[archeryc]

After 2 months living with both the 200ohm and 100ohm. Bad news for the current 200ohm owners, the 200 ohm is not even close on the level of the old 100ohm model, 100ohm hits harder n deeper. clearer, less grainy, more forward n textured, fuller midrange(less 5k to 8k dip). better extended n sweeter hi s. On the soundstage presentation is the same story, the 100ohm seems to have alot better focus on the centre image while at the same time being more concise on the imaging. The 200 ohm is no Slouch, but really, I wouldnt wanna hear the 200ohm again after hearing the 100ohm.

I tried both 100ohm and 200ohm before and to my ears their differences are not as huge as you describe. The 200ohm sounds better with GSX MK2 and the Moon 430HA while the 100ohm sounds better at low volume and with V281 and some tube amps to my ears.

 

[HanyTheo]

I tried both 100ohm and 200ohm before and to my ears their differences are not as huge as you describe. The 200ohm sounds better with GSX MK2 and the Moon 430HA while the 100ohm sounds better at low volume and with V281 and some tube amps to my ears.

it depends on what kind of 'better' you're after, if youre after thay rich dense tonality audeze is known for, youre gonna be dissappointed with the 200ohm, at the first week, i thought that the difference is just due to the sensitivity difference, but it isn't, after living with it, it kinda hurts me as well that the overall midrange presentation on the 200ohm is just more bland with inferior centre image focus, doesnt excite me nor capture the singer's emotion as well as the 100ohm. I especially listen to a lot of vocals like salena jones. IMHO as a long time audeze fan n supporter, In almost every department it's a step below the 100 ohm model. I sincerely hope that there'll be another better driver revision for the 4.

 

[archeryc]

it depends on what kind of 'better' you're after, if youre after thay rich dense tonality audeze is known for, youre gonna be dissappointed with the 200ohm, at the first week, i thought that the difference is just due to the sensitivity difference, but it isn't, after living with it, it kinda hurts me as well that the overall midrange presentation on the 200ohm is just more bland with inferior centre image focus, doesnt excite me nor capture the singer's emotion as well as the 100ohm. I especially listen to a lot of vocals like salena jones. IMHO as a long time audeze fan n supporter, In almost every department it's a step below the 100 ohm model. I sincerely hope that there'll be another better driver revision for the 4.

I will go to A2A audit again next week to compare the differences. The store still using a 100ohm LCD4 for demo.

Meanwhile, you should shoot Audeze emails regarding this problem, i think you are not the only one who having this oppinion.

 

[TommyCat69]

I originally owned the 100 ohm version but sent them back to update to the 200 ohm version (had to send the King amp back b/c the SPL meter on the front was not functioning due to a loose wire that came disconnected during shipping) - figured I kill two birds with one stone.

Only have about 15 hrs of break-in with the new drivers so I will report later. I can say at this time they are much harder to drive but just requires a bit more volume on the King (which drives them very nicely).

Very preliminary (again, not broken in) listening impressions: 200 ohm does not have quite the bass slam that the 100 version has but I sense it is more accurate. I think I prefer the vocals on the 100 ohm version. When listening to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds my hair stood up on my arms when I said to myself: "Wow, I can say I have actually never heard lennon's voice until now" - was almost if he was singing right in front of my face. Not getting that same impression with the 200 ohm version (still amazing but not the same).

As far as the highs: disagree with another review that they are not as bright or less extended; I am finding the opposite. The 200 model lets you know if the recording is a bit on the bright side (as do my Dynaudios in my main system); there are some recordings in my library that are fatiguing to listen too. The 100 ohm model for whatever reason seemed to take whatever you threw at it - more forgiving but not as accurate? Not sure how you would describe it.

The main reason I updated is because of the reports that the drivers in the 100 ohm were failing and just thought would get rid of the impending doom. Which one is better? Too early to tell. As of this moment (before full break-in), if Audeze was to perfect the durability of the 100 ohm version, I would be inclined to go back.

