-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Audeze LCD-X Review (2021 Edition Headphone)
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
pk500
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2020
- Messages
- 265
- Likes
- 292
I switch between the parametric EQ, convolution filters and Audeze preset EQ settings in Roon.
I just checked the EQ in Izotope Neutron and its good for 12 bands. Plus I'm pretty sure the Q values are "real".
On a side note, anyone know where I can get a good EQ curve recipe for my Austrian AKG K701? I implemented the bass correction in hardware and it works fine, but I'd like to try a proper EQ on it and remex a few things and compare with the LCD-X before the return window closes.
Last edited:
From the same guy who did the LCD-X EQ I posted. All his EQ presets can be found here:
index/list_of_presets - oratory1990
r/oratory1990: Mostly covering topics like headphones, in-ear headphones, acoustics, electroacoustics, acoustic tuning, headphone design …
www.reddit.com
I'm not at home right now to check for myself, but what’s the difference with the Q-values in Pro-Q?
Still messing with the EQ curves for the LCD-X 2021 and wasn't able to resolve some pretty big weirdness in how they sound using various EQ software until I went with a linear phase EQ. While it adds a tiny bit of distortion, imo the cure is definitely better than the disease of all of the phase problems introduced with traditional EQs. For those using a DAW and needing VST(2,3), I've used this freebie called QRange that is actually decent and is very easy to enter the curve data and has 12 bands. I'll audition some for-pay linear phase EQs to see if they improve over this one, but this one suffices to demonstrate the difference in EQing with linear phase vs traditional EQ. For me, going linear phase with the oratory1990 curve about has me sold on these cans. I was about to box them up when I figured I need to try linear phase before shipping them out. Sure glad I did. This is very much sounding like I can ditch my speaker monitoring. I'd be happy to share the preset I generated, but don't see a way to post attachments...
For headphones, which are mostly minimum phase devices, you should use minimum phase PEQ filters. As Oratory explains:
Thanks for the info. The VST I linked above is an IIR filter that offers a min phase mode, and it sounds fine, and is in fact preferable since it has zero latency. To my ears the linear mode is a bit better, but either is fine to my ears.
It may be that the other EQs I tried failed to interpret the data entered into them in a way that reflects the true corrections, whereas this one was accurate in that regard. Don't know, just guessing. But I do know that based on using those EQs, these cans were about to go back where they came from, lol. And now they are staying. And the other EQs I tried are very well respected in the content creation world as being true and neutral...oh well.
Yeah the whole audio world is rife with subconscious cognitive bias and erroneous groupthink like that. The EQs by Oratory on the other hand aim to accurately match the Harman target frequency response, which has over a decade of comprehensive scientific research behind it showing it will be neutral/preferred to the majority of listeners in blind tests that eliminate those cognitive biases.
Last edited:
Its not so much bias and groupthink as it's simply for a different application. The EQs I tried are made for content creation, not content consumption. My requirements call for headphone correction that run in a content creation environment (VST/ASIO), and as far as I can tell, Oratory has no product for that. They seem to be geared towards the content consumption segment. That said, it has been very helpful that the recipes are public and people like you steer others like me to them. So thanks for that.
This is I'm afraid another case of erroneous groupthink. The perceived frequency response on the audio production and reproduction side should be the same (just as there are the same standards on the video production and reproduction side in film), and this can be achieved via Oratory's EQ profiles on both sides with any 10-band (or fewer depending on the headphone) parametric equalizer. The failure of the audio industry to implement such standards has led to audio's circle of confusion, resulting in large variability in recording and playback sound quality and the consumer often not hearing the music as the artist (you) heard and intended, which Dr Sean Olive (along with Dr Floyd Toole) have been trying to break via introducing a de facto standard in the Harman target. See here:
seanolive.blogspot.com
Audio's Circle of Confusion
Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and r...
