Audeze LCD-5 Review, Measurements, Interview
Oct 20, 2021 at 3:54 PM Post #1,802 of 6,756
@sahmen, you are correct that I was frustrated.

It was late last night when I posted my LCD-5 observations, and I was upset that the HE-1000SE bass sounded better to me than the LCD-5 bass on the InPol Ear. At the time, the iCan Pro in my office system was doing a better job of powering the Audeze than the Pathos amp in my reference headphone system. I've spent months tuning my main system to make the HE-1000SE sound its best, and I was hoping that I could make some minor changes and the LCD-5 would be similarly optimized without a lot of effort. That was not a proper assumption. I was also frustrated that the iCan Pro did surprisingly well with the LCD-5 in comparison without further tuning.

This morning, I set about making some changes. After swapping in a different set of tubes (that were cleaned and had contact enhancer applied to the pins) in the InPol Ear and switching from the Wireworld HDMI cable back to the warm-sounding-and-incredibly-thick-gauge Lush Phasure HDMI^2 I2S cable (@johnzz4, you were right about the Wireworld Silver Sphere -- it is a bit thin-sounding), I listened to Massive Attack's album "Mezzanine" on the amp to verify improvements in the bass.

On the song "Teardrop," the quiet high hat popped out of the mix. The bass drum that sounds like a heartbeat and the crisp cross-stick pattern that repeat throughout the song were palpable and almost holographic. The same album had sounded leaner with less overall impact in my earlier configuration. The LCD-5 now showed increased warmth and fatter, more prodigious bass. However, the HE-1000SE bass sounded a bit loose and sloppy on the InPol Ear, so the tube and cable swap are not ideal for both headphones.

Switching between my reference system and my office system, I'd say the iCan Pro does itself proud with the LCD-5, and is a good fit whether using solid-state or tube mode. The iCan's bass is solid even without XBass, but there is the option to add more with that function. With the right tubes, the InPol Ear puts out an equivalent amount and quality of bass as the iCan. The Inpol Ear shows its higher-fi stripes by pulling ahead of iFi in detail and subtlety when using the LCD-5.

@sahmen, I wouldn't recommend ditching your InPol prior to getting the LCD-5. Give it a chance.

Apparently, I was not supplying enough bass to the Audeze cans with my previous configuration. It could be that the InPol is more suited for the HE-1000SE/Susvara than the LCD-5, but I'd need to spend more time tinkering with/optimizing my setup for the LCD-5 before I could say for sure. I've got a Double Helix Complement C headphone cable on the way in a few weeks, and I'm hopeful that will bring the LCD-5 to the next level over the Black Dragon cable I'm using now.
Thanks for the detailed response, @dcguy73 . I'll indeed give the inPol LCD-5 pairing a chance, even rolling different types of tubes, if that becomes necessary,
 
Oct 20, 2021 at 4:23 PM Post #1,803 of 6,756
I posted a final comparison to the LCD-R over on the LCD-R page so I'll leave it here as well. The LCD-5 and LCD-R sound like they have many technical traits in common, but are tonally quite different. This info won't be too useful for most people, but I hope it can be interesting at least.

After over a week of listening only to the LCD-5 and tuning the EQ to my preferences, I think I can finally wrap my head around how the LCD-R compares to the LCD-5. I initially gave my impressions on how the LCD-5 compares to the LCD-R in terms of bass; I did this first since the lower frequencies are always easier to accurately compare.

So how does the LCD-R stack up against the LCD-5? In my opinion (after tuning the EQ on both cans just right), the LCD-5 does everything the LCD-R can do, but better. The differences seem to be primarily in frequency response and amplification. Both headphones are extremely fast and detailed, but the LCD-5 is a bit faster and more detailed. Both headphones have great bass, but the LCD-5 has better bass. Both headphones are very dynamic and holographic, but the LCD-5 is a bit more dynamic and holographic.

Vocals (and general smoothness) were the main aspects where the LCD-R gave the LCD-5 a bit more competition. I actually used the LCD-R as a reference for EQ to see if I could tune the LCD-5 to the same "flavor" the LCD-R has. After several hours of back and forth listening, I feel like I finally found an EQ profile that satisfies me.