One thing I do like much better on the 200 ohm model is the mini felt ring between the wood and the ear pads; makes the headphones more comfortable (felt the 100 model at times had a bit of a concussive feeling to them during times of high bass); seems to let some of the steam out inside of straight into my ear drum.

I will post again next week.

 

[ddanois]

it depends on what kind of 'better' you're after, if youre after thay rich dense tonality audeze is known for, youre gonna be dissappointed with the 200ohm, at the first week, i thought that the difference is just due to the sensitivity difference, but it isn't, after living with it, it kinda hurts me as well that the overall midrange presentation on the 200ohm is just more bland with inferior centre image focus, doesnt excite me nor capture the singer's emotion as well as the 100ohm. I especially listen to a lot of vocals like salena jones. IMHO as a long time audeze fan n supporter, In almost every department it's a step below the 100 ohm model. I sincerely hope that there'll be another better driver revision for the 4.

Really worried about this! I had one of the first few produced and I thought it sounded great. Now, after both drivers failed, I'm being sent a new set of drivers that may not be what I wanted in sound quality. Fortunately, I have good amps to drive them (GSX2 & 430HA) so I'll see if there is any "break-in" improvements. 

 

[HanyTheo]

Really worried about this! I had one of the first few produced and I thought it sounded great. Now, after both drivers failed, I'm being sent a new set of drivers that may not be what I wanted in sound quality. Fortunately, I have good amps to drive them (GSX2 & 430HA) so I'll see if there is any "break-in" improvements. 

well, if my 100 ohm set dies, im not gonna be a happy man that's for sure.

 

[archeryc]

well, if my 100 ohm set dies, im not gonna be a happy man that's for sure.

The 200ohm require more power and from Audeze's claim they require some break in compares to the 100 ohm version. It's better to conclude after 300 hours settle. 

 

[ddanois]

  The 200ohm require more power and from Audeze's claim they require some break in compares to the 100 ohm version. It's better to conclude after 300 hours settle. 

That's what I'm thinking as well...let's hope they make it to 300hrs.  

 

[HanyTheo]

Th

I originally owned the 100 ohm version but sent them back to update to the 200 ohm version (had to send the King amp back b/c the SPL meter on the front was not functioning due to a loose wire that came disconnected during shipping) - figured I kill two birds with one stone.

Only have about 15 hrs of break-in with the new drivers so I will report later. I can say at this time they are much harder to drive but just requires a bit more volume on the King (which drives them very nicely).

Very preliminary (again, not broken in) listening impressions: 200 ohm does not have quite the bass slam that the 100 version has but I sense it is more accurate. I think I prefer the vocals on the 100 ohm version. When listening to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds my hair stood up on my arms when I said to myself: "Wow, I can say I have actually never heard lennon's voice until now" - was almost if he was singing right in front of my face. Not getting that same impression with the 200 ohm version (still amazing but not the same).

As far as the highs: disagree with another review that they are not as bright or less extended; I am finding the opposite. The 200 model lets you know if the recording is a bit on the bright side (as do my Dynaudios in my main system); there are some recordings in my library that are fatiguing to listen too. The 100 ohm model for whatever reason seemed to take whatever you threw at it - more forgiving but not as accurate? Not sure how you would describe it.

The main reason I updated is because of the reports that the drivers in the 100 ohm were failing and just thought would get rid of the impending doom. Which one is better? Too early to tell. As of this moment (before full break-in), if Audeze was to perfect the durability of the 100 ohm version, I would be inclined to go back.

One thing I do like much better on the 200 ohm model is the mini felt ring between the wood and the ear pads; makes the headphones more comfortable (felt the 100 model at times had a bit of a concussive feeling to them during times of high bass); seems to let some of the steam out inside of straight into my ear drum.

