Audeze LCD-24 Review (Headphone)

[MayaTlab]

It's interesting what you're doing re measuring your own headphones on your own head using in-ear mics, but for me I see a problem with that...in as much that there is no Target Curve to EQ to from your own measurements. Not unless you've created your own target curve based on measuring a set of speakers in your room using your in-ear mics first.

I use my speakers as an indicative tool to that effect indeed, but I simply cannot measure them as is and use them as a target curve for the application I have in mind (convincing surround sound simulation with generic HRTFs with stuff like Dolby Atmos for music) for reasons that would belong to another thread (the gist of it is that I do not want to re-create my speakers in my room - and honestly my system probably isn't set up that well - but rather the virtual sound space the sound engineers wanted me to experience). Creating an ideal target is indeed a work in progress but I don't think that there is a single, clear guideline I can follow at the moment. I'm even wondering if a single target is ideal for different standards / surround sound simulation systems.
All I know is that front to back localisation, for example, was utterly unconvincing before with most surround sound simulation systems on all headphones. As I refine the way I can assess the FR curve of headphones on my own head, how to interpret that and how to come up with a target, it's getting better, even with generic HRTF profiles.
It's a year(s ?) long project anyway, all I wanted to say is that I think that it's premature to consider FR a controlled variable and therefore try to go look into other variables as a way to explain "soundstage" when it's clear that even when equalised to the same target per a dummy head measurement, you'll still get audible differences between headphones.

 

[PeteL]

I don't actually use crossfeed in my headphones, although interestingly @jhaider but for me I see a problem with that...in as much that there is no Target Curve to EQ to from your own measurements. Not unless you've created your own target curve based on measuring a set of speakers in your room using your in-ear mics first. For instance, EQ'ing your headphones to the Harman Curve from you in-ear measurements wouldn't be valid as it is only relateable to the GRAS measurement devices and not your own ears.

There is no fundamental "problem" in using your ears to EQ, measurements or not, target curve or not. Any target curve is a preference curve, even Harman, It's just more commonly referred as "correct". With practice you become able to catch the frequency bands that needs adjustment. If you A/B EQed/Bypass, and the EQed sounds better, and it does so with many of your reference tracks, not just one, well it's a good EQ. At least for you.

 

[abdo123]

There is no fundamental "problem" in using your ears to EQ

the difficulty lies in having reference tracks and reference sound/systems, and the fact that our ears get used to anomalies very quickly.

'bad sound' becomes 'okay sound' 10 seconds later.

 

[PeteL]

the difficulty lies in having reference tracks and reference sound/systems, and the fact that our ears get used to anomalies very quickly.

'bad sound' becomes 'okay sound' 10 seconds later.

True, it's easier to follow a curve.

 

[Robbo99999]

I use my speakers as an indicative tool to that effect indeed, but I simply cannot measure them as is and use them as a target curve for the application I have in mind (convincing surround sound simulation with generic HRTFs with stuff like Dolby Atmos for music) for reasons that would belong to another thread (the gist of it is that I do not want to re-create my speakers in my room - and honestly my system probably isn't set up that well - but rather the virtual sound space the sound engineers wanted me to experience). Creating an ideal target is indeed a work in progress but I don't think that there is a single, clear guideline I can follow at the moment. I'm even wondering if a single target is ideal for different standards / surround sound simulation systems.
All I know is that front to back localisation, for example, was utterly unconvincing before with most surround sound simulation systems on all headphones. As I refine the way I can assess the FR curve of headphones on my own head, how to interpret that and how to come up with a target, it's getting better, even with generic HRTF profiles.
It's a year(s ?) long project anyway, all I wanted to say is that I think that it's premature to consider FR a controlled variable and therefore try to go look into other variables as a way to explain "soundstage" when it's clear that even when equalised to the same target per a dummy head measurement, you'll still get audible differences between headphones.

