Audeze LCD-X Review (2021 Edition Headphone)

[Mike S]

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.


Oh and by the way:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1573258016673366016

Good grief GaryH, I tried a couple of EQs that are known to be relatively neutral compared to EQs that are known for the exact opposite because I already paid for them and whatever I end up using has to work in a VST/ASIO environment. Only a complete moron, or someone with a total excess of cash wouldn't try what appear on the surface to be viable. You said "any 10 band EQ will do" which is simply not true. So I tried unsuccessfully to explain to you why any 10 band EQ will not do. Apparently you still don't get it as a pure content consumer. And thats fine, you don't need to get it to be a pure content consumer. As for Waves and the NX series that they sell, the curves in them suck. I know. I own multiple of those products. Which is why I came here to looking for a better curve. And as I stated in one of my earliest posts, Waves NX based virtual studios are way more than just a curve... Fortunately turning off the curves in those products and instead using the curves you steered me to works pretty well, so thanks again for that.

 

[Mike S]

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.

Clearly you have never mixed a single song in your entire life. I'm sorry, but the amount of sheer ignorance on your part about the subject of plugins is both astounding, and on your part, extremely embarrassing. And FWIW, some of the best sounding stuff out there is also some of the least expensive. Go mix your first song using only technically perfect plugins and share the results with us, so you can prove you're right. lol.

 

[GaryH]

You said "any 10 band EQ will do" which is simply not true.

No I didn't. I said 'Oratory's EQ profiles...with any 10-band parametric equalizer'. I would have thought you'd know this, but a parametric equalizer means the parameters of each band (e.g. frequency, gain, and Q-factor / bandwidth) are user definable, and using Oratory's EQ profiles with this means exactly that: entering the parameters of his profiles into the parametric equalizer.

As for Waves and the NX series that they sell, the curves in them suck. I know. I own multiple of those products.

You should have actually read the Twitter thread from Oratory I posted:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1573258267429863425

And as I stated in one of my earliest posts, Waves NX based virtual studios are way more than just a curve...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1573258144154787841

 

[markanini]

Clearly you have never mixed a single song in your entire life. I'm sorry, but the amount of sheer ignorance on your part about the subject of plugins is both astounding, and on your part, extremely embarrassing. And FWIW, some of the best sounding stuff out there is also some of the least expensive. Go mix your first song using only technically perfect plugins and share the results with us, so you can prove you're right. lol.

Unlike your passionately articulate response, you are grossly deficient in reading comprehension.

 

[skris88]

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...

seanolive.blogspot.com

Agreed!

Accuracy needs to be first and foremost.

You can add and modify it to a personal preference later then if you wish (eg. you are hearing damaged and so need more of a boost at some - or a range of - frequencies).

This is even more important in recording/creation of the material, especially since microphones, too, all sound slightly different. But if your headphones are as flat and neutral as they can be, when you switch mics you will hear which microphone is more true to the sound of the instrument you are recording, and you can choose rationally then if you want a different mic that changes the natural/original sound in a way you and/or the artist wants. Personally I would record using the most natural/original sounding microphone first, then change it in the mix later if you want it to sound in any way different.

 

[thewas]

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.

I don't think Toole was directly involved in the headphone stuff/target as it was after his active time at Harman (1991-2007) and I haven't seen his name as an author in the corresponding publications?

 

[markanini]

This is even more important in recording/creation of the material, especially since microphones, too, all sound slightly different. But if your headphones are as flat and neutral as they can be, when you switch mics you will hear which microphone is more true to the sound of the instrument you are recording, and you can choose rationally then if you want a different mic that changes the natural/original sound in a way you and/or the artist wants. Personally I would record using the most natural/original sounding microphone first, then change it in the mix later if you want it to sound in any way different.

The client is the boss, they almost always expect something that's larger than life, stylized and something that can fit in as element in a dense modern mix. Very neutral mics like omni SDCs require way more work in this context. If you choose to pursue this kind of work you will find this out.