I will post again next week.

thanks for your review m8, audeze definitely should perfect the durability n bring back the 100ohm (i hope someone from audeze read this) i brought both 100 n 200ohm sets to several local meets, it's problem is undeniable that everyone including senior hobbyist down here digs the 100 ohm more than the new 200ohm. Well im not saying that the 200ohm is bad, but its just doesnt gets my ears to like em as much as the 100 ohm. As for the treble on the 200ohm, its just drier n rougher in texture compared to the 100ohm not better extended, the mid to treble transition just sounded more 'right' on the 100 ohm. Try songs that pushes the treble extension like celine dion - all by myself. Really shows the treble quality on both sets which i n many other down here think that the 100ohm is superior

 

[HanyTheo]

The 200ohm require more power and from Audeze's claim they require some break in compares to the 100 ohm version. It's better to conclude after 300 hours settle. 

actually, i dont buy the idea of that "break in" especially in planar magnetics, my 200 ohm set arrives since late march, its been over 300 hours i believe. It doesnt change anything sonically since the 1st day

 

[STR-1]

actually, i dont buy the idea of that "break in" especially in planar magnetics, my 200 ohm set arrives since late march, its been over 300 hours i believe. It doesnt change anything sonically since the 1st day

I've been able to spend some time with two different 200ohm LCD-4s. The first was a loan model, which I first heard after about ten hours and then had for a week after two hundred hours, and the improvement in SQ after two hundred hours was significant: loosened up nicely, far more open. The second is the new one I bought ten days ago. Straight out of the box it was very closed in, very disappointing, and it hadn't changed much after ten hours. Now, after about 250 hours, it is a different headphone, bordering on a night and day difference. Make no mistake, a lengthy run-in is essential for this headphone, especially, if like me, you have a very fast and revealing DAC like the Chord Dave.

 

[jlbrach]

I have only had the chance to listen to the 200 version and am a big fan.....it does appear there are differences between the old and new versions

 

[Articnoise]

I've been able to spend some time with two different 200ohm LCD-4s. The first was a loan model, which I first heard after about ten hours and then had for a week after two hundred hours, and the improvement in SQ after two hundred hours was significant: loosened up nicely, far more open. The second is the new one I bought ten days ago. Straight out of the box it was very closed in, very disappointing, and it hadn't changed much after ten hours. Now, after about 250 hours, it is a different headphone, bordering on a night and day difference. Make no mistake, a lengthy run-in is essential for this headphone, especially, if like me, you have a very fast and revealing DAC like the Chord Dave.

 

The LCD3 sounding much better after like 200 hour, so I would assume the same for LCD 4. 

 

The new LCD3 (2016) revision is btw a great upgrade in SQ IMO. The sound compared to the LCD3F (2014) is clearer and cleaner, more resolving, airier and has better instrument separation, is a bit faster and has an improved bass with less fussy bass. All this and still has most of the deep, full and rich tonality.

 

I’m curious to hear how LCD3 (2016) sounds compared to the LCD 4. 

 

[groovyd]

both the X and XC improved significantly after a couple hundred hours of break-in.

 

[Hifi59]

Th
thanks for your review m8, audeze definitely should perfect the durability n bring back the 100ohm (i hope someone from audeze read this) i brought both 100 n 200ohm sets to several local meets, it's problem is undeniable that everyone including senior hobbyist down here digs the 100 ohm more than the new 200ohm. Well im not saying that the 200ohm is bad, but its just doesnt gets my ears to like em as much as the 100 ohm. As for the treble on the 200ohm, its just drier n rougher in texture compared to the 100ohm not better extended, the mid to treble transition just sounded more 'right' on the 100 ohm. Try songs that pushes the treble extension like celine dion - all by myself. Really shows the treble quality on both sets which i n many other down here think that the 100ohm is superior

When I first listened to my 200 ohm lcd4s, I mentioned that they were a bit grainy and the vocals were not on par with what I was used to on my LCD-3f. Buying Cardas cable remedied most of these issues by reducing the grain and bringing up the vocals a bit compared to the stock cable. Several hundred hours later, this still applies as I connected stock cable back up for a few days and then went back to the Cardas. Grain reduced(break in of the Lcds helped here too) and vocals more pronounced. Both subtle but definite. The Cardas cable is of the bulk variety 24x4. I also have the more expensive Cardas clear cable, but I do not notice much difference between them.