[up late]

@zolkis - no, that's not how i make my living but that's beside the point. using the word "correct" in any context implies that there is an accepted methodology, practice, or way of doing things that is the standard, and to deviate from it is "incorrect". that's why i regard your habitual use of the word in your posts as prescriptive and misguided in the context of this hobby tbh.

if you read over both of my previous responses you will see that i didn't just hone in on your use of that word at the expense of everything else you wrote. i also acknowledged that the cultivation of listening skills and improving how we describe what we are hearing are commendable aims, but it doesn't follow that improvements in those areas will lead to "more trustable and consistent" opinions as a consequence. and i have no objection to the use of measurements in the evaluation of a headphone's performance, but just as subjective impressions can correlate with them, they also don't. your example of speech synthesis and audio processing algorithms for speech intelligibility is a curious one, in that its application in improving listening skills for the critical evaluation of headphones isn't apparent. anyways, this isn't the sound science forum.

in your post you did claim that "there are much more examples when trained ears agree than when they don't." that looked like a statement of fact to me and i wanted to know the source of your information. however, if that's just your own anecdotal evidence then i'll accept it for what is, along with your other subjective observations.

i don't think we share much common ground in our approaches to this hobby and that's ok - it's a big forum. i do agree however, that the signal to noise ratio can be very low here.

 

[zolkis]

Having an opponent is usually a good thing in science, and probably a good thing here too.

 

[mikoss]

Oh god, this thread... lulz.
 
I wonder how the LCD-4's are holding up as far as wood cup cracking and driver failures... any reports from owners?

 

[potkettleblack]

Oh god, this thread... lulz.

I wonder how the LCD-4's are holding up as far as wood cup cracking and driver failures... any reports from owners?

On here - No driver failures reported since the revision. No wood cracking reported since initial release.

 

[eric65]

Hi, all,
 
Audeze recommends a 1 - 4 W power amplifier to drive the LCD4 @200 Ohms: https://www.audeze.com/products/lcd-collection/lcd-4

However, the amplifier Audeze "The King" produces 3 W into 32 Ohms https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-king-headphone-amp-by-bascom-king-for-audeze#/, it is only 0.5 W into 200 Ohms; is this sufficient?

 

[mlxx]

  Hi, all,
 
Audeze recommends a 1 - 4 W power amplifier to drive the LCD4 @200 Ohms: https://www.audeze.com/products/lcd-collection/lcd-4

However, the amplifier Audeze "The King" produces 3 W into 32 Ohms https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-king-headphone-amp-by-bascom-king-for-audeze#/, it is only 0.5 W into 200 Ohms; is this sufficient?

 
I don't think they mean 1-4W @ 200 Ohms actually, if they did their specs would make no sense because they are the same for all the LCD series. 99% of headphone amps out there can't even get close to 1-4W @ 200 Ohms. I think they are trying to keep it simple, they mean an amp that has a max power rating of 1-4W. In theory, 200mW @ 200 Ohms is needed to reach 120dB SPL for 97dB/mW efficiency, so it should be enough (in theory!).

 

[eric65]

   
I don't think they mean 1-4W @ 200 Ohms actually, if they did their specs would make no sense because they are the same for all the LCD series. 99% of headphone amps out there can't even get close to 1-4W @ 200 Ohms. I think they are trying to keep it simple, they mean an amp that has a max power rating of 1-4W. In theory, 200mW @ 200 Ohms is needed to reach 120dB SPL for 97dB/mW efficiency, so it should be enough (in theory!).

 
OK, thank you for the explanation.

Concerning the official sensitivity of LCD4 @200 Ohm (97 dB / 1 mW), I doubt it; is it not a little optimistic?

Because the official sensitivity of the LCD-X @ 20 Ohm is 103 dB / 1 mW https://www.audeze.com/products/lcd-collection/lcd-x, but Tyll on Innerfidelity, has measured a much lower sensitivity to the sample 3 of the LCD-X measured at 0.32 mW / 90 dB http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCDXSample3.pdf ; it is only a sensitivity of 95 dB / 1 mW (thus 8 dB less than the official specifications).

The actual sensitivity of LCD4 @ 200 ohms, could be, in fact, much lower (6-8 dB less ?) than advertised; the problem is also that an high impedance headphones with a relatively low sensitivity is much more difficult to drive than a low impedance headphones with an high sensitivity.

 

[mlxx]

   
OK, thank you for the explanation.

Concerning the official sensitivity of LCD4 @200 Ohm (97 dB / 1 mW), I doubt it; is it not a little optimistic?

Because the official sensitivity of the LCD-X @ 20 Ohm is 103 dB / 1 mW https://www.audeze.com/products/lcd-collection/lcd-x, but Tyll on Innerfidelity, measured a much lower sensitivity to the sample 3 of the LCD-X measured at 0.32 mW / 90 dB http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCDXSample3.pdf ; it is only a sensitivity of 95 dB / 1 mW (thus 8 dB less than the official specifications).
The actual sensitivity of LCD4 @ 200 ohms, could be, in fact, much lower (6-8 dB less ?) than advertised; the problem is also that an high impedance headphones with a relatively low sensitivity is much more difficult to drive than a low impedance headphones with an high sensitivity.