 

[GaryH]

I don't think Toole was directly involved in the headphone stuff/target as it was after his active time at Harman (1991-2007) and I haven't seen his name as an author in the corresponding publications?

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.

As I've said, the Harman target has over a decade of robust research behind it [meaning exactly that, including preliminary research built upon, not necessarily under the Harman name] by eminent acoustic scientists such as Dr Olive (former president of the Audio Engineering Society) and Dr Toole.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1454006185565167616

When I started measuring and subjectively evaluating headphones in the 1970s, sound quality was hugely variable.

My colleague at the NRCC, Dr. Edgar A. G. Shaw had been doing pioneering work on measuring the acoustical performance of the external ear (precursors to HRTFs), so I took advantage of this data. To me it seemed logical that human listeners would pay most attention to sounds arriving from the front hemisphere, so I assembled the free-field to blocked-meatus transformations for these angles, thereby establishing a “prediction” of what might be heard from a perfectly flat on-axis loudspeaker with constant, wide-dispersion, directivity in a reflective room. It was a huge simplification, but it was a start.

For the measurements I used a flat plate coupler fitted with a rubber pinna replica borrowed from a KEMAR anthropometric mannequin and a 1/4-inch pressure-response microphone at the entrance to the ear canal—a blocked-meatus measurement.

As product evaluation results accumulated, it was clear that the better sounding headphones had measurements that were in the general area of the predictive target. The variations were enormous, as can be seen in figure 8 of Toole (1984). In Figure 13.4a can be seen a selection of the “good” sounding headphones. Among these one product was highly praised by all listeners, and this is shown in (b) to fit very well into the shaded area embracing sounds arriving from the front hemisphere. It is interesting that starting in 1974 the magazine published review data in the format of (b) showing the coupler measurements, with and without air leaks, superimposed on the “ideal” loudspeaker/room target area. It was a pioneering effort.

Many years later, my colleagues Sean Olive and Todd Welti focused their attention on the currently flourishing market for headphones, asking the same basic questions that I had 38 years earlier. The passage of time had provided new measurement apparatus (a GRAS 43AG) delivering more trustworthy data at the eardrum, and powerful signal processing permitted new kinds of experiments. Several informative papers resulted (e.g., Olive et al., 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016). It was gratifying when they found that listeners gave the highest ratings to headphones that were equalized to mimic, at the eardrums, the sound of highly rated loudspeakers in a good listening room (Olive et al., 2012, 2013b, 2016) — an evolved form of the conclusion in Figure 13.4.

Conclusion: the best sounding headphones sound like good loudspeakers in a good listening room. Because that is where recordings usually originate, is anyone surprised? The good news is that it is possible to anticipate sound quality using the right measurements, interpreted in the right manner.

— Toole, Sound Reproduction

 

[thewas]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1454006185565167616

— Toole, Sound Reproduction

Yes, a lot of really important preliminary research was done by Toole but what currently is known as the Harman headphone targets (with also the limitations they have) is a product of research and experiments he wasn't involved in, that's why he also doesn't appear even as an co-author on the corresponding papers and publications.

By the way why do you have your profile and PM locked, I would enjoy discussing some related topics via PM with you.

 

[IAtaman]

Arya Stealth has a much better soundstage, and is more comfortable. The huge cups are great, nothing even remotely touching the ear.

Thank you again, appreciate it. Found a store that carries both, and a few more cans I wanted to hear, so give them both a listen this afternoon. Lets see what I will come back home with

 

[Blorg]

Thank you again, appreciate it. Found a store that carries both, and a few more cans I wanted to hear, so give them both a listen this afternoon. Lets see what I will come back home with

If you can, bring some means of EQ so you can also compare with EQ. Oratory1990's profiles for both are a good starting point. You could also pre-load Amir's profiles in this and the Arya review. If you have an Android phone, you could convert these to Wavelet, if you had a Qudelix you could bring that with a 3.5 to RCA to plug into a headphone amp at the shop. Or whatever other means you might have. The LCD-X needs it a lot more than the Arya IMO but it is really transformed with EQ and I would never have considered owning it if I couldn't EQ it. I still prefer the Arya as an all-rounder, but auditioning the LCD-X without EQ isn't going to give you the full picture of what it can sound like at its best, if you like upper mids.