Well good luck with that, it does sound like an adventure. Re surround sound, I find the front/back localisation very convincing with the Soundblaster implementation in games, in fact I use it to locate enemies in my online fps gaming, and it's a real advantage for sure.....but I can completely understand why some generic HRTF simulations (of which Soundblaster is one of them) will not work for everyone, and I feel there is also an element of training where your brain adapts to the "HRTF" presented by the surround implementation in question, although Soundblaster implementation suited me from the get go - I researched it prior to buying the Soundblaster by listening to in-game footage of different companies surround implementations (Soundblaster, Sennheisser, maybe some others I've forgotten) and I found Soundblaster the most convincing.

There is no fundamental "problem" in using your ears to EQ, measurements or not, target curve or not. Any target curve is a preference curve, even Harman, It's just more commonly referred as "correct". With practice you become able to catch the frequency bands that needs adjustment. If you A/B EQed/Bypass, and the EQed sounds better, and it does so with many of your reference tracks, not just one, well it's a good EQ. At least for you.

Headphone Harman Curve is not just a preference curve, it started out it's life as a measured response from in-ear mics in a dummy head in Harman's Listening Room whilst the playback system comprised of proven high preference speakers....the headphone users in the study then tweaked bass & treble to their liking and so the Headphone Harman Curve was created.....so the Headphone Harman Curve is a combination of "objectively measured science" with some preference on top.

I think EQ'ing by ear is a little fallible, but people can of course do it if they want to.

 

[PeteL]

I think EQ'ing by ear is a little fallible, but people can of course do it if they want to.

Interestingly, and I know you will tell me it's different because it is an artistic process, but still, all the albums you listen to have been EQed by ear. There have been many shots at developing auto mastering plugins based on analyzing the spectral content and correct accordingly but they all notoriously failed. No mastering engineer would use that. They do analyse the content, but make their decision by ear. Now there are many techniques to EQ properly, I won't go at length with this, it's off topic and don't want to derail the thread. Faillible yes, but there is more to it than just randomly try what sounds best.

 

[Robbo99999]

Interestingly, and I know you will tell me it's different because it is an artistic process, but still, all the albums you listen to have been EQed by ear. There have been many shots at developing auto mastering plugins based on analyzing the spectral content and correct accordingly but they all notoriously failed. No mastering engineer would use that. They do analyse the content, but make their decision by ear. Now there are many techniques to EQ properly, I won't go at length with this, it's off topic and don't want to derail the thread. Faillible yes, but there is more to it than just randomly try what sounds best.

Sure, the engineers & artists have a vision for how they want their track to sound when they combine it all together, so of course they have to make it sound right & how they like it....that's a different thing to tuning your own gear by ear. Ideally you have your speakers and headphones as close to neutral as possible which is probably more reliably achieved through measurement rather than by-ear tuning, and hopefully "neutral" is what describes the equipment that the artists & engineers used to produce their music, thereby you're listening to the music as close as possible to what was intended by the artist & engineer. So I think it's a misstep of logic to equate loose statements like "albumns you listen to have been EQ'd by ear" to therefore you should EQ your own gear by ear, it's a logical misstep. But cool, we shouldn't derail this thread much more. (Of course though, the Headphone Harman Curve can't work for absolutely everyone due to people having different HRTF's and if it differs too far from the standard then you won't like the Harman Curve.....at which point other EQ methods are probably a good shout.)

 

[PeteL]

Sure, the engineers & artists have a vision for how they want their track to sound when they combine it all together, so of course they have to make it sound right & how they like it....that's a different thing to tuning your own gear by ear. Ideally you have your speakers and headphones as close to neutral as possible which is probably more reliably achieved through measurement rather than by-ear tuning, and hopefully "neutral" is what describes the equipment that the artists & engineers used to produce their music, thereby you're listening to the music as close as possible to what was intended by the artist & engineer. So I think it's a misstep of logic to equate loose statements like "albumns you listen to have been EQ'd by ear" to therefore you should EQ your own gear by ear, it's a logical misstep. But cool, we shouldn't derail this thread much more. (Of course though, the Headphone Harman Curve can't work for absolutely everyone due to people having different HRTF's and if it differs too far from the standard then you won't like the Harman Curve.....at which point other EQ methods are probably a good shout.)

