Audeze LCD-X Over Ear Open Back Headphone Review

[Robbo99999]

You are ASSUMING I introduce some gear or equipment to measure the sound and create the curve, this is not so. The "curve" is entirely subjective to ME: that is, I calibrate to flat AS I HEAR IT. I do this by using frequency sweeps to identify peaks/dips, and using PEQ to correct them. I also compare random frequencies (say, 1500 Hz and 3000 Hz) to ensure they both sound equally loud TO ME in different regions). There IS no measurement gear involved, this is about the ultimate perception of the actual listener.

Here is an example - an old correction curve picture I have. This is using the Neutron PEQ. Let's say I was using my HD598 (this is old and I can't recall which HP I developed this for).

View attachment 93369

If I listen with no PEQ activated, I will hear the music as colored by the headphone/chain. Probably will sound very close to the available FR plots measured for those headphones. But if I, (meaning only me, because this curve is the result of me compensating for MY hearing and the HP/system) activate this curve, then my perception is of a flat FR - a frequency response sweep is even in volume throughout, and coloration disappears. In this case, it is obvious I had to compensate for diminishing bass, and some treble dip and peak (countered by the graph's peak and large dip). And this is a combination of the system/HP coloration, and my OWN hearing flaws (it could be MY hearing needs that extra treble peak, and not the HP, but I am the listener and it is my perception that is corrected as well).

You're not reading my post, I was referring to your statement re manufacturers should produce headphones for a "Flat FR Curve"...so you can re-read my post if you like, but I figure that's not your agenda so I'm gonna leave you be. I'm somewhat familiar with your Equal Loudness EQ and I think it's flawed when I've discussed it with other members, but it might be better than nothing if you know you don't fit the Harman Headphone Curve even remotely. I'll leave you to it though, you've got your own agenda.

 

[overkilly]

You're not reading my post, I was referring to your statement re manufacturers should produce headphones for a "Flat FR Curve"...so you can re-read my post if you like, but I figure that's not your agenda so I'm gonna leave you be. I'm somewhat familiar with your Equal Loudness EQ and I think it's flawed when I've discussed it with other members, but it might be better than nothing if you know you don't fit the Harman Headphone Curve even remotely. I'll leave you to it though, you've got your own agenda.

You're free to think whatever you like about me or "agendas." I did read your post and chose to address what I saw as the major misunderstanding. I could've continued by addressing the below, but it seems to me counterproductive as you insist on not understanding what I said. For example:

You quoted me:

"As far as an ideal headphone, I think the best one could hope for would be a flat FR curve. Then one could more easily adjust with EQ to one's own preference."

Then you stated:

"If I give you the most benefit of doubt, are you talking about trying to measure the frequency response of a headphone in "free air" not attached to head anatomy? If the latter is true to what you're suggesting, then is your thinking that if a manufacturer were to build a headphone with this flat frequency response, then you're saying that this would allow your own ear anatomy to hear that as flat or close to neutral/natural when you put it on your head. "

Well, what do I say to that? That is not what I said.
I simply have to paste, AGAIN, what I actually wrote:

"As far as an ideal headphone, I think the best one could hope for would be a flat FR curve. Then one could more easily adjust with EQ to one's own preference."

And I guess I'll requote, AGAIN, that having a HP with flat FR would not result in me hearing a flat FR.

All headphones, of course, are inaccurate in that respect due to FR characteristics;

Even if a headphone's output were perfectly flat, there is the deficiency of one's hearing

I have already reposted all my posts before here, I will refrain from doing it again. Maybe people could read and understand the previous posts instead of continually ascribing erroneous statements to me.

 

[amirm]

There IS no measurement gear involved, this is about the ultimate perception of the actual listener.

And this is the problem. We *are* measuring. So we must have a reference in the measurement for the measurement gear. What you have tuned by ear may or may not match the Harman curve. Until you show that comparison, there is no there in your argument. For all you know, what you have come up with closely approximates Harman curve. Or not and you need to go through a controlled test to verify what you have done is correct.

So circling back, your criticism of Harman curve is without merit. You have no counterpart to propose for that curve for measurements.

