[bfreedma]

Quote:Originally Posted by bfreedma There isn't a headphone made that doesn't benefit from EQ. From the bottom of the price ladder to the top. when i was a younger man and into the "Klipsch" sound I had a parametric EQ to correct the treble spikes and flatten the sound. It was all I could think of to correct the mistake i made in mismatching my gear and the source material i was listening to. now that i have the income and the experience of 30+ years chasing the sound I want to hear, my choice is based entirely and matching everything in the chain to provide my ears with what i want to hear (i would suggest that to anyone who asks me). Instant gratification or getting the next best thing is counter productive to going end game. and to me end game is about the sound i want to hear and as close as to how the cat on the mixing board intended the recording to sound. If the engineer has a tin ear then you will get a metallic sound. Poor recorded material or poor mixing can be overcome with EQ, but i dont have the time or desire to "remix" every track i listen to. And it is possible to have to remix every track on an album if you get a tin ear engineer. to sum things up... my gear choices are based on the sound i want to hear combined with the patience to not leap at every new product that may or may not overcome the poor source material that is way more prevalent than gear cable of providing all 7 billion plus pair of ears on mother earth a similar sound experience. My audio collection is an accumulation of 30 + years of source material from all analog to every combination of that and pure digital. To remix everything all the time defeats the enjoyment and spending $4000 and having to EQ on top is the ultimate deal killer in my world.

Gear as EQ vs. EQ as EQ....

I'd prefer to work with actual EQ which I can measure and adjust with far more range than is possible with gear. IMHO, the variance in sound via gear other than transducers is limited at best.

Headphones require a lot less EQ than speakers/home theater due to not having to deal with room issues. That's one of the things I enjoy about headphones, having spent decades working though EQing my listening room. I rarely make adjustments for individual tracks on either system.

No issue with personal preference, but I don't think it should be confused with headphones having a true neutral FR. Or correcting for the variances in recordings, whether at cd/album or track level.

As you suggest, that's only half the battle - the next challenge is addressing individual HRTF and EQing a neutral headphone in conjunction with hearing response. Neither your or my approach will fix poorly mixed music. Can't unbreak that and unfortunately, there are a lot of ghastly recordings out there.

What ever happened to the Audeze Black Box anyway? From what I could gather, that was essentially what Audeze was attempting to do with the BB - take a bespoke measured response from a headphone and EQ it for individual listeners.

 

[captblaze]

Gear as EQ vs. EQ as EQ....

I'd prefer to work with actual EQ which I can measure and adjust with far more range than is possible with gear. IMHO, the variance in sound via gear other than transducers is limited at best.

Headphones require a lot less EQ than speakers/home theater due to not having to deal with room issues. That's one of the things I enjoy about headphones, having spent decades working though EQing my listening room. I rarely make adjustments for individual tracks on either system.

No issue with personal preference, but I don't think it should be confused with headphones having a true neutral FR. Or correcting for the variances in recordings, whether at cd/album or track level.

As you suggest, that's only half the battle - the next challenge is addressing individual HRTF and EQing a neutral headphone in conjunction with hearing response. Neither your or my approach will fix poorly mixed music. Can't unbreak that and unfortunately, there are a lot of ghastly recordings out there.

What ever happened to the Audeze Black Box anyway? From what I could gather, that was essentially what Audeze was attempting to do with the BB - take a bespoke measured response from a headphone and EQ it for individual listeners.

 
 
i am in agreement with that it is like being a dog chasing his tail. My preference now is to sit back and enjoy the music. i am no longer interested in being a "board op". i guess to simplify my entire diatribe is that i cannot afford to make a $4000 investment and have to constantly fight what some tin ear thought was quality sound. Tyll from what i have read seems to give gear (that cost wise is in the stratosphere for most budgets) a fair review and backs up his claims with test data. having someone who is unafraid to blow up his gig to give an opinion contrary to expectations is refreshing when you compare his game to the myriad of Youtube and blog of the moment experts.

 

[dan.gheorghe]

   
 
i am in agreement with that it is like being a dog chasing his tail. My preference now is to sit back and enjoy the music. i am no longer interested in being a "board op". i guess to simplify my entire diatribe is that i cannot afford to make a $4000 investment and have to constantly fight what some tin ear thought was quality sound. Tyll from what i have read seems to give gear (that cost wise is in the stratosphere for most budgets) a fair review and backs up his claims with test data. having someone who is unafraid to blow up his gig to give an opinion contrary to expectations is refreshing when you compare his game to the myriad of Youtube and blog of the moment experts.

 
Except for the treble, or actually the dip before the treble in the fr, I don't see any problems in the measurements which look  great in every other aspect. 