Sure, it was just trying to point that there is science too behind the knowledge of knowing to listen. In my exemple we say mastering engineer for a reason, and that's why record labels don't let artist master their own records, there is knowledge implied, not just taste. Now OK I agree, it is still part of the "artistic" process. Now maybe more relevant. A concert theater is technically a room. Nowadays most front of house engineers I know use tools to measure it and tune it properly, totally agree with this, it makes life easier and we should embrace it. But 20 years ago, those tools where not there, does that mean the concerts we where going to where bad sounding? Well not really, if the person behind the desk knew what he was doing.

 

[Nathan Raymond]

It's interesting what you're doing re measuring your own headphones on your own head using in-ear mics, but for me I see a problem with that...in as much that there is no Target Curve to EQ to from your own measurements. Not unless you've created your own target curve based on measuring a set of speakers in your room using your in-ear mics first. For instance, EQ'ing your headphones to the Harman Curve from you in-ear measurements wouldn't be valid as it is only relateable to the GRAS measurement devices and not your own ears.

David Griesinger done a lot of work in this area, back in 2017 he created this video to demonstrate the technique and software he developed:

Excerpt from his description:

...This video shows in some detail the process of equalizing headphones to achieve truly accurate timbre and frontal localization without head tracking. Frontal localization fails because the ear canal resonances are highly individual. We self-calibrate to the resonances we have - but headphones alter them dramatically. To achieve frontal localization it is essential that the frequency spectrum at the eardrum of the listener from a pair of headphones matches the spectrum at the eardrum from a frontal sound source - in this case a frequency flat frontal loudspeaker. Our method uses the listener's own eardrum as the sensor to make the measurement. It is quick, painless, non-invasive and fun. The program requires a Windows computer, a loudspeaker, and an ASIO compliant sound card such as a MOTU, RME, M-Audio, or Komplet. If you are not sure of the frequency linearity of your speaker the program allows you to equalize the speaker with a smart-phone real-time analyzer (Audiotool) and a calibrated microphone (inexpensively available from Parts Express)...

He has since refined the software (DGSonicFocus) and made it available on his home page:

http://www.davidgriesinger.com

 

[Helicopter]

I couldn't get that Audeze EQ program to work on my Windows computer, when I got LCD-X about a year ago. I find the free Peace APO far better.

It is interesting that drivers play such a role in spatial effects. Intuitively, I would expect the cups and pads to determine this. Probably they do, but together with the drivers and pinnae.

 

[PeteL]

I couldn't get that Audeze EQ program to work on my Windows computer, when I got LCD-X about a year ago. I find the free Peace APO far better.

It is interesting that drivers play such a role in spatial effects. Intuitively, I would expect the cups and pads to determine this. Probably they do, but together with the drivers and pinnae.

They do, because at it's core, in the end, spacial effect is more than anything about fidelity, the ability to deliver subtle things, reverb tails buried below other stuff for example, and if you get familiar with microphone pickup paterns and behaviors, there are subtle differences with how the mic was positioned, those are spacial effects that you don't notice in lofi, you will not necessarily pick up that the mic was position at 1 meter of the source with a certain angle, but it's the addition of all these little things, that in your brain construct an impression of space.

 

[Robbo99999]

I couldn't get that Audeze EQ program to work on my Windows computer, when I got LCD-X about a year ago. I find the free Peace APO far better.

It is interesting that drivers play such a role in spatial effects. Intuitively, I would expect the cups and pads to determine this. Probably they do, but together with the drivers and pinnae.

Who said it was because of the drivers? I personally think it's related to angled pads or angled drivers perhaps combined with large ear cups.