 

[DualTriode]

@overkilly,

You are interesting to chat with; you offer some interesting insights and feelings. Often you leave me scratching my head.

English can be a precise language. Sometimes words have a reserved definition, as in a computer programming language words; if, then, else and until have a predetermined application and meaning. If the reserved words are used incorrectly your program will not compile.

You can repost your thoughts all you like. If you continue to use words like flat and accurate with your own personal definitions you will continue to confuse the living poop out of many of the folks that linger here. Of course I will continue to misspell Harman just for the fun of it.

Sean Olive PhD. tells us that the most important variable in determining preference is Frequency Response. @overkilly I finally get it, you have your very own favorite Preference Frequency Response Curve, if you can achieve that Preference Curve you call that flat and accurate. The thing is that flat and accurate means something else to the rest of us. Reposting will not help.



Thanks DT

 

[overkilly]

@overkilly,

You are interesting to chat with; you offer some interesting insights and feelings. Often you leave me scratching my head.

English can be a precise language. Sometimes words have a reserved definition, as in a computer programming language words; if, then, else and until have a predetermined application and meaning. If the reserved words are used incorrectly your program will not compile.

You can repost your thoughts all you like. If you continue to use words like flat and accurate with your own personal definitions you will continue to confuse the living poop out of many of the folks that linger here. Of course I will continue to misspell Harman just for the fun of it.

Sean Olive PhD. tells us that the most important variable in determining preference is Frequency Response. @overkilly I finally get it, you have your very own favorite Preference Frequency Response Curve, if you can achieve that Preference Curve you call that flat and accurate. The thing is that flat and accurate means something else to the rest of us. Reposting will not help.



Thanks DT

Well, DT, if you wanted to post reserved definitions for my understanding I would thank you for the clarification, even at the beginning of the conversation. I define terms so that people will know exactly what *I* refer to in my context. A "flat" FR graph to me, means one that shows equal volume level for all frequencies of interest (say, human hearing, 20Hz to 20KHz). If that is a headphone's FR graph, flat would show a horizontal line. If you're using certain measurement gear, it might show flat and then not so flat with some other gear. For the purpose of discussion, let's say the gear used shows it as flat.

Accurate I have defined before, even to the added obfuscation of considering the effects of recording, engineering, whatever. If you want to 1) tune your headphones to the Harman curve or 2) possess headphones tuned to the Harman curve, that is naught to me, enjoy (if it is the case you DO enjoy, as many here and many not in this forum, seem NOT to enjoy the curve at all). But is it accurate, in the sense of my definition? Heck no. Why would it? It's fundamentally just added bass and treble. Whatever magicks have been conjured to assign to the Harman curve "accuracy" properties, I am not interested in. Just use your eyes and ears, look at the graph and listen. ADDED bass and treble, nothing more. That might help with some Sennheisers that are notably weak in bass, or some other popular headphones by compensating for weak treble. But there is also the chance that the balance will be off with the added bass or treble if what was present in the FR was already sufficient for the listener.

 

[overkilly]

And this is the problem. We *are* measuring. So we must have a reference in the measurement for the measurement gear. What you have tuned by ear may or may not match the Harman curve. Until you show that comparison, there is no there in your argument. For all you know, what you have come up with closely approximates Harman curve. Or not and you need to go through a controlled test to verify what you have done is correct.

So circling back, your criticism of Harman curve is without merit. You have no counterpart to propose for that curve for measurements.

Nice, so if I did all this and it does not closely approximate Harman curve, then I "need to go through a controlled test to verify what I have done is correct." In other words, I just CAN'T do it correctly and have the result not be Harman. BIAS, anyone?

Actually while I don't have measurements for the various curves I have for my various headphones, I DO have my resultant PEQ curve for my HD800S, and I also find many FR measurements in the internet of this headphone. And when I compare the 2, they look mostly like mirror images of each other, with small corrections at 500, 1350, 2370, 3150, 3500, 6500, 9223 Hz. That is to say: if I added the two graphs, the resultant graph is mostly FLAT, with the aforementioned corrections which I attribute to my hearing. None of which has anything to do with the bass and treble boosts of Harman, so I'm plenty confident what I came up with does not even remotely resemble Harman.