 

[IAtaman]

If you can, bring some means of EQ so you can also compare with EQ. Oratory1990's profiles for both are a good starting point. You could also pre-load Amir's profiles in this and the Arya review. If you have an Android phone, you could convert these to Wavelet, if you had a Qudelix you could bring that with a 3.5 to RCA to plug into a headphone amp at the shop. Or whatever other means you might have. The LCD-X needs it a lot more than the Arya IMO but it is really transformed with EQ and I would never have considered owning it if I couldn't EQ it. I still prefer the Arya as an all-rounder, but auditioning the LCD-X without EQ isn't going to give you the full picture of what it can sound like at its best, if you like upper mids.

Yeah I figured I am going to need some EQ to make the best out of LCDs so I took the Qudelix 5K with me. I used the oratory1990's harman 2018 over ear EQ settings. Without EQ, LCD-X felt flat and boring indeed. EQ does not make a big difference, it makes it a different class of headphone all together - I really liked the LCD-X with EQ. It really does have a punch as you said, and I liked the details you got once you boost the highs, the texture of the bass, the imaging - it was all great.

I got to spent some quality time with Arya SE as well. I get why you said Arya are a better pair of headphones and I agree - I thought they had better sound stage and better imaging - everything sounds very distinct with them if that makes sense. Really very nice set of headphones. Comfort was much better as well. After Audezes, Hifiman headphones feel like a feather on the head Arya has a wider sound stage I thought, and even more details both on low and high ends. I loved them. Only thing I am not 100% sure about them is whether they are worth the upgrade over Edition XS.

On the topic of why a headphone that sounds better out of the box is better than the one that needs EQ to sound good tonally but can handle it with no distortion - my current humble (and probably wrong) theory is that the target vs which we EQ is too smooth; we are missing nuances in frequency response that we perceive as spatial qualities and are "painting over" those nuances with a rough EQ.

So, the outcome of the day: If I had to pick one headphone to take home with me, I'd definitely go with Arya. But I felt like spoiling myself a little bit so I returned home with a new pair of LCD-X 2021 Version and back-ordered the Arya. I told the guy at the the store that if I cannot tell the difference between Arya and Edition XS, I will return the Aryas (bought Edition XS online) and he agreed. So lets see

PS. They had a brand new set of MM-500 at the store. I really liked the way they looked. They sound better than LCD-X out of the box but not as great as Arya in my opinion, and I did not have the right EQ for them to hear their full potential so when the Aryas arrive I have to go back to the store to give MM-500s another listen... oh well

 

[IXOYE]

I've read that a lot of people have complained about their ear tips touching the fazors because the pads are shallower on these than the older version, how big of a comfort problem is this really?

 

[pk500]

I've read that a lot of people have complained about their ear tips touching the fazors because the pads are shallower on these than the older version, how big of a comfort problem is this really?

Not a problem for me, and my right ear has some weird cartilage that protrudes.

The LCD-2C definitely have deeper pads than the LCD-X 2021. But the LCD-X 2021 are still comfortable.

 

[Blorg]

I've read that a lot of people have complained about their ear tips touching the fazors because the pads are shallower on these than the older version, how big of a comfort problem is this really?

I don't have the earlier version, but this isn't a problem for me either on the 2021 version.

 

[Jonne Haven]

LCD-X 2021 EQ Revision 03-05-23
For A Refined EQ

I'm proud to present nearly 3 months work in what is arguably my best EQ for LCD-X ever!