They do, because at it's core, in the end, spacial effect is more than anything about fidelity, the ability to deliver subtle things, reverb tails buried below other stuff for example, and if you get familiar with microphone pickup paterns and behaviors, there are subtle differences with how the mic was positioned, those are spacial effects that you don't notice in lofi, you will not necessarily pick up that the mic was position at 1 meter of the source with a certain angle, but it's the addition of all these little things, that in your brain construct an impression of space.

I disagree with "high def" resulting in good spatial effects, as my HD600 is very high definition in the amount of subtlety & detail it conveys, yet the spatial effects are an in-your-head experience, so it's not a wide or external spatial effect at all.....so I say that headphone has poor soundstage. Yep, so I really don't think "high def" is related to spatial effects & soundstage or at least not the only causative factor.

 

[PeteL]

Who said it was because of the drivers? I personally think it's related to angled pads or angled drivers perhaps combined with large ear cups.

I disagree with "high def" resulting in good spatial effects, as my HD600 is very high definition in the amount of subtlety & detail it conveys, yet the spatial effects are an in-your-head experience, so it's not a wide or external spatial effect at all.....so I say that headphone has poor soundstage. Yep, so I really don't think "high def" is related to spatial effects & soundstage or at least not the only causative factor.

Not the only factor yes, but in the end, maybe by design headphones can artifficially enlarge stuff, but sound stage is something created by the mixing engineer, to experience it the transducer has to be able to reproduce it

 

[Nathan Raymond]

They do, because at it's core, in the end, spacial effect is more than anything about fidelity, the ability to deliver subtle things, reverb tails buried below other stuff for example, and if you get familiar with microphone pickup paterns and behaviors, there are subtle differences with how the mic was positioned, those are spacial effects that you don't notice in lofi, you will not necessarily pick up that the mic was position at 1 meter of the source with a certain angle, but it's the addition of all these little things, that in your brain construct an impression of space.

If you read what I linked to above, Griesinger has different things to say about what improves spatial fidelity.

 

[Robbo99999]

Not the only factor yes, but in the end, maybe by design headphones can artifficially enlarge stuff, but sound stage is something created by the mixing engineer, to experience it the transducer has to be able to reproduce it

Of course, the headphones & speakers just represent what the mixer & artist produced....you're confusing the issue again just like when you used mixers & engineers in another reply of yours earlier today. Dio Dio

It's not about headphones "artificially enlarging" anything, it's about trying to get a close approximation to a speaker-like experience through your headphones, so it's about representing authenticity not artificially enlarging. I don't know if you have an optimised speaker setup at home, but I'm beginning to wonder on your exposure to high quality 2 channel speaker systems as well as headphone exposure as your comments are a bit off the mark, and it seems to me you don't have a solid grasp on what imaging & soundstage really is.

EDIT: I will say that you probably might need to experience different headphones that have different soundstage/imaging abilities, as I admit if you only own one pair or haven't switched between them with critical listening on the same tracks then you wouldn't know how different headphones can have different imaging/soundstage abilities and how that relates to a 2 channel speaker system as "the ideal". In fact, if I didn't have my K702 then I wouldn't be that clear on the different imaging abilities of headphones, as that particular headphone sets itself apart for that particular variable....so without my experience of that headphone I'd be less clear on the imaging/soundstage capabilities of headphones.....I mean I think I'd still be able distinguish differences in that variable amoungst my other headphones but I think it helps to be exposed to the extremes of imaging/soundstage abilities in headphones to be able to really grasp it....and for me that was my HD600 at one end with very narrow soundstage (I'd say poor) and the K702 at the other end being wide and more expansive, whilst my other headphones sit inbetween those two. My headphones for soundstage go from poor to good: HD600 -> NAD HP50 -> Hifiman HE4XX -> K702. So I think it takes exposure to different headphones as well as critical listening on the same tracks to really understand how the differences can manifest themselves in headphones re soundstage/imaging, so I didn't really mean to be rude to you.....just seems like you're missing the direct experience of this. I do know though that some people just don't really experience soundstage/imaging in headphones and headphones just don't really work for them......I think I remember solderdude saying that he felt that headphones are a totally different experience from speakers and couldn't understand people saying that they can be similar (although I think he'd agree the Smyth Realiser would sort him out but that's a seperate thing in a way).....yeah, so headphones just sometimes "don't work" for some individuals. And I think it does help to have a reference properly setup 2 channel speaker system on which to compare imaging & soundstage when talking about this factor in headphones, so I just felt you were missing some different experiences when it comes to this based on the points you've been making in your posts.