 
There are lots of different ways to measure SPL depending on where in the ear you do it. It would depend on what Tyll gets for the LCD4 as compared to his LCDX, you can't really compare what Tyll gets with what Audeze gets, probably different test setups and methodology. I think Audeze changed the way they measure it in the past 2 years so their numbers got better.
 
I would email Audeze directly if you want to be really sure, there is also a King amplifier thread on here and people have started receiving their King amps now so you can ask for some advice there too.
 
 

 

[eric65]

   
There are lots of different ways to measure SPL depending on where in the ear you do it. It would depend on what Tyll gets for the LCD4 as compared to his LCDX, you can't really compare what Tyll gets with what Audeze gets, probably different test setups and methodology. I think Audeze changed the way they measure it in the past 2 years so their numbers got better.
 
I would email Audeze directly if you want to be really sure, there is also a King amplifier thread on here and people have started receiving their King amps now so you can ask for some advice there too.
 
 

 
Thanks.
 
I allow myself to have a doubt about the official sensitivity of the LCD4 @200 Ohm because a person (in France http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post178834186.html#p178834186) has compared the LCD4 @ 200 Ohm (officially with a sensitivity of 97 dB / 1mW) with the Abyss @ 46 Ohm (officially with a sensitivity of 85 dB / 1 mW) and has obtained, for a given position of his amplifier's volume knob, a slightly louder sound level (more 2 dB ?) with the Abyss compared to the LCD4.

 

[mlxx]

   
Thanks.
 
I allow myself to have a doubt about the official sensitivity of the LCD4 @200 Ohm because a person (in France http://www.homecinema-fr.com/forum/post178834186.html#p178834186) has compared the LCD4 @ 200 Ohm (officially with a sensitivity of 97 dB / 1mW) with the Abyss @ 46 Ohm (officially with a sensitivity of 85 dB / 1 mW) and has obtained, for a given position of his amplifier's volume knob, a slightly louder sound level (2 dB ?) with the Abyss compared to the LCD4.

 
Can't really compare that situation also, it is just as likely that his amp can provide power more easily into 46 Ohms than it can into 200 Ohms rather than that the Abyss is more efficient. Try a different amp, might get a different result. Also the 85 and 97 numbers might be using different methods, since they don't specify which, you can never tell. It depends on the headphone test head and where the microphone is positioned inside the ear canal etc. There was a big discussion about this on the LCD3 thread when the numbers suddenly jumped on the Audeze site and people thought they had changed the drivers again but they just changed the way they measured things.
 
But its OK to be doubtful... soon enough someone will try it and we will know for sure.

 

[eric65]

   
Can't really compare that situation also, it is just as likely that his amp can provide power more easily into 46 Ohms than it can into 200 Ohms rather than that the Abyss is more efficient. Try a different amp, might get a different result. Also the 85 and 97 numbers might be using different methods, since they don't specify which, you can never tell. It depends on the headphone test head and where the microphone is positioned inside the ear canal etc. There was a big discussion about this on the LCD3 thread when the numbers suddenly jumped on the Audeze site and people thought they had changed the drivers again but they just changed the way they measured things.
 
But its OK to be doubtful... soon enough someone will try it and we will know for sure.

 
The difference of sensitivity between this two headphones : 97-85 = 12 dB is probably, for a part of this difference, the result of the difference of impedance between this two headphones and, as a result, power output of the amplifier that is obtained with a load of 200 ohms versus a load of 46 ohms ; this difference is probably a 4 power factor (or 6 dB); remains to explain the difference in sensitivity of 12 dB - 6 dB = 6 dB between this two headphones, if the observed sound level is slightly upper, with the Abyss compared to the LCD4 for a given position of amplifier's volume knob. Doubt, therefore, remains 

.

 

[groovyd]

Has anyone tried the 4's on an OTL amp like the Crack?  Just wondering with such an impedance perhaps OTL is the way to go?

 

[jlbrach]

i am listening to my 4's with the Yiggy/Rag combo and it sounds great.....i am on the middle gain setting on the Rag and i tend to listen music between 12-3 with 3 being for those completely uncompressed recordings with serious DR
 
The 4's need a fair bit more power than the 3's and my HE1000's

 

[MacedonianHero]

I usually used either my SR-009s or HD800/HD800S headphones with Wish You Where Here (Pink Floyd) as it is a very expansive sounding recording, but damn, these new 200 ohm LCD-4s hold their own with the expansiveness that this album has to offer. Really enjoying what I'm hearing.
 
My setup is my Hugo TT as a DAC feeding my GS-X Mk2 using Tidal via USB FWIW.

 

[reddog]

I usually used either my SR-009s or HD800/HD800S headphones with Wish You Where Here (Pink Floyd) as it is a very expansive sounding recording, but damn, these new 200 ohm LCD-4s hold their own with the expansiveness that this album has to offer. Really enjoying what I'm hearing.

My setup is my Hugo TT as a DAC feeding my GS-X Mk2 using Tidal via USB FWIW.

Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here is a great album. I am glad the LCD-4 could do the album justice. The more I hear about the LCD-4 them more I want one. I hope you have a great night jamming out.