And before you say it, YES, I know that that simple comparison does not take into account things like headphone to headphone variation, testing equipment, audio system used, the cosmological constant, etc etc. But if I take the Harman curve and use it as my PEQ, my HD800S sound like crap. So that criticism I find with plenty of merit, especially since there are plenty of other people who also find Harman quite deficient when THEY listen.

 

[DualTriode]

Well, DT, if you wanted to post reserved definitions for my understanding I would thank you for the clarification, even at the beginning of the conversation. I define terms so that people will know exactly what *I* refer to in my context. A "flat" FR graph to me, means one that shows equal volume level for all frequencies of interest (say, human hearing, 20Hz to 20KHz). If that is a headphone's FR graph, flat would show a horizontal line. If you're using certain measurement gear, it might show flat and then not so flat with some other gear. For the purpose of discussion, let's say the gear used shows it as flat.

Accurate I have defined before, even to the added obfuscation of considering the effects of recording, engineering, whatever. If you want to 1) tune your headphones to the Harman curve or 2) possess headphones tuned to the Harman curve, that is naught to me, enjoy (if it is the case you DO enjoy, as many here and many not in this forum, seem NOT to enjoy the curve at all). But is it accurate, in the sense of my definition? Heck no. Why would it? It's fundamentally just added bass and treble. Whatever magicks have been conjured to assign to the Harman curve "accuracy" properties, I am not interested in. Just use your eyes and ears, look at the graph and listen. ADDED bass and treble, nothing more. That might help with some Sennheisers that are notably weak in bass, or some other popular headphones by compensating for weak treble. But there is also the chance that the balance will be off with the added bass or treble if what was present in the FR was already sufficient for the listener.

Now you are not consistent.

First you say if it sounds level to you that is flat, now you are talking about equal SPL with calibrated equipment, those are two different things. Which is it?

I am done with this!

Thanks DT

https://blog.landr.com/fletcher-munson-curves/

 

[overkilly]

Now you are not consistent.

First you say if it sounds level to you that is flat, now you are talking about equal SPL with calibrated equipment, those are two different things. Which is it?

I am done with this!

Thanks DT

https://blog.landr.com/fletcher-munson-curves/

Calm down, would you? I was just using the example of HP FR graph as measured by some equipment as an example of what I mean by "flat." No need for drama.

And yes, I am aware volume level affects perceived sound, that is why when one does EQ one does it at one's usual comfortable level for listening.

By the way, what I do with PEQ is nothing new. Instead of argument and drama, how about you just try it for yourself? If you honestly prefer Harman afterward, knock yourself out. It really affects me not in the least. Google "How to equalize your headphones: A Tutorial" and you will find a thread in another forum which is where I first learned to do this years ago. After I was succesful with the technique, I never looked back, I have curves for all the headphones (according to system) which I use for extensive music listening (SR-009, HD800S, ZMF Ori, UM Mavericks, Prophile 8).

 

[ernestcarl]

For some reason I feel like I am back over at head-fi. I think I’ll skip this one.

 

[solderdude]

Best to acknowledge:

Not everyone prefers the Harman target. They are not stupid nor mistaken nor do they have poor hearing. They just prefer a different sound signature.

Given the fact that during the trials of arriving at a newly set standard for Harman not everyone used the exact same EQ and the fact there was a delta makes this obvious. It clearly was not universally preferred.
Some extra bass has always been liked. There was no research needed for this to come to light, it has been known/done for ages.
It's a good thing it has been made 'official' (as it wasn't) and that some empirically found 'average' has become a standard.
It's not about right or wrong with no 'bandwidth' and everyone MUST comply to this otherwise they are being 'wrong'.

At Harman they arrived at an average and bombarded this as a standard, it even has been revised over time that should say enough.

Not everyone prefers the same sound regardless of the reasons.
Just accept that and start enjoying the sound you like.

Back to the LCD-X ?

 

[amirm]

Nice, so if I did all this and it does not closely approximate Harman curve, then I "need to go through a controlled test to verify what I have done is correct." In other words, I just CAN'T do it correctly and have the result not be Harman. BIAS, anyone?

You can do what you like. But when you ask me to follow you, then I need more than "trust me, it sounds good to me."