seanolive.blogspot.com
Last edited:
Of course the perceived frequency response is the same in either segment. Hence why I came here to a consumption oriented forum to look for assistance. Monitoring is by definition content consumption, whether the one doing the monitoring is creating anything or not. That said, on the creation side, many $$ and hours of R&D are spent determining the right imperfections to introduce into a product like an EQ in order to make it more musical, be the product digital or analog. This renders those products not very well suited for doing corrections, but great for content creation. Meanwhile the freebie I'm using for now is a Juce based product running Juce's boiler plate code, and apparently the dev for the freebie has added none of those desirable-for-creation imperfections. Which explains why its free and also why its good for this task. As for the Harman curve, I'm all for it. But its probably going to suffer the same fate as the K system for loudness that Bob Katz came up with. He too, tried to herd cats, lol. His is now another recognized and respected way to deal with the loudness question, but far from a standard.This is I'm afraid another case of erroneous groupthink. The perceived frequency response on the audio production and reproduction side should be the same (just as there are the same standards on the video production and reproduction side in film), and this can be achieved via Oratory's EQ profiles on both sides with any 10-band (or fewer depending on the headphone) parametric equalizer. The failure of the audio industry to implement such standards has led to audio's circle of confusion, resulting in large variability in recording and playback sound quality and the consumer often not hearing the music as the artist (you) heard and intended, which Dr Sean Olive (along with Dr Floyd Toole) have been trying to break via introducing a de facto standard in the Harman target. See here:
Audio's Circle of Confusion
Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and r...
I avoid linear phase EQ for content creation myself, it's has ugly pre-ringing if you need to do sharp cuts or boots, and sometimes softens transients even with wide bands, something I'd rather control with separate processing.
Last edited:
I find this strange, I thought Q values were a set standard.
I have used Oratory’s EQ for the LCD-X in Fabfilter Pro-Q 3 and think it sounds great, but now I must test how it sounds by multiplying the Q values with 1.41!
Why do things have to be this complicated?
The Arya Stealth is much better tuned stock and is a much better all rounder. It's also significantly lighter and thus more comfortable, although the LCD-X for the weight distributes it very well and I don't have an issue with it.
LCD-X has significantly punchier bass and is a lot of fun. EQ is mandatory though and I think takes a bit of tweaking too, maybe due to unit variation. Stock it is dark and muffled, with very recessed upper mids. I use Oratory1990's Harman EQ but tweaked, just straight with the EQ it sounds off and too harsh in the upper mids, so I toned that down. Ican generally use his EQs straight on other stuff. Amir's EQ for the LCD-X is also a good starting point but quite a bit darker than Oratory1990's, it changes less and more narrowly.
Arya Stealth I EQ to Harman as well, but I can use Oratory1990's Harman EQ straight, only change I make is to raise the air (high shelf) a bit for preference. And for me, the Arya Stealth still sounds pretty much fine without EQ at all, the LCD-X sounds bad without EQ. EQ transforms it though.
If I could only have one, it would be the Arya Stealth, and it's not close. It's a much better headphone. But I do appreciate the LCD-X for the punchier bass, that's why I bought it and it delivers on that, it's the best bass out of anything I have.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2021
- Messages
- 2,409
- Likes
- 4,164
Thanks a lot Blorg, much appreciate it.
What makes Arya a much better headphone in your opinion other than better out-of-the-box tuning and weight? I am asking because I heard that same sentiment a few times from a few different people, but somehow it is not still clear to me why people like Arya better if LCD-X is such a low distortion headphone that you can tune as you wish with EQ. Would that not be a superior quality to any specific tuning? Or is it lacking some other capability - not so great dynamics maybe, or clarity, or sound stage, even with EQ?
You originally said:
So I'm not sure why you're now talking about 'musical' EQ with 'desirable imperfections' - the complete opposite of neutral and true. If you're talking about EQ for your music, that's a distinct issue from headphone frequency response correction that we're discussing.
As I've said, the Harman target has over a decade of robust research behind it by eminent acoustic scientists such as Dr Olive (former president of the Audio Engineering Society) and Dr Toole. It's not just a proposal, it's becoming increasingly adopted in the consumer market. What now needs to happen is the audio content creation industry following that lead and adopting it too in order to break the circle of confusion. I'm repeatedly surprised by just how few people in this industry have even heard of the Harman target and the large body of scientific research behind it. Here's a good overview from Olive:
Oh and by the way:
Last edited:
Arya Stealth has a much better soundstage, and is more comfortable. The huge cups are great, nothing even remotely touching the ear.
