Audeze LCD-X Over Ear Open Back Headphone Review

[SeaNNyT]

So is the LCD-2 (2020 version) a better choice? Judging by the frequency charts it does not have nearly as much of a dip. Still wary of AUdeze as they seemingly have some serious quality control issues and driver variance.

 

[jcadduono]

So is the LCD-2 (2020 version) a better choice? Judging by the frequency charts it does not have nearly as much of a dip. Still wary of AUdeze as they seemingly have some serious quality control issues and driver variance.

I guess if you're going by harman preference as a metric, then yeah for sure:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bqkdze8w82zguyj/Audeze LCD-2 Fazor.pdf?dl=0 (LCD-2, pref rating 70 -> 98 after EQ)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rolh06intj8gll4/Audeze LCD-X S:N 7525087.pdf?dl=0 (LCD-X, pref rating 49 -> 82 after EQ)

I found that I liked my LCD-X a lot more before the EQ so I went in search of a different headphone to compliment it that follows the Harman target better without needing EQ to compliment it, and went with the Hifiman Sundara. (pref rating 82 -> 97 after EQ)
It was between that and HE-4XX/HE-400i and it appeared that the Sundara had lower distortion in low end and more bass naturally so I assumed it'd sound better after EQ despite the HE-4XX having a pref rating of 108 post-EQ.
That and supposedly the 2020 revised pads on Sundara bring its pref rating before EQ up to 89 according to AutoEQ results.
See: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/RANKING.md (click each Headphone and view the png to see frequency response)
That makes it and Dan Clark Audio's Aeon 2 Closed effectively the closest planar magnetic headphones to the Harman target. (he even clearly states on his website that he tuned it specifically to it)
Given that DCA pedals cable scams (ok most headphone companies are guilty of this...), but even goes so far as to makes his own REALLY TERRIBLE proprietary headphone connector to do it, his headphones are not on my list of options.
Btw Tiny 4-XLR (Rean) is amazingly lightweight, I wish it was used for everything lol. You can use a tiny XLR instead of a splitter at the Y in a headphone cable and swap out different lengths/end connectors!

 

[ReaderZ]

There are different things going on here.
1: HpTF is individual for each person but isn't so much about tonal balance being different but treble peaks differing.
2: Individual HpTF is not the same as specific HATS minus correction curve.
3: Personal preference exists but should not be in a standard.
4: Standard conditions are not ones personal conditions which creates personal 'standards'.
5: Flat can mean different things. It can mean 'smooth' (as in no wiggles), it can mean 'perceived loudness at a specific average level' it can mean equal SPL at specific measurement conditions.

The correction curve for a bunch of headphones will differ because of HpTF of the HATS when measured.
This means the Harman correction curve for their specific HATS will have to be an average.
It's why the correction curve is 'smooth' (because averaged) which creates measurement errors for all headphones.
The higher the frequency and the closer the frequencies are in the area where the HATS pinna and earcanal have an influence the bigger the error will be.
When measuring it is best to have an accepted 'standard' which to compare to.
There weren't any that were really applicable to headphones.

Flat, as in SPL over the audible range and smooth (least amount of wiggles) measuring speakers in an anechoic room used in the 'Harman listening room' which is supposed to react similar-ish to (again averaged) listening rooms (rooms where the stereo is usually setup).
The 'flat' sound is modified in the room. This is complex because SPL measurements (not gated) at the 'listening position' differs from what we hear per frequency band. Ears are not microphones.

Harman research showed that most people preferred the sound of speakers that had a smooth response (the least amount of dips and peaks) in their 'standard room' with no modifications of the sound signature (personal preference). Those speakers measured SPL-flat at 1m in anechoic conditions and had good dispersion properties. When such speakers are used in a room (with reflections at listening position) then the recordings sounded realistic. I assume at 'studio listening levels'.

When you measure a headphone's SPL and that would be flat, as in no wiggles and SPL the same for all frequencies the plot will be flat like the perfect speaker would measure at 1m in anechoic conditions on axis.
The thing is no one listens that way to speakers.
Yes, some folks do listen to speakers at 1m (nearfield desktop setups) but not anechoic and bass boost (from the room) will also be 'added' and the brain won't be able to discern low frequencies. Most will listen to speakers in a room at several meters away in furnished rooms.

This means that flat+smooth SPL measured in headphones is not tonally correct like 'flat + smooth' speakers in a room
These 2 have a different sound.

When the goal is to get the correct tonal balance recordings are designed for (flat+smooth speaker in a room) you will have to 'mimic' room effects. Here is where things go sour.
Everybodies room is different. Just like HpTF differs from person to person.

To measure anything you need to have a reference. For most things in life measurements can be fairly exact and when a standard is used we will get similar results.
Not so in everyones room and not so with HpTF, leaving preference aside.
So both HpTF and 'speaker in room' will have to be an average. There is no way around that.