It's been a while since my last revision (which to me, I admit, I was a little disappointed with) so I spent extra time with this one to make sure that I was not going to regret posting it. Always sleeping on any change, large or small, to hear it again with fresh ears before committing to anything.

This time around I discovered that PEACE can define Q values to the thousandth of a decimal place, a feature that I took advantage of in this release to amazing results...especially when shaping high frequency sounds like 'sss' sounds. In this revision I have shaped the 'sss' sounds to near perfection...not fuzzy sounding but not piercing either...just realistic and beautiful.

Highs have been shaped in a hybrid shape with the the LCD-X's stock tuning and the Focal Stellia's stock tuning...using the best of both tunings and combining them for custom euphonic sound. It took a long to time to accomplish this.

The sub bass extends all the way down and below 20Hz for beautiful sub bass but not too much...as defined by a dip at exactly 40.11Hz for just enough sub bass but not too much to add mud. Since my last revision I've added back some of the high bass warmth that was missing, getting back to my roots so to speak...but again not too much.
If a song is meant to be bass heavy, this EQ will reflect that. If the song is not bass heavy, this EQ will respect that as well. Also the way bass is expressed in modern pop is often times different than the way that bass was mastered in songs from the 90s, 80s, and 70s and so on respectively. All will sound good/appropriate to their respective time periods. The common attribute for all of these bass expressions is a nice amount of punch.


Important notes about P.E.A.C.E.
My EQs go to the the hundredth place of some Frequencies values as well as the hundredth place of some Gain values. Unfortunately the Import function of the current PEACE v. 1.6.4.1 does not import these decimal place values as they are in the txt files I've shared...as I have posted earlier.

I wrote to PEACE creator Peter Verbeek and he has fixed this issue in beta version 1.6.5.0 just for this fix! And he did it within 24 hours of my writing him!
This beta version is available at this link: PEACE Beta V. 1.6.5.0

Instructions:
1. Rename the downloaded exe file from Peace1650.exe to Peace.exe.
2. Copy the downloaded and renamed file to c:\program files\equalizerapo\config, overwriting the existing Peace.exe file (perhaps after renaming the existing Peace.exe file to Peace.bak just in case for safety.
3. In case you haven't already done this, change the Settings/Sizes And Amounts Settings - "Snap to dB gain" setting to 0.01 as in the following pic.

Now you can simply import the attached txt file and trust that all of the decimal place values will be accurate so you hear exactly what I hear and have worked so hard on!

LCD-X 2021 EQ Revision 03-05-23
Channel: all
Preamp: -17.7 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 20.2 Hz Gain 11.89 dB Q 0.68
Filter 2: ON LSC Fc 40.11 Hz Gain 1.07 dB Q 4
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 80 Hz Gain 9.47 dB Q 1.196
Filter 4: ON LSC Fc 90 Hz Gain 3.79 dB Q 0.65
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 120 Hz Gain 1.99 dB Q 1.41
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 220 Hz Gain -4.13 dB Q 2.4
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 300 Hz Gain 3.45 dB Q 1.5
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 575 Hz Gain 3.72 dB Q 3
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 785 Hz Gain -2.34 dB Q 2.2
Filter 10: ON HSC Fc 1235 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 2.4
Filter 11: ON HSC Fc 1500 Hz Gain 8 dB Q 0.72
Filter 12: ON PK Fc 1750 Hz Gain 0.47 dB Q 3
Filter 13: ON PK Fc 1910 Hz Gain 1.05 dB Q 5
Filter 14: ON PK Fc 2700 Hz Gain -3.1 dB Q 2
Filter 15: ON PK Fc 3325 Hz Gain 0.3 dB Q 4.8
Filter 16: ON PK Fc 3485 Hz Gain 1.6 dB Q 4.9
Filter 17: ON PK Fc 3750 Hz Gain 3.3 dB Q 1.7
Filter 18: ON PK Fc 3850 Hz Gain 1.1 dB Q 4.7
Filter 19: ON PK Fc 4015 Hz Gain -1.15 dB Q 5
Filter 20: ON PK Fc 4350 Hz Gain 2.3 dB Q 4
Filter 21: ON PK Fc 5100 Hz Gain -0.45 dB Q 3
Filter 22: ON PK Fc 5600 Hz Gain -2.75 dB Q 5
Filter 23: ON PK Fc 6100 Hz Gain -3.23 dB Q 2.5
Filter 24: ON PK Fc 6500 Hz Gain 2.12 dB Q 5
Filter 25: ON PK Fc 7200 Hz Gain -1.65 dB Q 3
Filter 26: ON PK Fc 8000 Hz Gain -1.46 dB Q 4.073
Filter 27: ON PK Fc 9700 Hz Gain -0.3 dB Q 1.41
Filter 28: ON HSC Fc 10980 Hz Gain 2.14 dB Q 0.65
Filter 29: ON PK Fc 11115.84 Hz Gain -2.4 dB Q 3.921
Filter 30: ON PK Fc 13290 Hz Gain -4.99 dB Q 4.8
Filter 31: ON PK Fc 13737 Hz Gain 3.25 dB Q 3.082

