• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Open Headphone To EQ And Audeze Low THD

concorde1

Active Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2021
Messages
276
Likes
197
Location
New Zealand
Regarding Audeze headphones, I've noticed there are some LCD headphones (LCD-X 2021 measured here; LCD-2F, LCD-3F, LCD-4 measured at diyaudioheaven) which have superbly low distortion, but THD rises to 1-4% in the sub bass.

But there are some LCD headphones (LCD-24 measured here; LCD-MX4 measured at diyaudioheaven) which have even lower distortion (the former doesn't reach 0.5% and the latter doesn't reach 1%).

Are there any other headphones in existence with THD as low as the LCD-24 or LCD-MX4?

I want to get an open headphone to EQ. Should I go for an LCD-3 (or LCD-2) or wait for a deal on an LCD-24 or LCD-MX4? Or some other manufacturer?

The LCD-3 probably offers little benefit over LCD-2, except the LCD-3 EQ's slightly closer to Harman, and I really like the look of the LCD-3 :)
 

Helicopter

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
2,671
Likes
3,852
Location
Michigan
Regarding Audeze headphones, I've noticed there are some LCD headphones (LCD-X 2021 measured here; LCD-2F, LCD-3F, LCD-4 measured at diyaudioheaven) which have superbly low distortion, but THD rises to 1-4% in the sub bass.

But there are some LCD headphones (LCD-24 measured here; LCD-MX4 measured at diyaudioheaven) which have even lower distortion (the former doesn't reach 0.5% and the latter doesn't reach 1%).

Are there any other headphones in existence with THD as low as the LCD-24 or LCD-MX4?

I want to get an open headphone to EQ. Should I go for an LCD-3 (or LCD-2) or wait for a deal on an LCD-24 or LCD-MX4? Or some other manufacturer?

The LCD-3 probably offers little benefit over LCD-2, except the LCD-3 EQ's slightly closer to Harman, and I really like the look of the LCD-3 :)
What's your budget?

Do they have to be Audeze, or would another planar like DCA or a dynamic also be something to consider?

I have the old (2020) LCD-X, and a bunch of dynamics, and I typically prefer Focals, and would take a look at DCA if I were in the market for more planars.

All other things equal, my first spec priority is to get good raw frequency response so they are giid without EQ, and so they are better with EQ. Second priority is probably distortion. The other thing I value is being an easy load to drive, but the value of that depends on the use.

I like certain spatial effects too, but wouldn't really consider thay a technical attribute since we at ASR don't have a great methodology to measure, illustrate, and specify that yet.
 
OP
concorde1

concorde1

Active Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2021
Messages
276
Likes
197
Location
New Zealand
What's your budget?
About 2000 USD.

Do they have to be Audeze, or would another planar like DCA or a dynamic also be something to consider?
I'd also consider the DCA Ether 2 (which is at the top end of my budget). Has Ether 2 distortion been measured anywhere?

Also considering 2nd hand.

Planar or dynamic or whatever else except electrostatic is fine.

I had an LCD-2F in the past and I loved that EQ'd.
 

MayaTlab

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
606
Likes
831
But there are some LCD headphones (LCD-24 measured here; LCD-MX4 measured at diyaudioheaven) which have even lower distortion (the former doesn't reach 0.5% and the latter doesn't reach 1%).

Are there any other headphones in existence with THD as low as the LCD-24 or LCD-MX4?

Both have THD values that are likely to be below threshold of audibility anyway. In other words, from the point of view of what you can hear, they both most likely perform the same in that regard. THD shouldn't be the deciding factor between the two.

For EQ purposes I'd rather look, just like @Helicopter, into what the "raw" FR is like - particularly once it's on your head, the long term stability of the FR, and fairly low sample variation as you'll most likely use ear simulator measurements to base your EQ profiles on.
 

Helicopter

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
2,671
Likes
3,852
Location
Michigan
About 2000 USD.


I'd also consider the DCA Ether 2 (which is at the top end of my budget). Has Ether 2 distortion been measured anywhere?

Also considering 2nd hand.

Planar or dynamic or whatever else except electrostatic is fine.

I had an LCD-2F in the past and I loved that EQ'd.
Amir's Drop Ether CX did well with EQ. I would guess Ether II is good. I would try anything DCA over Audeze unless I needed the easy load / high sensitivity of certain models.

Might check our Aeon line even though they are well below $2k. The RT Amir tested was good, and the Noire looks pretty good on paper.
 
OP
concorde1

concorde1

Active Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2021
Messages
276
Likes
197
Location
New Zealand
Seeing as I use Oratory1990's EQ presets, I don't mind about raw frequency response unless it has major issues (like the big dip in mids in old LCD-X). But I want low distortion so I can shape it however is needed.