 

[tential]

LCD2 is one of the best in Audeze line up in frequency response standpoint. The original LCD1(old one not the new one) is diffuse field tuned, virtually no one has heard it.

So we should get this one? The lcd2 and not the 2c?

What's actually good? Seeing this review, I'm keeping my wallet shut. I didn't like the lcd x in store, I thought it was broken, but I liked the lcd 2. But I liked the Diana phi (didn't try the v2) but after this... I really need to see measurements actually... Fudge

 

[KTN46]

Best to acknowledge:

Not everyone prefers the Harman target. They are not stupid nor mistaken nor do they have poor hearing. They just prefer a different sound signature.

I agree with this. I think there's no "right or wrong" in terms of audio preference. You could really dead set enjoy the DT990 Pros, or the ATH-M50X's, or whatever other divisive headphone exists out there and your preference would be legitimate because its you.

I love my DT1990s, despite some of my friends not being able to handle its sibilance. I've enjoyed Sony XM3's, Beats... Plenty of other headphones that people would consider in poor taste. What Audeze is selling here I think is a very unique, (maybe) difficult to produce sound signature for a boutique price. Whether or not this is justified, I honestly don't know.

I don't think I can agree with Amirm's conclusion that the LCD-X is a failed design, or that it "doesn't sound right out of the box". I feel like you can come to understand or even appreciate different sound signatures over time, and whether or not its better or worse is mostly subjective. That being said, it's important to note that it's okay for reviews to be subjective! What's important is that we understand the taste of the reviewer very well, so the conclusions we draw can be made with proper perspective.

Having EQ'ed a lot of headphones to the Harman Target, I find this review useful because I have a reference point that lets me better understand how the LCD-X's sound without ever having heard it.

 

[Robbo99999]

You're free to think whatever you like about me or "agendas." I did read your post and chose to address what I saw as the major misunderstanding. I could've continued by addressing the below, but it seems to me counterproductive as you insist on not understanding what I said. For example:

You quoted me:



Then you stated:



Well, what do I say to that? That is not what I said.
I simply have to paste, AGAIN, what I actually wrote:



And I guess I'll requote, AGAIN, that having a HP with flat FR would not result in me hearing a flat FR.




I have already reposted all my posts before here, I will refrain from doing it again. Maybe people could read and understand the previous posts instead of continually ascribing erroneous statements to me.

(You've got some gaps in your knowledge & understanding of headphones and how they interact with your ear and the science that surrounds it, but you're not engaging in conversation, so I'm out)

 

[overkilly]

(You've got some gaps in your knowledge & understanding of headphones and how they interact with your ear and the science that surrounds it, but you're not engaging in conversation, so I'm out)

Right, you reply to my post which clearly shows you misquoting me, and me clarifying what I actually said, and you think I'm going to fall that appeal to your own authority (because YOU determined I have knowledge gaps)? Hahaha, nonono, you can leave the conversation any time you want, but it is clear to anyone (maybe anyone without a Harman agenda?) that you haven't addressed any of my points. Hiding behind "you have gaps in your knowledge" doesn't prove jack. Still waiting for those references that show Harman 1) IS accurate 2) ever CLAIMED to be accurate.

And here's one further point for those with a multitude of microphones inside their ears: just because you measure the sound waves, SPL, reflections, ETC, inside the ear - DOESN'T mean that's what you hear. How do I know this? Easy, the ear doesn't hear by itself, it's the BRAIN that interprets the sound perceived by the ear. Which, unless proven otherwise, means that just because you have a measured 5 dB 400 Hz tone inside your ear, it DOESN'T mean your brain reflects exactly that volume, it could be perceived by you as lower or higher. Not to mention hearing loss which could attenuate as well, but that's another example.

 

[overkilly]

You can do what you like. But when you ask me to follow you, then I need more than "trust me, it sounds good to me."

I asked you to follow me? All I initially said was that I did not agree with using Harman as a "good sound" target. But, if anything, I do invite you and fellow members here to try out the method of PEQ to neutral (as called elsewhere) and see what you achieve. I believe that if you, and others here, did, you would find plenty to enjoy and maybe reexamine some of the beliefs and assumptions held here. It's a rather suspect scientific curiosity to NOT try something just because "it hasn't been proven."