 

[srsxmi]

We will take another bite out of that Apple as Audeze has sent me their updated LCD-X for review.

Great, that should be interesting!

 

[PeteL]

Of course, the headphones & speakers just represent what the mixer & artist produced....you're confusing the issue again just like when you used mixers & engineers in another reply of yours earlier today. Dio Dio

It's not about headphones "artificially enlarging" anything, it's about trying to get a close approximation to a speaker-like experience through your headphones, so it's about representing authenticity not artificially enlarging. I don't know if you have an optimised speaker setup at home, but I'm beginning to wonder on your exposure to high quality 2 channel speaker systems as well as headphone exposure as your comments are a bit off the mark, and it seems to me you don't have a solid grasp on what imaging & soundstage really is.

EDIT: I will say that you probably might need to experience different headphones that have different soundstage/imaging abilities, as I admit if you only own one pair or haven't switched between them with critical listening on the same tracks then you wouldn't know how different headphones can have different imaging/soundstage abilities and how that relates to a 2 channel speaker system as "the ideal". In fact, if I didn't have my K702 then I wouldn't be that clear on the different imaging abilities of headphones, as that particular headphone sets itself apart for that particular variable....so without my experience of that headphone I'd be less clear on the imaging/soundstage capabilities of headphones.....I mean I think I'd still be able distinguish differences in that variable amoungst my other headphones but I think it helps to be exposed to the extremes of imaging/soundstage abilities in headphones to be able to really grasp it....and for me that was my HD600 at one end with very narrow soundstage (I'd say poor) and the K702 at the other end being wide and more expansive, whilst my other headphones sit inbetween those two. My headphones for soundstage go from poor to good: HD600 -> NAD HP50 -> Hifiman HE4XX -> K702. So I think it takes exposure to different headphones as well as critical listening on the same tracks to really understand how the differences can manifest themselves in headphones re soundstage/imaging, so I didn't really mean to be rude to you.....just seems like you're missing the direct experience of this. I do know though that some people just don't really experience soundstage/imaging in headphones and headphones just don't really work for them......I think I remember solderdude saying that he felt that headphones are a totally different experience from speakers and couldn't understand people saying that they can be similar (although I think he'd agree the Smyth Realiser would sort him out but that's a seperate thing in a way).....yeah, so headphones just sometimes "don't work" for some individuals. And I think it does help to have a reference properly setup 2 channel speaker system on which to compare imaging & soundstage when talking about this factor in headphones, so I just felt you were missing some different experiences when it comes to this based on the points you've been making in your posts.

I won't really comment on your findings, cool. I will just mention that I am an engineer, that I have been professionally active in the field of audio for 20 years, and yes, I have owned many headphones, tuned reference systems, and designed electronics, my experience is OK, I don't dislike a healthy debate and yes I don't pretend I don't have anything to learn, in fact I still learn a lot here and appreciate it. Just maybe find another way of bringing your point than my lack of experience, I value what you think.

 

[Maiky76]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Audeze LCD-24. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $3,499.

I must say, this is a manly looking headphone:

View attachment 133845

It would fit right at home with someone wearing their leathers and driving a Harley Davidson motorcycle! There is an unusual mechanism to adjust the headband which puts side ways pressure on the headphone. I kind of like it. Overall comfort is very good.

This is the second heaviest headphone since I started to keep track of them at 575 grams:

View attachment 133846

It doesn't feel that heavy though. The inside cup dimensions are 70 mm, 56mm and 34 mm (height, width and depth).

