Article: Subjective: Audeze LCD-4z Headphone Review

[The Computer Audiophile]

View full article

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour ago, KenG said:

Hi Chris, thanks for the review. Just wondering if the 4 out of 5 stars correctly reflects your conclusion.

The stars are given by readers rating the article. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

14 minutes ago, Gus141 said:

Awesome reviews by @The Computer Audiophile and @mitchco (and the previous @Sonis review as well). It reminds me of the time Tyll slammed the Sony MDR-Z1R cans. I love a good and honest review (both objective and subjective).

 

Cheers

Gus

Thanks Gus. 

 

This was an interesting adventure. I had no idea how my listening impressions or the measurements would turn out. The enjoyable part was that it didn't really matter because we only write honest reviews and I didn't have to worry about covering bases or couching my opinion in a way to save a manufacturer from something.  The outcome certainly matters for Audeze and consumers, but in terms of writing the review, my process was the same as always. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

On 9/27/2019 at 9:34 PM, cgiammona said:

Chris

 

Is it safe to assume from your comments that you have a different opinion of the LCD-XC headphones that you own?

 

Chris

 

4 minutes ago, LTG2010 said:

+1

 

The LCD-XC is a different beast. The closed back headphone is very different from the LCD-4z but I also don't really compare the XC to something like the HD800 because the designs are so different. I believe creating a closed back headphone is like starting a race with one's legs tied together. It's hard to overcome the issues with closed back design. I like the XC and keep them around, but don't use them as a reference headphone. I dislike the 4z, but this is a reference level headphone at reference level prices that doesn't perform as well as its peers. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 hour 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. 

Good points. Audeze agreed that sending me a pair didn’t make sense because I received Sonis review pair. 
 

also, the measurements back up our subjective reviews pretty well. Mitch used a different pair for measuring than we used for the subjective reviews. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

37 minutes ago, Sonis said:

I can tell you right now someone who probably won’t be sending a pair to either Chris or myself, and that’s Audeze!

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. 

 

 

38 minutes ago, Sonis said:

we seem to be the only two reviewers who had the chutzpah to come out and say that the emperor had no clothes.

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. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

59 minutes ago, skatbelt said:

 

Kudos for bringing new life into this. I am still in a state of disbelieve about the - to my own and many others' references - totally absurd assessment of this headphone.

I certainly hear you and am ok with what you say, but two subjective and one objective reviews that match isn’t something to ignore. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

5 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.

 

 

Hi skatbelt - I agree when making personal decisions about this stuff it comes down to taste. It would be foolish to purchase a product that is supposedly better, but isn’t liked by the buyer. 
 

Much of the time these sonic differences are like tubes vs solid state. Pros and cons to each technology. With the 4z I found no redeeming quality to put in the pro column or which to stress for readers who may like a certain sound. 
 

In general I like most speakers or headphones, even if they are commonly considered opposites by many. There are things to like and appreciate in both Magico speakers and Vandersteens. 
 

I don’t seek analytical or musical sound. To me the term musical is troublesome because it connotes less than accurate in the minds of many. In my view nothing can be more musical than the music. A song can’t be made more musical by adding something that the artist didn’t intend. Thus, when I think about musical I think about real music reproduced as close as possible to what’s delivered on the album. 
 

No worries about not attaching much value to my opinion about the 4z. I don’t use headphones much but I listen to music all day every day. I’m able to listen through speakers place 10 feet in front of me or 10 mm in front of my ears. Music is music. 
 

There is also the elephant in the room that nobody knows which sound is correct. I listen to Pear Jam and know without a doubt which headphone sounds better and what I believe is more accurate. But, it’s really impossible because every instrument is different. People fool themselves because they think they know what a violin sounds like thus they can judge accuracy. That’s a joke. Ask any violinist if all violins sound the same. Even if one uses his own recording it’s hard because audio memory is so short. 
 

Anyway, thank you very much for the frank discussion and honesty. It’s a pleasure to communicate with you even though we have a few major differences. 
 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hey George - It's often not what you say but how you say it. Your responses here are a bit over the top and don't encourage more interaction between the members of this community and those who work very hard to write in-depth reviews. Please show a bit more respect to the people commenting on your review(s) and take your own words to heart, "all subjective reviews are, almost by definition, relative."