 

[potkettleblack]

Except for the treble, or actually the dip before the treble in the fr, I don't see any problems in the measurements which look  great in every other aspect. 

True. What do you think makes people say that it's kinda boring?

 

[up late]

personal preference would be my guess. for all of tyll's analysis, which is informative, the lcd-4's sound signature immediately appealed to me. so i can't relate to his description of it being "kinda boring" personally. now if he were to describe the hd800/s in that way then i'd totally get it.

 

[dan.gheorghe]

True. What do you think makes people say that it's kinda boring?

I think i already said that. I think that Tyll used the term boring because of the treble, but I usually associate boring with lack of dynamics, attack and slam which are strong points for LCD-4. But hey, anybody can define boring in different ways. 
 
However, I do think that some people say that because they heard them under amped and I am not talking about Tyll of course. However, I've seen very few people to categorize them as "kind of boring".

 

[potkettleblack]

I think i already said that. I think that Tyll used the term boring because of the treble, but I usually associate boring with lack of dynamics, attack and slam which are strong points for LCD-4. But hey, anybody can define boring in different ways. 

However, I do think that some people say that because they heard them under amped and I am not talking about Tyll of course. However, I've seen very few people to categorize them as "kind of boring".

It's definitely down to the amps I think.

 

[jlbrach]

the very first thing i wrote when i got the 4's is that they need ample power and i stick by that...i have both the 4's and the hd800S and to my ears the 4's are far better but obviously on a proce basis that may well not be the case...Ty loves the 800's and speaks of them as being perhaps the best HD's available...i own them and am a big fan but i think the 4's are a far better can....so be it...i continue to believe that if the 4's were 2K instead of 4K they would be spoken of as the best can available....oh well

 

[sfviahouston]

anyone know the lead time these days?

 

[jlbrach]

I ordered mine in november and just got them a week ago...i assume those ordering today will not have a 3 month wait

 

[Articnoise]

  The LCD-4 is a clear improvement over previous LCD models both technically and musically with better clarity, and bass through mid-range control and evenness. Audeze LCD line fans will be tickled pink with the LCD-4
 
I am a big fan of Ty's work and read his reviews religiously but in this case this seems a bit strange to me....unless this review is simply a rating based upon performance/price i am confused here.....up until quite recently one could have read tons of reviews that suggested that the LCD-3f's were perhaps the best HD in the world....go on Audezes website and read through the reviews provided which are numerous.....along comes a new model which Ty suggests far surpasses the 3's technically and musically and yet this HD is in essence panned by Ty......i do understand one being disappointed in a HD that is 2X the cost of the previous model in terms of improvement on a cost basis, but if the 4's are a big improvement over a universally lauded current model then it seems to me that this should be  a good not bad review....Ty it seems does not care for the audeze sound relative to others and that is fine and i actually like that he is honest and open about that...I am not a fanboy and do not care what one individual reviewer says about a product but in this case as described this seems a strange conclusion

 

Ha ha ha let me remind you. I wrote "I agree LCD-3F is better than many people give it credit for. They have such musical and engaging way of presenting music. Sure some other headphones can be more technical accurate and have a more open sound, a less grainy treble, cleaner and faster decay etc. To me the LCD 3F is all about pure joy and music."

 

Your reply “I must admit this made me laugh...the LCD-3F is better than it is given credit for?....for several years it has been regarded by many as perhaps the best HD available.....it still is one of the very best no matter the cost......”

 

And now only one day and one review later this post. My observation that was so laughable.

 

[Articnoise]

Then you use EQ you don’t really change how the headphone or transducer works or its FR. What you do is altering and lowering the audio signal of the source. When changing the original signal you break the bit perfect transmission. Bit perfect is commonly used to secure the delivery of the exact data contained in the audio file to the DAC.

 

Have Tyll said which gear he used with the LCD 4? I didn’t see it in the written review. 

 

[oal100]

yes I would be very interested in Tylls setup as well, maby the lcd4 is just extremely fickle?

 

[sheldaze]

  yes I would be very interested in Tylls setup as well, maby the lcd4 is just extremely fickle?

At the end of the Big Sound, he was able to keep a SimAudio Neo 430HA.
I would guess this is still in use.

 

[CobusT]

I'd like to offer my services for those that are struggling with the recent news. I'm available to talk in private messenger between the hours 09:00 and 17:00.

Whatever you're going through, big or small, don't bottle it up. I am here for you if you are worried about
The future of Audeze, feel upset or confused, or you just want to talk about your future options as an audiophile.

Was this comment really necessary?