[johnzz4]

You cannot equalize an LCD-4 to sound like an HD 800 or HD 800S or SR-009. That's why you have both the LCD-4 and HD 800S after all, is it not?

LCD-4 is TOTL in most peoples' minds due to its price. Performance is not what I would consider TOTL, except for its bass performance. While it is probably true that the LCD-4's main problems are caused by the frequency response, EQ cannot even fix the most glaring issue; its upper mid/lower treble recession that makes all vocals and many acoustic instruments sound really strangely recessed, suffocated, incomplete and terrible. Not all are capable of hearing this, and Audeze's extreme driver variation caused by them not having the production means of say Stax or Sennheiser (another ding towards their TOTL goals) may contribute to this partially.

It likely boils down to preference, type of music, system synergy, and even our biology (ear differences). Having heard the 009, the LCD4 is my strong preference. I also wouldn’t go to the 009 thread and tell them their tonal balance is all wrong FWIW. The only well known TOTL phones I haven’t tried are the Abyss Phis, and those are the only ones that may have a chance to dethrone the 4s.

It’s worth noting that I’ve had the 4s on an earlier chain and I thought ‘this doesn’t sound that great for 4k’. I’m glad I stuck it out and continued upgrading the remainder of my chain. With the lesser chain, the dip you refer to sounded like just that, a dip, along with a peak over 10khz. In my current chain, that dip translates to convincing stage depth and the treble peak has turned into smooth special cues - I’m now impressed.

 

[CoLdAsSauLt]

I think what you're referring to as "speedy and detailed" is just treble. If the diaphragm moved more slowly, it would translate to less treble volume and eventually inability to even play higher audible frequencies which is clearly not the case. You're not at all getting "more detail" out of a faster driver, just more volume since the speed of even the slowest headphone driver is enough to produce well in excess of the highest frequency of human hearing. Since this is the case, it would stand to reason that differences in "ramp speed" should also be inaudible.

No offense, but this is utter misinformation. It is true that frequencies resonate at a certain speed, but with this premises €1 craphones with the exactly same frequency response would sound exactly the same as my costly LCD-4, or my once TOTL HD650 for that matter.

You leave loads of variables out of the equation. The two most important ones I think of now are these:

1) Your cans don't have a driver per frequency. They often just have that one driver to produce all frequencies at once. Those frequencies often play together, or very shortly one after another, influencing each other. This creates harmonic distortion, the inability to resolve complex passages. The driver is too rigid, too slow, to change fast enough from one frequency (resonating) to another. Sometimes the driver might even crack up because it can't keep track of the music.

2) The speed is also related to the damping of the driver. That's why headphone measurements don't only show a frequency response chart, but also square wave response, impulse response, ...
If a driver gets a 1/10 second signal, but that signal rings and sounds for 0,5 second because of lack of damping, fast repetitions of that note cannot be produced and all notes and frequencies, sounding longer than they should, blend together to a muddy mess where all detail, instrument separation and imaging is lost.

This is for me what transparency and driver speed is about.

You cannot equalize an LCD-4 to sound like an HD 800 or HD 800S or SR-009. That's why you have both the LCD-4 and HD 800S after all, is it not?

I'm sure you can make it close, but exactly alike, certainly not. Other variables play their role too. Other ringing and damping characteristics, other harmonic distortion occurs due to different designs, ...

And maybe the drivers will meet their limit too, being pushed in directions away from their natural frequency response and strong points. I don't think for instance that an EQ'ed HD800S will ever be able to produce the bad impact of my LCD4.

But mostly, I don't buy headphones to later re-engineer their sound - especially with this price tags attached to them.

Nor does my setup lend me possibilities to use EQ at all at this moment, unless I change my source, change my DAC to e.g. an RME ADI-2 or add an extra device in my chain, a parametric equaliser. But I feel no need to. I very much like the tuning of my cans as is, reason why I threw my hard earned money at them. It also keeps the audio path simpler and purer.