As with all of my EQs I have designed them for easy tweaking:

- To tailor bass adjust the gain of Filter 4 to taste.
- To tailor mids "shoutiness" adjust the gain of Filter 17 to taste. Or to tailor the entire mids and high-bass raise (or lower) the Gain of the other named filters (Filters 4, 27, and 28) EQUALLY and adjust the Pre-amp value to keep the EQ at -0.1dB. This is the preferred way to adjust the mids.
- To tailor high-mids/low treble adjust the gain of Filter 27 to taste.
- To tailor treble adjust the gain of Filter 28 to taste.

After any adjustment, be sure that the Pre-amp setting is set to keep the EQ at -0.1dB in the graph window to avoid clipping or unnecessary compression.

Thanks for reading this far! And thanks to you all who have been so kind in encouraging me with "Likes" and posts. For those of you who don't EQ (I respect that), thanks for putting up with my posts for the sake of those who do.

Enjoy what I think is my best EQ ever and do let me know if you have questions/comments!

Blessings,
-Jonne

 

[Blorg]

@Jonne Haven this may work well for your specific unit, ears and taste but this level of precision in an EQ puts too much stock in the reliability of measurements. It is misguided for anything general, and particularly for Audeze which have significant unit variance. I usually start with Oratory1990's Harman presets and found I had to change his LCD-X one quite a bit more than I have for other headphones to get it sounding right. I'm just not sure it makes sense to get this into the weeds with thousandths of a decimal place for very high frequency Q values. The usual approach for general EQs is the exact opposite, just a broad high shelf for the high frequencies.

For me this is not to my taste, it's much too boomy and recesses the mids making them sound muffled. You are doing some things along the same lines as I would like boosting the upper mids to Harman. But the very large bass boost pushes everything down, relatively.

This is what I use for comparison:

Vs yours, there are some broad similarities like the 3-5kHz but the scale is very different:

 

[Robbo99999]

LCD-X 2021 EQ Revision 03-05-23
For A Refined EQ

I'm proud to present nearly 3 months work in what is arguably my best EQ for LCD-X ever!

It's been a while since my last revision (which to me, I admit, I was a little disappointed with) so I spent extra time with this one to make sure that I was not going to regret posting it. Always sleeping on any change, large or small, to hear it again with fresh ears before committing to anything.

This time around I discovered that PEACE can define Q values to the thousandth of a decimal place, a feature that I took advantage of in this release to amazing results...especially when shaping high frequency sounds like 'sss' sounds. In this revision I have shaped the 'sss' sounds to near perfection...not fuzzy sounding but not piercing either...just realistic and beautiful.

View attachment 270130

Highs have been shaped in a hybrid shape with the the LCD-X's stock tuning and the Focal Stellia's stock tuning...using the best of both tunings and combining them for custom euphonic sound. It took a long to time to accomplish this.