Assuming at Harman they knew what they were doing and established standards (using human hearing + objective measurements) they arrived at their standard which (mostly) differs from SPL measurements in the lows and treble. Bass because of the room, treble because of speaker distance/room and averaging. It is turned into this standard when measured on a specific HATS with a specific configuration and averaging.

So now we have a standard that works in the Harman room which is supposed to mimic 'average' listening rooms with better than average speakers.
That doesn't mean that each individual speaker in each individual room at each specific listening position/distance will yield the correct 'tonal balance'.
Alas, for most people, that sound of their selected speaker in their room with their recordings and music preference will be 'their' reference.
That may wel NOT be the intended sound (optimal speaker in 'optimal' room) but your brain get's used to it.
Just like when listening to 1 headphone only we get 'used' to sound signature (and generally think it is burn-in of the headphone).
The closer the speakers in that room get to the sound sig of the headphone the easier we accept it as 'real' and thus how we perceive bass.

Now here's the thing. The serious listeners all EQ their room/speakers and thus, in general, have to EQ the lows. Mostly downwards in level.
These are usually EQ'ed to a 'gentle sloping' curve and thus deviate from 'flat+smooth speaker in room with no treatment'.
You get used to less 'room made bass boost'.
Chances thus are that audiophiles with treated rooms/room EQ will get used to and prefer less 'bass boost' than the vast majority of 'standard listeners (with room bass boost).

So... in short your (and mine) amount of bass boost differs and amount of treble may also.

Let's all live with our own 'truths' but lets measure according to a standard. Harman is such a standard. And while not perfect for everyone it is a scientifically determined standard and 'better' than FF or DF so why not use it ?

This shouldn't be in an LCD-X thread though.
Maybe these posts should go in another thread where the discussion can easily be found again for those looking for Harman things.

Nice post, lots of very good point, but I don't agree speaker having the same issue though, at least not in the same way. If a speaker able to perfectly replicated a singer's voice it would be perfect already. Because even if I can revive Michael Jackson and invite him to my home, his voice will subject to the same room issue as my speaker.

 

[solderdude]

Speakers do not have the same issues as headphones.
When you have one speaker, that is 'flat' in anechoic conditions then still a singer in the same room will sound different.
It will be close but not the same due to the dispersion difference between the speaker and an actual singer.
When using 2 speakers in a room (with mono signal) then the singer, when standing in the middle will still sound different yet again for the same reason except now there are 2 sound sources having different dispersion.

 

[Matias]

FYI Audeze has been shipping a shorter leather strap that does not touch the suspension headband anymore. Users with old style headband or with the long strap should just contact their customer service and order the new parts. The XC is a heavy headphone and with the suspension headband and short strap I finally got the best comfort I ever had with it.

 

[wemist01]

FYI Audeze has been shipping a shorter leather strap that does not touch the suspension headband anymore. Users with old style headband or with the long strap should just contact their customer service and order the new parts. The XC is a heavy headphone and with the suspension headband and short strap I finally got the best comfort I ever had with it.

Hey, Matias-
I have no doubt the above looks more cool and contemporary than the old design. My head says the old design is completely comfortable. Does the newer one have less clamp (or other advantages)? Also curious if you EQ, and if so, how. I use True-Fi and am quite happy, but it is basic enought that I would be curious to try any alternative, too.

 

[Matias]

Hey, Matias-
I have no doubt the above looks more cool and contemporary than the old design. My head says the old design is completely comfortable. Does the newer one have less clamp (or other advantages)? Also curious if you EQ, and if so, how. I use True-Fi and am quite happy, but it is basic enought that I would be curious to try any alternative, too.

I like the new look better. To me the old style leather-on-steel headband was terribly uncomfortable, with the hot spot piercing my skull after some 30 minutes. The suspension headband with long strap helped somewhat, but the short strap was the game changer. I could use it for hours on end. Clamping was stronger with the suspension headband though. I sold my XCs last year btw.

As for EQ I used and tweaked based on Oratory's measurements.

 

[jcadduono]

FYI Audeze has been shipping a shorter leather strap that does not touch the suspension headband anymore. Users with old style headband or with the long strap should just contact their customer service and order the new parts. The XC is a heavy headphone and with the suspension headband and short strap I finally got the best comfort I ever had with it.

How new is this? I've been ordering replacement leather straps from them every 6 months and my last one was 3 months ago. It usually took about 4 months for the leather to stretch to the point it went through the top hole of the steel headband part and provided zero suspension.

 

[Matias]

Brand new. And I highly doubt it would stretch so far to reach the headband.

 

[srsxmi]

FYI Audeze has been shipping a shorter leather strap that does not touch the suspension headband anymore. Users with old style headband or with the long strap should just contact their customer service and order the new parts. The XC is a heavy headphone and with the suspension headband and short strap I finally got the best comfort I ever had with it.

Thanks - I'll give it a try - I purchased the carbon fiber replacement when it came out (~1.5 yrs ago) and I see the strap is available for it for $39.