While it is probably true that the LCD-4's main problems are caused by the frequency response, EQ cannot even fix the most glaring issue; its upper mid/lower treble recession that makes all vocals and many acoustic instruments sound really strangely recessed, suffocated, incomplete and terrible.

Isn't that exactly what EQ-ing DOES fix? Or how would that recession be caused if not by a slightly lower volume of those frequencies, thus EQ-able up to the levels you seem to like better - and nothing wrong with that?

 

[commtrd]

I don't have the 4 but do have 4z. For my ears, they sound incredibly detailed and vocals are just perfect. I seriously doubt that purchase cost influences SQ perception at all. That is a ridiculous argument.
So it is a good thing to just be happy with what ya got. I read all this stuff about how terrible the LCD4 sounds and just say What? Because that's a bunch of crap. Now I can totally understand someone saying
they prefer Brand X or Stax or whatever. But putting totally false and misleading info out there is wrong.

 

[KMann]

You cannot equalize an LCD-4 to sound like an HD 800 or HD 800S or SR-009. That's why you have both the LCD-4 and HD 800S after all, is it not?

All the three headphones are great technically, have very low distortion and behave linearly across the spectrum. They can be made to sound tonally very close to each other with EQ except for lower-bass/sub-bass where the transducer an seal may affect response. have you tried doing it yourself?

There other characteristics such as transparency, clarity and texture that are more a function of the time domain response that are hard to change through EQ.

Soundstage can be influenced by changes in EQ but some aspects cannot be (such as how open they sound).

 

[Dobrescu George]

All the three headphones are great technically, have very low distortion and behave linearly across the spectrum. They can be made to sound tonally very close to each other with EQ except for lower-bass/sub-bass where the transducer an seal may affect response. have you tried doing it yourself?

I don't think you can simplt EQ them to sound exactly like each other, regardless of how much fiddling you do in the EQ.

HD800S is quite different from LCD-4 in terms of bass quantity, and it doesn't hold up to have its bass enhanced quite as much as LCD-4 can, basically, there's a limit to what soft EQ can do, and there's a place where if it doesn't really fit your needs, you go with the other one.

The same can be said about the soundstage and instrument separation, LCD-4 has a strong point in good instrument separation with a large soundstage, while HD800S has an even larger soundstage, but with less instrument separation, basically they differ in the way they handle each, and no amount of EQ I applied was able to change those.

 

[Rhamnetin]

Isn't that exactly what EQ-ing DOES fix? Or how would that recession be caused if not by a slightly lower volume of those frequencies, thus EQ-able up to the levels you seem to like better - and nothing wrong with that?

Or at least, to fix it with EQ, you need to EQ up certain frequencies so much that it causes some horrific distortion. Essentially the amount of EQ required to fix that is pretty scary from my experience.

 

[johnzz4]

I at least enjoy having some activity in this thread.

 

[KMann]

Or at least, to fix it with EQ, you need to EQ up certain frequencies so much that it causes some horrific distortion. Essentially the amount of EQ required to fix that is pretty scary from my experience.

This is incorrect. How about giving some examples? Which headphones did you try EQing and how much and how did you measure distortion? Headphones such as Sr-009, HD800and LCD-4 exhibit extremely low distortion even at insane levels (120dB). You are more likely to encounter digital clipping (which can be easily controlled using gain adjustment) than any form of distortion.

That said, these headphones don't need any more than 3dB boost anywhere in the spectrum, if you are going purely bys some graphs and tempted to do a 10dB boost, that is the wrong way to do it.

 

[Rhamnetin]

This is incorrect. How about giving some examples? Which headphones did you try EQing and how much and how did you measure distortion? Headphones such as Sr-009, HD800and LCD-4 exhibit extremely low distortion even at insane levels (120dB). You are more likely to encounter digital clipping (which can be easily controlled using gain adjustment) than any form of distortion.

That said, these headphones don't need any more than 3dB boost anywhere in the spectrum, if you are going purely bys some graphs and tempted to do a 10dB boost, that is the wrong way to do it.

Boosting by 4dB wasn't enough to fix the problem for the LCD-4 in the 4-6 KHz range. I didn't measure distortion so I could be wrong, but it sure sounded like it. I was never able to cleanly kill off that recession, which is the main reason I sold it.