The sub bass extends all the way down and below 20Hz for beautiful sub bass but not too much...as defined by a dip at exactly 40.11Hz for just enough sub bass but not too much to add mud. Since my last revision I've added back some of the high bass warmth that was missing, getting back to my roots so to speak...but again not too much.
If a song is meant to be bass heavy, this EQ will reflect that. If the song is not bass heavy, this EQ will respect that as well. Also the way bass is expressed in modern pop is often times different than the way that bass was mastered in songs from the 90s, 80s, and 70s and so on respectively. All will sound good/appropriate to their respective time periods. The common attribute for all of these bass expressions is a nice amount of punch.


Important notes about P.E.A.C.E.
My EQs go to the the hundredth place of some Frequencies values as well as the hundredth place of some Gain values. Unfortunately the Import function of the current PEACE v. 1.6.4.1 does not import these decimal place values as they are in the txt files I've shared...as I have posted earlier.

I wrote to PEACE creator Peter Verbeek and he has fixed this issue in beta version 1.6.5.0 just for this fix! And he did it within 24 hours of my writing him!
This beta version is available at this link: PEACE Beta V. 1.6.5.0

Instructions:
1. Rename the downloaded exe file from Peace1650.exe to Peace.exe.
2. Copy the downloaded and renamed file to c:\program files\equalizerapo\config, overwriting the existing Peace.exe file (perhaps after renaming the existing Peace.exe file to Peace.bak just in case for safety.
3. In case you haven't already done this, change the Settings/Sizes And Amounts Settings - "Snap to dB gain" setting to 0.01 as in the following pic.

View attachment 270131

Now you can simply import the attached txt file and trust that all of the decimal place values will be accurate so you hear exactly what I hear and have worked so hard on!

LCD-X 2021 EQ Revision 03-05-23
Channel: all
Preamp: -17.7 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 20.2 Hz Gain 11.89 dB Q 0.68
Filter 2: ON LSC Fc 40.11 Hz Gain 1.07 dB Q 4
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 80 Hz Gain 9.47 dB Q 1.196
Filter 4: ON LSC Fc 90 Hz Gain 3.79 dB Q 0.65
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 120 Hz Gain 1.99 dB Q 1.41
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 220 Hz Gain -4.13 dB Q 2.4
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 300 Hz Gain 3.45 dB Q 1.5
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 575 Hz Gain 3.72 dB Q 3
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 785 Hz Gain -2.34 dB Q 2.2
Filter 10: ON HSC Fc 1235 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 2.4
Filter 11: ON HSC Fc 1500 Hz Gain 8 dB Q 0.72
Filter 12: ON PK Fc 1750 Hz Gain 0.47 dB Q 3
Filter 13: ON PK Fc 1910 Hz Gain 1.05 dB Q 5
Filter 14: ON PK Fc 2700 Hz Gain -3.1 dB Q 2
Filter 15: ON PK Fc 3325 Hz Gain 0.3 dB Q 4.8
Filter 16: ON PK Fc 3485 Hz Gain 1.6 dB Q 4.9
Filter 17: ON PK Fc 3750 Hz Gain 3.3 dB Q 1.7
Filter 18: ON PK Fc 3850 Hz Gain 1.1 dB Q 4.7
Filter 19: ON PK Fc 4015 Hz Gain -1.15 dB Q 5
Filter 20: ON PK Fc 4350 Hz Gain 2.3 dB Q 4
Filter 21: ON PK Fc 5100 Hz Gain -0.45 dB Q 3
Filter 22: ON PK Fc 5600 Hz Gain -2.75 dB Q 5
Filter 23: ON PK Fc 6100 Hz Gain -3.23 dB Q 2.5
Filter 24: ON PK Fc 6500 Hz Gain 2.12 dB Q 5
Filter 25: ON PK Fc 7200 Hz Gain -1.65 dB Q 3
Filter 26: ON PK Fc 8000 Hz Gain -1.46 dB Q 4.073
Filter 27: ON PK Fc 9700 Hz Gain -0.3 dB Q 1.41
Filter 28: ON HSC Fc 10980 Hz Gain 2.14 dB Q 0.65
Filter 29: ON PK Fc 11115.84 Hz Gain -2.4 dB Q 3.921
Filter 30: ON PK Fc 13290 Hz Gain -4.99 dB Q 4.8
Filter 31: ON PK Fc 13737 Hz Gain 3.25 dB Q 3.082