I'm reluctant to go for DCA Ether 2 until I've seen THD measurements. I see the Ether CX did well here but it's a risk to infer that the Ether 2 does as well. For all I know it could have a 2% distortion peak at 3kHz.

Audeze LCD-24 is way too expensive even if it is the ultimate distortion-free machine.

I actually had an LCD-3 for a day but I had to return it before I used it.

It makes most sense to get an Audeze as I already have two Hart Audio cables with Audeze connectors. Also I could cross check the Audeze frequency response chart with Oratory1990's sample frequency response.

Both have THD values that are likely to be below threshold of audibility anyway.
As in 1-4% in sub bass (LCD-3) is the same inaudibility as below 0.5% in sub bass (LCD-24)?
 

LuminousMoth

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2022
Messages
16
Likes
2
Seeing as I use Oratory1990's EQ presets, I don't mind about raw frequency response unless it has major issues (like the big dip in mids in old LCD-X). But I want low distortion so I can shape it however is needed.

I'm reluctant to go for DCA Ether 2 until I've seen THD measurements. I see the Ether CX did well here but it's a risk to infer that the Ether 2 does as well. For all I know it could have a 2% distortion peak at 3kHz.

Audeze LCD-24 is way too expensive even if it is the ultimate distortion-free machine.

I actually had an LCD-3 for a day but I had to return it before I used it.

It makes most sense to get an Audeze as I already have two Hart Audio cables with Audeze connectors. Also I could cross check the Audeze frequency response chart with Oratory1990's sample frequency response.


As in 1-4% in sub bass (LCD-3) is the same inaudibility as below 0.5% in sub bass (LCD-24)?
I am also wondering the same thing, trying to decide whether the Price difference between the X and the 24 is worth it considering the lower distortion in the bass.

which one did you end up buying and what is your experience?
 
OP
concorde1

concorde1

Active Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2021
Messages
276
Likes
197
Location
New Zealand
which one did you end up buying and what is your experience?
Note that previously I had had an LCD-2. I EQ'd those via Oratory and they sounded amazing.

I got an LCD-3. I couldn't get them to sound quite right with any EQ profiles online, or without EQ. A member here kindly made an AutoEQ profile for my exact pair based on Audeze's supplied frequency response plot.

This custom EQ is very good. I do slightly prefer my Fostex TH900mk2 EQ'd via Oratory, though, which is just magical.

I might need to tweak my LCD-3 EQ very slightly.

I think the LCD-2 is easier to AutoEQ with profiles because supposedly Audeze has the LCD-2 down to tight tolerance in frequency response unit variations, whereas my LCD-3 seems to be way different from the one Oratory measured, hence why it sounded bad with that EQ.

But as long as you or someone can EQ based on Audeze's supplied frequency response (by digitising the plot into real data and a bit of maths due to the measuring tools being different from Oratory and Audeze) you should be fine.

I've listened to the LCD-X but not with EQ.
I've never tried the LCD-24 or LCD-MX4.

I can't really address the distortion matter, as I have not A-B'd and no longer have the LCD-2.
 

LuminousMoth

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2022
Messages
16
Likes
2
Note that previously I had had an LCD-2. I EQ'd those via Oratory and they sounded amazing.

I got an LCD-3. I couldn't get them to sound quite right with any EQ profiles online, or without EQ. A member here kindly made an AutoEQ profile for my exact pair based on Audeze's supplied frequency response plot.

This custom EQ is very good. I do slightly prefer my Fostex TH900mk2 EQ'd via Oratory, though, which is just magical.

I might need to tweak my LCD-3 EQ very slightly.

I think the LCD-2 is easier to AutoEQ with profiles because supposedly Audeze has the LCD-2 down to tight tolerance in frequency response unit variations, whereas my LCD-3 seems to be way different from the one Oratory measured, hence why it sounded bad with that EQ.

But as long as you or someone can EQ based on Audeze's supplied frequency response (by digitising the plot into real data and a bit of maths due to the measuring tools being different from Oratory and Audeze) you should be fine.

I've listened to the LCD-X but not with EQ.
I've never tried the LCD-24 or LCD-MX4.

I can't really address the distortion matter, as I have not A-B'd and no longer have the LCD-2.
thats a good advise, do you happen to know the member who made a profile for your LCD-3 based on the supplied frequency response from audeze? I might need to make one soon.
 

markanini

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
413
Likes
355
The main criteria is high consistency, meaning they measure the same whether they sit dead center of slightly off center. I think Beyer DT880 and Sennheiser HD800 are still well considered. If not individually measured, the second criteria is low unit variation.
 
OP
concorde1

concorde1

Active Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2021
Messages
276
Likes
197
Location
New Zealand
thats a good advise, do you happen to know the member who made a profile for your LCD-3 based on the supplied frequency response from audeze? I might need to make one soon.
Hi, the member here who made this EQ profile is called staticV3 .
 
Top Bottom