 

[CoLdAsSauLt]

Or at least, to fix it with EQ, you need to EQ up certain frequencies so much that it causes some horrific distortion. Essentially the amount of EQ required to fix that is pretty scary from my experience.

Could be, never tried it. Probably digital clipping indeed, that's why professionals don't boost frequencies, but they attenuate all the others to start with. Try dialing your EQ's baseline -6dB so that even a 10dB boost stays within range (+4dB shouldn't clip).

But in summary: let's conclude that the Audeze house sound and frequency graph is not your cup of tea. And that's okay, that's why different headphones exist that cater to different tastes. That's why I own both LCD-4 and HD800S. To each his own

 

[KMann]

Boosting by 4dB wasn't enough to fix the problem for the LCD-4 in the 4-6 KHz range. I didn't measure distortion so I could be wrong, but it sure sounded like it. I was never able to cleanly kill off that recession, which is the main reason I sold it.

I would chalk it up to personal tastes rather than 'a problem', I understand that everyone has thier preferences and that is also the reason we have choices. As an example of 'to each his own' see here.

 

[jlbrach]

the LCD-4 is a superb HP....it is different sounding the the stax for sure but for many it is better,for others not so much....why people badmouth others who enjoy a different TOTL HP is beyond me

some people love the softer ride of a lexus others the harder ride of a BMW...that is why there are different products for different buyers

 

[johnzz4]

@KMann - I remember you being involved in the Reveal development. I have the Auralic Aries G2 streamer, and have already suggested to Auralic that they add Reveal to their DSP. Xuanqian sounded intrigued, so I'm hopeful. I can't think of any reasons that Audeze wouldn't want to collaborate - seems mutually beneficial. In the meantime, Auralic has released a beta of their firmware that has a 20-band parametric eq. I remember there being someone on the forums that had deconstructed the Reveal FR curves. I'm curious whether you have the parametric EQ values at your fingertips so I (and others) can recreate the Reveal effect on the Aries.

 

[MacedonianHero]

You cannot equalize an LCD-4 to sound like an HD 800 or HD 800S or SR-009. That's why you have both the LCD-4 and HD 800S after all, is it not?

LCD-4 is TOTL in most peoples' minds due to its price. Performance is not what I would consider TOTL, except for its bass performance. While it is probably true that the LCD-4's main problems are caused by the frequency response, EQ cannot even fix the most glaring issue; its upper mid/lower treble recession that makes all vocals and many acoustic instruments sound really strangely recessed, suffocated, incomplete and terrible. Not all are capable of hearing this, and Audeze's extreme driver variation caused by them not having the production means of say Stax or Sennheiser (another ding towards their TOTL goals) may contribute to this partially.

Then I suggest you try them on a more powerful amp to open up. On say the GS-X Mk2 or Headtrip, the LCD-4s are spectacular. With regards to frequency response, I see you prefer bass-lighter and treble tilted like say the SR_009s...which have their own colourations. FWIW, I owned them for over 7 years and used them on KGSSHV, DIY T-2 and BHSE...so I've heard them at their best. Great cans, but to say they are perfect isn't entirely true. In the end, I preferred the LCD-4s...but again, they need quite a bit of power to open up. On the more efficient side, the LCD-4z are spectacular out of almost anything.

 

[johnzz4]

Then I suggest you try them on a more powerful amp to open up. On say the GS-X Mk2 or Headtrip, the LCD-4s are spectacular. With regards to frequency response, I see you prefer bass-lighter and treble tilted like say the SR_009s...which have their own colourations. FWIW, I owned them for over 7 years and used them on KGSSHV, DIY T-2 and BHSE...so I've heard them at their best. Great cans, but to say they are perfect isn't entirely true. In the end, I preferred the LCD-4s...but again, they need quite a bit of power to open up. On the more efficient side, the LCD-4z are spectacular out of almost anything.

I'm using the Milo Reference and waiting for the Headtrip 2 next week - excellent pairing.