Note: The measurements you are about to see are made using a standardized Gras 45C. Headphone measurements by definition are approximate and variable so don't be surprised if other measurements even if performed with the same fixtures as mine differ in end results. Protocols vary such as headband pressure and averaging (which I don't do). As you will see, I have confirmed the approximate accuracy of the measurements using Equalization and listening tests. Ultimately headphone measurements are less exact than speakers mostly in bass and above a few kilohertz so keep that in mind as you read these tests. If you think you have an exact idea of a headphone performance, you are likely wrong!

Fitting the LCD-24 to the fixture was extremely easy. With the large cups and excellent seal, the first try worked and I ran with it.

Audeze LCD-24 Measurements
As usual we start with our frequency response:

View attachment 133847

Looks like some attempt is made in having a flat response even though there is "ear gain" in my fixture which doesn't make much sense. End result is lack of bass and uninteresting, muffled sound due to shortages in the 1 to 5 kHz We will confirm this in listening tests.

As a deviation from target, this is what we have:

View attachment 133848

I design my EQ by eye and in this case, creating a curve for 1 to 10 kHz is going to be challenging. So automated filter design may work better.

The next measurement popped the eye out of my socket:
View attachment 133849

This is one comfortable driver no matter how much sound you expect it to produce! Even at incredible 114 dBSPL, it is cruising with minimal distortion. I hope companies that produce distortion factories (I am looking at you Abyss), are paying attention. Distortion barely touches our 40 dB reference line:

View attachment 133850

And that is in upper bass, dominated by second harmoni.

Group delay is messy indicating internal reflections, resonances, etc:

View attachment 133851

Impedance is typical dead flat but very low at 14 ohm:
View attachment 133852

You need an amp that has good current delivery. Fortunately efficiency is quite good:

View attachment 133853

So most portable devices should be able to drive it to reasonable levels.

Audeze LCD-24 Listening Tests and Equalization
Stock listening experience was not good. The sound was dull and sub-bass almost faint, non-existent. So EQ tool came out fast and furiouis:

View attachment 133854

Despite the crudeness of my EQ design, the transformation was massive. You now had good sub-bass and the spatial qualities bloomed like nobody's business (function of 1 to 5 kHz). Instrument separation was very nice and fun. It feels like there is a miniature orchestra playing little instruments around your head. One of my reference test tracks for spatial qualities (and general fidelity) is Jewele's Serve the Ego:

The detail, resolution, bass and localization of different sounds was just excellent. I just compared the youtube version above which plays without EQ compared to my Roon player doing so with EQ, and the difference is night and day. The youtube version is totally uninteresting and recessed. The EQ version is just a delight. If you own this headphone and have not applied EQ correction, you don't know what you are missing.

I wanted to compare my EQ to presets that ship in Roon for Audeze. Alas, there was not one for LCD-24. Hope Audeze remedies that.

Conclusions
Despite the incredible popularity of headphone measurements and talk of preference curves, it is amazing how many headphones ignore that and produce a headphone with its idea of target response. LCD-24 is one such example. Fortunately it provides a capable platform for equalization with its extreme low distortion driver. Producing an EQ curve takes some work but what I have above generates more fidelity and delight than I need. I hope Audeze moves more towards having a response that is closer to target so that out of box experience is better.

Overall, I cannot recommend Audeze LCD-24 in stock form. With equalization though, it gets my strong vote for a wonderful sounding headphone.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

First harvest from the Garden!!! Been behind this year in my gardening chores so it was nice to have something ready to eat:
View attachment 133855

The nice head of cauliflower came out of a plant that I potted back in fall of last year! It produced some fruit which instantly got eaten by some creature. I put it in the greenhouse nearly dead looking. This spring it sprouted back to action and produced to heads! What a delight. Crunchy, flavorful and sweet. Flowers you see are from kohlrabi which is normally grown for its over the ground bulb. If you leave it in the garden though through winter, in spring you get this amazing harvest of yellow flowers that taste like broccoli. I eat them while working in the garden all spring. Below that is a smorgasbord of greens from different lettuces to beet greens and cilantro.

