard at the 2013 show. It was the LCD-2s that I was able to borrow back then from a local HiFi shop, not the LCD-3s (confusing, eh?). Anyway, thanks to my “archiving” of all of my reviews and show reports, I was able to go back and straighten it out. I will now go to my computer (I’m on my iPad here), and post the excerpt from my 2013 show report that covers the LCD-3.

"The most interesting headphone exhibit, from a sound quality perspective, was for Audeze, the US manufacturer of a high-end line of isodynamic headphones. These phones work like Magneplanar speakers for the ears and as such are similar in concept to the Hi-FiMan ‘phones reviewed in these pages last year. While the sound was similar, it was obvious that the Audeze LCD3’s were in a whole ‘nuther class. They are certainly cleaner sounding than the HE-400’s I tested and also seemed cleaner than the HE-500’s that I was able to audition and another table at the show as well. They also have more and better bass than any phones I’ve ever heard. The build quality on the Audeze LCD3 is extremely good as well, with ear-cups fashioned from exotic Zebrano wood with lambskin leather ear-pads. They are not cheap at almost $2000 a pair, but these are the first phones I’ve ever heard that could give the fabulous and fabulously expensive Stax SR-009 Electrostatic Ear Speakers an honest run for their money. At less than half the cost of the Stax (without the required dedicated amp), and not requiring a dedicated amp/energizer to power them, they certainly are a lot less expensive and a lot more flexible than are Stax phones with very similar – that is to say – excellent, audio performance."

 

And believe me, they didn't sound ANYTHING like the LCD-4z! One's sonic memory is not all that specific or all that good, for that matter, but I'm more than certain that if the LCD-3 and the LCD-4z had sounded anything alike, I certainly wouldn't have given them the positive mention in my show report. In fact, I likely wouldn't have mentioned them at all!

 

Now, let's just end this nonsense. You don't like my review of the LCD-4zs -FINE, you don't like my writing, period, it seems, also FINE, You are able to ignore that my findings have corroborated by Chris, FINE again, and you choose to also ignore that a thorough objective review with comprehensive measurements shows that the measurements and Chris's and my subjective evaluations match, and that is certainly your prerogative. But, let's just end it here, OK? I don't mind answering any legitimate questions about my reviews or my methodology, and I DO appreciate it when people bring to my attention errors and inconsistencies on my part. After all, I'm only human and do admit to relying on my memory a bit too much at times (my laziness, I suspect), but I do not appreciate being harassed, for the sake of harassment. So good-bye, good luck, and please don't read any more of my reviews or posts! 

[Sonis]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

It obviously means (he thinks) you're irrational.

I suspect that KumaKuma is right and he meant that I lack integrity. He's entitled to his opinion. But it is obvious to me that Skatbelt just like to stir up sh_t. Either that, or he's a shill for Audeze. Either way, in this case, denial (of the collective opinions of Chris, Mitchco, and myself) is not a river in Africa!

[Sonis]

4 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

Perhaps he meant that Sonis lacks integrity. 

Yeah, that makes to most sense. Keeping these models straight in my mind over almost a decade of hearing different ones at different times, is confusing and I'll admit that a number of times I  wrote from memory rather than checking my own earlier  writings to make sure that I didn't misspeak. Such are the wages of laziness!

[Sonis]

Just now, mansr said:

When faced with multiple possible explanations, always choose the funnier.

OK, well said!

[Sonis]

17 hours ago, kennyb123 said:

I finally got a chance this afternoon to hear the LCD-4z while I was at Definitive Audio in Seattle.  I was able to compare them to headphones from Sennheiser and Focal. 

 

My initial reaction was surprise as they didn't sound "wretched".  I was with a friend and signaled that he come over to listen.  I suggested he compare them to the Focal Utopias and let me know what he thought.  He wasn't aware at all of the reviews here of the LCD-4z.  He only spent about 10-15 minutes total with these.  When he was done he simply said something like "they're different and I think which one is favored depends on the listener".  He pointed to some the same differences I heard.  The key takeaway for me was that he also didn't come away with the reaction that there was anything "wretched" about these.

 

This is not to say that the LCD-4z didn't have issues.  As I did further listening I found that I agreed totally with what Chris wrote that there is a "lack of air around the cymbal / hi-hat".  I spent a good amount of time listening to "Miles Smiles" and the ride cymbal was just not reproduced as I would expect.  It was veiled.  By comparison the Focal Stellia and Sennheiser 800S reproduced the ride cymbal more like I'd expect it to sound from listening on my home system.  I liked the Stellia a lot.

 

I spent only enough time with these headphones to really come up with a short list should I decide to one day take the plunge for headphones priced well above my AQ NightOwls.  The LCD-4z would not have made it onto my short list because, as a drummer, the reproduction of cymbals is far too important to me.  

Well all subjective reviews are, almost by definition, relative. I have had all manner of headphones pass through my hands over the years. The "high-end" ones have ranged in price from about US$200 on the bottom end of the scale to around $5000 on the top. When a $4000 pair of phones sound poorer than any other pair I've heard, regardless of price, then, relatively speaking, I think the term "wretched" is not at all a hyperbolic description of their sound!

 

At the same time I was listening to the Audeze LCD-4z I was also listening to a pair of HiFiMan 400s phones. These 'phones retail for US$299 and they sounded not just a little better than the LCD-4z, they sounded a lot better!

 

I realize that all of this is quite subjective and tastes do vary, but when a consensus of my audiophile friends all come to the same conclusion as I came to that a $300 pair of phones blew a $US4000 pair of phones out of the water, sonically, the question becomes what the hell is Audeze doing charging this much money for something this compromised?

In conclusion, Chris found the same shortcomings that I found with the LCD-4z and the objective measurements mirror those sonic impressions, so as far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. You found them not as bad as I did. OK, there are many possible reasons for that. Our taste in SQ may differ that much, or you haven't heard as many fine headphones over the last couple of years as I have and don't have my perspective on what a truly great pair of headphones CAN sound like (like a Pair of Stax SL-009s, for instance).