As with all of my EQs I have designed them for easy tweaking:

- To tailor bass adjust the gain of Filter 4 to taste.
- To tailor mids "shoutiness" adjust the gain of Filter 17 to taste. Or to tailor the entire mids and high-bass raise (or lower) the Gain of the other named filters (Filters 4, 27, and 28) EQUALLY and adjust the Pre-amp value to keep the EQ at -0.1dB. This is the preferred way to adjust the mids.
- To tailor high-mids/low treble adjust the gain of Filter 27 to taste.
- To tailor treble adjust the gain of Filter 28 to taste.

After any adjustment, be sure that the Pre-amp setting is set to keep the EQ at -0.1dB in the graph window to avoid clipping or unnecessary compression.

Thanks for reading this far! And thanks to you all who have been so kind in encouraging me with "Likes" and posts. For those of you who don't EQ (I respect that), thanks for putting up with my posts for the sake of those who do.

Enjoy what I think is my best EQ ever and do let me know if you have questions/comments!

Blessings,
-Jonne

Hi Jonne, this EQ may sound great to you, but there's no guarantee it will sound great to everyone else, so when you say "Now you can simply import the attached txt file and trust that all of the decimal place values will be accurate so you hear exactly what I hear and have worked so hard on!" - this is just not the case, virtually noone will hear it exactly as you hear it due to HRTF differences between people, unit to unit variation of headphones, and some variability of frequency response in relation to specific anatomy differences that can effect seal and also frequency response effects independent of seal - headphones just aren't reliable enough between different people to ensure that they will hear what you hear with any given EQ.

You also mention your EQ takes advantage of you finding out that Q values and frequencies can be stipulated to the hundredths and thousandths in terms of decimal place, and again based on what we've talked about in my first paragraph, then these very minute differences are lost in the inaccuracies associated with different people's experiences of headphones in terms of the actual frequency response they receive (for a start). Also those very minute differences that you mention re hundredths and thousandths in terms of decimal place, I'd be super surprised if anyone can tell the difference between their own EQ's that operate to that level of detailed spec - this would be placebo on your end rather than an actual difference you're experiencing - certainly accuracy to hundredths and thousandths in terms of decimal place is not perceivable in EQ's for any of the variables.

I'm just saying all this to put it into perspective, I'm not saying that your EQ is wrong for you, it's quite possibly a good EQ for yourself and your particular unit of LCD-X, but you can't assume it'll be good for everyone else, and I'm quite sure you've led yourself down the garden path of placebo when you start talking about hundredths and thousandths in terms of decimal place in your EQ's. But for sure be happy in the enjoyment of your EQ, that cannot be taken away from your experience.

 

[Bernard23]

I have experimented a lot with different base curves and tweaking them, which was a lot of rabbit tunnels, that all popped out into concluding that for me, the Roon/Audeze LCD-X profile was just fine for me!

 

[Rayman30]

I have experimented a lot with different base curves and tweaking them, which was a lot of rabbit tunnels, that all popped out into concluding that for me, the Roon/Audeze LCD-X profile was just fine for me!

Have you compared the Roon EQ to Oratory's ? I use a tweaked version of Oratory's. The LCD-X are very very good, but sometimes I get the sense they are missing upper midrange presence, and have been able to add some EQ to help, although nothing I do seems to fully restore it.