On the right was a new planting: wasabi radish. Was hoping that it would taste a bit like wasabi as advertised. Well, it does not. It just tastes like a normal radish, albeit in that pretty green color. These were pulled out to let the others bulb out better. They were decent eating. And oh, I am growing real wasabi for the first time!

Appreciate any donations using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Hi,

Here are some thoughts about the EQ.

Notes about the EQ design:

• The average L/R is used to calculate the score.
• The resolution is 12 points per octave interpolated from the raw data (provided by @amirm)
• A Genetic Algorithm is used to optimize the EQ.
• The EQ Score is designed to MAXIMIZE the Score WHILE fitting the Harman target curve with a fixed complexity.
  This will avoid weird results if one only optimizes for the Score.
  It will probably flatten the Error regression doing so, the tonal balance should be more neutral.
• The EQs are starting point and may require tuning (certainly at LF).
• The range above 10kHz is usually not EQed unless smooth enough to do so.
• I am using PEQ (PK) as from my experience the definition is more consistent across different DSP/platform implementations than shelves.
• With some HP/amp combo the boosts and preamp gain need to be carefully considered to avoid issues

Good L/R match.

I have generated one EQ, the APO config files are attached.

Score no EQ: 59.2
Score Armirm: 71.7
Score with EQ: 84.1

Audeze LCD-24 APO EQ Score -1.5dB@HF 96000Hz
June072021-101107

Preamp: -10.1 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 30.4 Hz Gain 6 dB Q 0.39
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 220.5 Hz Gain -1.87 dB Q 1
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 958 Hz Gain -4.16 dB Q 0.91
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1473 Hz Gain 1.7 dB Q 2.75
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3158 Hz Gain 5.25 dB Q 0.65
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 4007 Hz Gain 5.82 dB Q 4.75
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5511 Hz Gain -3 dB Q 5
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 9412 Hz Gain 3 dB Q 5
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 11262 Hz Gain -10.9 dB Q 5

 

[Robbo99999]

I won't really comment on your findings, cool. I will just mention that I am an engineer, that I have been professionally active in the field of audio for 20 years, and yes, I have owned many headphones, tuned reference systems, and designed electronics, my experience is OK, I don't dislike a healthy debate and yes I don't pretend I don't have anything to learn, in fact I still learn a lot here and appreciate it. Just maybe find another way of bringing your point than my lack of experience, I value what you think.

Your comments are even more surprising then given your background! I was genuinely trying to work out in my mind why your comments were generally so far "off the mark" in a few ways, but apparently it wasn't due to lack of experience, which I find a bit worrisome from your angle. Sorry, I'm just a bit flabbergasted.

 

[PeteL]

Your comments are even more surprising then given your background! I was genuinely trying to work out in my mind why your comments were generally so far "off the mark" in a few ways, but apparently it wasn't due to lack of experience, which I find a bit worrisome from your angle. Sorry, I'm just a bit flabbergasted.

OK, well, you sure put a lot of energy dismissing my points, or my credentials but beside telling us that some headphones are better than other at spacial quality, which I never disagreed with, can you share your own take on it? If I am so wrong, what makes one better than the other? Don't tell me something in the like "The ability to be speaker like" That's just defining spacial quality, but why an headphone, in the same category, would be better than the other one if the driver or it's ability to resolve subtleties has nothing to do with it?

Besides, You'll notice that many headphones good at spacializing often have an elevated response in the Hi-Mid, which is exactly the zone mixing engineers like to band limit the reverb effects, to make it sit in the mix and open up the sound, bass in the reverbs makes a mix sound muddy, but what do I know, according to you, how the music is produced is irrelevant also... But what is relevant then?

You'll also notice that headphones that are great at specializing, tends to be bright and analytical, HD800 is a good example, there is no magic there, low frequencies are non directional, their contribution to the sound stage is limited because by definition you can't localise them easily.