Kinda reminds me of Dr. Semmelwies, early pioneer of antiseptic procedures. :
"Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. "

Of course, NOW we know about germs and WE laugh at the establishment that mocked HIM, with their 4 humours and whatnot.

At any rate, whatever you all do, MY HD800S has perfectly leveled bass, perfectly balanced treble, and I've been able to hear details in music I've listened to for DECADES, and had never heard before (The Rippingtons - Tourist in Paradise from 1989 is a record worth such examination, IMO).

 

[amirm]

I asked you to follow me? All I initially said was that I did not agree with using Harman as a "good sound" target. But, if anything, I do invite you and fellow members here to try out the method of PEQ to neutral (as called elsewhere) and see what you achieve.

Neutral to what? You have to show that curve on my measurement gear and demonstrate that it is neutral. You haven't done that.

It's a rather suspect scientific curiosity to NOT try something just because "it hasn't been proven."

I "try" with every headphone I test. I listen as is, then adjust as I explained relative to Harman curve. If it works, then I leave the filter in. If not, then I leave it out. Based on that experience, you absolutely want to get close to Harman curve above low bass and below high treble. What you do at the extremes is up to you but so far, I like the bass boost similar to Harman's.

There is no way I can try anything you have proposed because it has no concrete manifestation in the contest of how I review and test headphones. Or others do. You playing around with EQ is not anything I can use as I said before.

 

[overkilly]

Neutral to what? You have to show that curve on my measurement gear and demonstrate that it is neutral. You haven't done that.

There is no way I can try anything you have proposed because it has no concrete manifestation in the contest of how I review and test headphones. Or others do. You playing around with EQ is not anything I can use as I said before.

Are you serious? How CAN I provide you with a curve that will render what YOU hear neutral (by neutral we mean the usual: frequencies in a sweep will sound the same volume to YOU)? NO ONE can do that, that's part of my point, and Harman certainly doesn't. YOU can do it, by "playing with EQ" as you call it, I already provided a basic reference but will put no further effort to it for people who just want to hang on to whatever they think they know. If I provided you MY curve for my HP and setup, YOU would not hear it as flat because it's been calibrated by me with and for MY hearing, not yours.

If you want to learn, Google "How to equalize your headphones: A Tutorial" and that'll get you started. I'm not going to attempt to prove the impossible here. NO ONE can correct for your hearing but YOU. People have been following the method to make their perception of their headphone sound "flat" to them for more than a decade for their own enjoyment, if that is so impossible to follow because it does not compute to your measurements or methods, it's really only your own loss.

I have seen others request that the thread get back on topic to the LCD-X, as I have nothing further on that I'll stop here. If someone wants to continue discussion on Harman, equalizing headphones to neutral, or anything else, someone can create another thread.

 

[amirm]

Are you serious? How CAN I provide you with a curve that will render what YOU hear neutral (by neutral we mean the usual: frequencies in a sweep will sound the same volume to YOU)? NO ONE can do that, that's part of my point, and Harman certainly doesn't. YOU can do it, by "playing with EQ" as you call it, I already provided a basic reference but will put no further effort to it for people who just want to hang on to whatever they think they know. If I provided you MY curve for my HP and setup, YOU would not hear it as flat because it's been calibrated by me with and for MY hearing, not yours.

"Hear it as flat?" You are back to this argument which makes no sense. If I am listening to music then I have no sense of flat but one of preference. If you had 10 people try your EQ and none liked it, then you have not done a good job. Because I can provide EQ to those 10 people and have good number of them say it improved the sound of their headphones and they enjoy using them more. What you get out of flatness, I don't know.

Really, you have very confused notions here and you explain them in even more confusing terms. Tons of research has been performed here with respect to listener preference and none starts with your premise of "flat" and that "flat is different for everyone."

 

[Helicopter]

Pretty sure overkill just is not comprehending that Harman curve is to headphones as predicted in room response is to speakers, except because of ears interacting with headphones, you need to survey human beings to estimate the correct curve. Instead he is thinking it is like Beats coloration that a bunch of stupid people happen to prefer because of their subjectivity, and now he is emotionally invested in his illogic.