 

[ChickenChaser]

I absolutely hated the LCD-X and the LCD-2C, but I loved the old revision 2 pair of LCD-2 I had, LCD-3 and especially the LCD-4.

 

[wemist01]

Hey, for you Audeze owners - I recently had to deal with a cable that was destroyed because someone dropped the cans (could have been me- don't know. All damage was local to the cable, so thank you, Audeze). Replacement cables are expensive. While I found a source that I'm taking a chance on, I'm wondering if anyone has any favorite vendors for price/quality.

 

[Helicopter]

Hey, for you Audeze owners - I recently had to deal with a cable that was destroyed because someone dropped the cans (could have been me- don't know. All damage was local to the cable, so thank you, Audeze). Replacement cables are expensive. While I found a source that I'm taking a chance on, I'm wondering if anyone has any favorite vendors for price/quality.

Periapt. I got an LCD XLR4 cable and it is very nice.

 

[50°F=Hellfire]

Hey, for you Audeze owners - I recently had to deal with a cable that was destroyed because someone dropped the cans (could have been me- don't know. All damage was local to the cable, so thank you, Audeze). Replacement cables are expensive. While I found a source that I'm taking a chance on, I'm wondering if anyone has any favorite vendors for price/quality.

Periapt is generally agreed upon to be the best aftermarket cable manufacturer, afaik.

 

[dasdoing]

it's "strange" that most mastering egeniers seam to love the Audezes, not necessarily the lcd-x, but....
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1458538374409630/permalink/2947558585507594/

 

[Bow_Wazoo]

Hey, for you Audeze owners - I recently had to deal with a cable that was destroyed because someone dropped the cans (could have been me- don't know. All damage was local to the cable, so thank you, Audeze). Replacement cables are expensive. While I found a source that I'm taking a chance on, I'm wondering if anyone has any favorite vendors for price/quality.

Maybe you would like to try one of my B&W Signature cables?
The cable is super soft and light.
A perfect HP Cable.

 

[wemist01]

I'm curious- the cable I ordered is only 5' which works well at my desk, but feels short. Try my ID at hotmail.

 

[arancano]

I now have LCD-X cans. It's a love-hate relationship. Equalized, I love them. All the strengths of planars show up. Out-of-the-box, as Amir said, they are deficient and a failed design.

I spoke to the Audeze rep. Their take is that to have a more normal out-of-the-box FR the design would have to sacrifice what makes them good in other areas and that it is a lot easier to correct FR through EQ than to meet all design goals at the factory.

I am not an engineer and have no idea if his assertion is BS or a delay tactic until they can engineer a design that is not deficient out-of-the-box. What I do know is that it takes cojones to charge $1,200 for a deficient design.

I bought into the BS or submitted to the cojones simply because I love to learn and have been learning how to EQ with great success. The LCD-X cans are a wonderful learning tool and the results are fantastic. Were that not the case, the cans would have shattered into a thousand pieces after being thrown from the top of Mount San Jacinto.

By the way, Amir, your LCD-X profile, to my ears and in my system, sounds better than Audeze's. Thank you for posting it. I EQ using Voxengo Gliss and Curve plug-ins on JRiver. It is more aggressive but it brings the Chicago Symphony brass, particularly on Mahler symphonies, to their full glory.

 

[Robbo99999]

I now have LCD-X cans. It's a love-hate relationship. Equalized, I love them. All the strengths of planars show up. Out-of-the-box, as Amir said, they are deficient and a failed design.

I spoke to the Audeze rep. Their take is that to have a more normal out-of-the-box FR the design would have to sacrifice what makes them good in other areas and that it is a lot easier to correct FR through EQ than to meet all design goals at the factory.

I am not an engineer and have no idea if his assertion is BS or a delay tactic until they can engineer a design that is not deficient out-of-the-box. What I do know is that it takes cojones to charge $1,200 for a deficient design.

I bought into the BS or submitted to the cojones simply because I love to learn and have been learning how to EQ with great success. The LCD-X cans are a wonderful learning tool and the results are fantastic. Were that not the case, the cans would have shattered into a thousand pieces after being thrown from the top of Mount San Jacinto.

By the way, Amir, your LCD-X profile, to my ears and in my system, sounds better than Audeze's. Thank you for posting it. I EQ using Voxengo Gliss and Curve plug-ins on JRiver. It is more aggressive but it brings the Chicago Symphony brass, particularly on Mahler symphonies, to their full glory.

Most people don't EQ their headphones, apart from the the sort of people that come to this site, so I don't really buy into their explanation that this headphone was designed to be used with EQ rather than listened to at stock.......all headphones have to be designed for the main purpose of listening to them at stock.

 

[idkwho]

I'm using the Audeze Reveal EQ plugin and was wondering does anyone know whether a peak limiter has any degradation in sound quality with gain set at 0dB vs setting the gain to -3dB with peak limiter disabled? I can see there are settings such as threshold, knee, attack, release, ratio and makeup within the peak limiter. What would be the optimum values for each of these settings?

Any help is appreciated. Thank you.