Dynamics, I think I would give to the LCD-X. They are not bad on the Arya, it's not totally lacking like for example the HD800S, but the LCD-X I think is better at that. But the Arya is good enough. Also I think better timbre and just sounds more natural and "right" to me. The LCD-X does have punchier bass though. I use the LCD-X mostly for electronic music, for the bass.
If I slap Oratory's EQ on both, the Arya sounds much better. If I slap Amir's EQ on both, the Arya sounds much better. If I spend time tweaking the LCD-X, it gets closer. But I think the Arya is still better overall.
I really can't over-state just how wonky the LCD-X stock tuning is compared to the Arya, and in my experience this does sort of matter, stuff that starts off closer to right to start and requires less correction is more likely to end up sounding better. There's the theory of "just EQ" it. But I have never found anything that was really wrong stock that was just directly immediately fixed into perfect with a preset EQ from a third party.
To EQ you need accurate measurements of your specific unit, and Audeze is known for having huge amounts of batch to batch variation. Hifiman I think is more consistent in this regard. I actually have my own measuring rig for IEMs and I do use that to EQ them (including wonky stuff from Audeze like the Euclid) and find that very useful. I can not only take the initial measurement to base the EQ on, I can check the thing again after I EQ to confirm what the result is. I have got some very good results with this with stuff I wouldn't have considered without it.
But I don't have this for over-ears, and so can only go on published measurements/EQ profiles, and tweaking by ear.
Maybe theoretically if I had my own measurement rig and could really dial in the EQ- but I don't, so this is my experience where I have to work without my own measurements. For me, having a good stock tuning is still a plus, I am willing to try things with wonky stock tuning and EQ them, but if I can pick between tuned right or not tuned right, tuned closer to right from the start is better, and the Arya is A LOT closer to right than the LCD-X is.
I had a similar experience with the Sony MDR-Z1R which has a huge 3kHz spike... yes I could EQ it and I did get it a lot better. But the spike for me wasn't quite where it was in Oratory's Harman preset, so I had to shift it 100Hz, trying to work this out by ear. I got it pretty good, but I was never quite 100% happy with it. So I do think stock tuning matters.
The less something is off from right, stock, the less divergences matter. If you are trying to EQ a sharp spike or dip from someone else's measurements, and they are off by 100Hz, you can end up actually making the spike or dip bigger, not smaller, and making it sound worse.
So- I have some tolerance for bad tuning and EQ it. But if I can pick between two headphones, one tuned right and one tuned very wrong, I will have a strong preference for the one tuned right.
Worth noting that Amir has probably ~$100k worth of testing setup and could do theoretically perfect individualized EQ better than most but still chooses headphones (HD650, Dan Clark Stealth) that are tuned extremely close to Harman stock.
If you want great bass though, the LCD-X does have great bass. And it can be EQed. Stock, it's nonsense. But if I could only have one I would take the Arya every time.
I think he's talking about the reverence plugins get for carrying out tasks in a way that introduces some extra distortions and or mimicking limitations of analog gear.
Music production can seem rather abstract on the surface where lots of moves taken that look like intentional degradation of the signal. In practice it's attempting to take advantage of psychoacoustics to make a mix with disparate elements work as a cohesive end product.
Music reproduction being a totally different domain, the goals and many of the tools used should be totally incompatible.
It's an issue that the distinction is rarely stated in a clear way. Sometimes casuals think incorrectly the plugins are higher quality because they are aimed at producers. It gets worse, there's also a some very effective marketing in this segment, When Grammy award winning producers sign on to promote plugins that make claims about analogue qualities being key. Software like VST Plugin Analyser and Plugindoctor can be used to open to lift the lid on such claims and identify them as Saturation, EQ and white noise, which is not hard to recreate with simple free plugins.
At the same time you can't argue with the fact that it saves a step in a mixing workflow. That's why they stay popular. Just not for the reason users were lead to believe. It's a lost cause IMO arguing objectivity in this case. If a mixing engineer worked on a platinum record and it payed their bills they don't start questioning their tools.
Last edited:
Similar threads