So where does that leave my opinions? Well, without EQ, the LCD-R is a more smooth, more musical headphone with the best, by far, vocals I have ever heard. The LCD-5 is more mid forward, but has a dynamic presentation that is immediately noticeable and bass that can almost be felt. I find that without a proper EQ setup, I prefer the LCD-R on older rock and live music, while the LCD-5 sounds better for electronic and pop music. There would be no way I could get rid of either.

After figuring out the EQ, I can't really find any music I prefer to listen to on the LCD-R. When I factor in the weight of the LCD-R, it's low choice in amplification, the chance that the pads will break in and the fazors will touch my ears, I can't really find a reason to listen to / keep them. Even after going back to only the LCD-5, I found a song I wanted to compare the LCD-R to. After a very short listen, it was apparent that the LCD-5 played the song better (to my ears) in just about every metric. In the coming days, I will (almost reluctantly!) be putting my LCD-R up for sale so I can further invest in the amplification for my LCD-5.

20211019_130405.jpg
 
Oct 20, 2021 at 4:33 PM Post #1,804 of 6,756
Interesting remarks, but could you kindly elaborate a little more on how the LCD-5 fares with the Pathos InPol Ear? Given the power of the Amp, as well as its finesse, I have somewhat assumed (or presumed) that mine will jive well with the LCD-5 (as it does with the Susvara and the Abyss TC), but you seem to sound a tad disappointed with the pairing, if I am not mistaken, which is giving me some pause. The highlighted comment about being "stuck" with the In Pol Ear's level of Bass seems to hint at some frustration. I am trying to figure out where I stand with the In Pol Ear before my LCD-5 arrives next week. By the way, my In Pol Ear is currently paired with an Yggy A2, and I also have another rig which consists of a Niimbus US4 and a Sonnet Morpheus DAC pairing... I wonder whether the R2R topologies of these DACs might influence the LCD-5's sound signature in any interesting way.

Ordinarily, I do not really dabble with EQ settings aside from the Audeze presets in Roon, but I do not think LCD-5 Roon presets exist yet. I listen to a lot of Jazz, classical, and acoustic music, and while I adore me some great bass, I do not consider myself to be a basshead, for what it's worth.
We have the Pathos InPol Ear in our demo room, and like it. However, I would suggest using the balanced output (if you haven't already tried it) to get the most out of your LCD5 or LCD4.
 
Audeze Stay updated on Audeze at their sponsor profile on Head-Fi.
 
https://www.facebook.com/AudezeLLC https://twitter.com/audeze https://www.audeze.com/
Oct 20, 2021 at 9:53 PM Post #1,808 of 6,756
Oct 20, 2021 at 9:53 PM Post #1,809 of 6,756
Just another quick impression of the LCD5 after a week of listening and a/bing.

Dear lord these are transparent. I don't see how you could be more audibly precise.

You hear the quality of the track to such extreme degrees. You hear your entire chain. Everything. Dare I say these are the "perfect" reference headphone.

Pair it with tubes, fun and dynamic. Pair it with a THX amp, perfect transparency.
 
Last edited:
Oct 20, 2021 at 10:14 PM Post #1,810 of 6,756
Thanks for sharing @DJJEZ and thanks @Currawong for doing this video : )
Beat me to posting it here. Now I need to get back to reviewing all the stuff that is overdue! I might squeeze in the odd LCD-5 vs. something video if I have time later on.
 
Oct 20, 2021 at 11:53 PM Post #1,811 of 6,756
I posted a final comparison to the LCD-R over on the LCD-R page so I'll leave it here as well. The LCD-5 and LCD-R sound like they have many technical traits in common, but are tonally quite different. This info won't be too useful for most people, but I hope it can be interesting at least.

After over a week of listening only to the LCD-5 and tuning the EQ to my preferences, I think I can finally wrap my head around how the LCD-R compares to the LCD-5. I initially gave my impressions on how the LCD-5 compares to the LCD-R in terms of bass; I did this first since the lower frequencies are always easier to accurately compare.

So how does the LCD-R stack up against the LCD-5? In my opinion (after tuning the EQ on both cans just right), the LCD-5 does everything the LCD-R can do, but better. The differences seem to be primarily in frequency response and amplification. Both headphones are extremely fast and detailed, but the LCD-5 is a bit faster and more detailed. Both headphones have great bass, but the LCD-5 has better bass. Both headphones are very dynamic and holographic, but the LCD-5 is a bit more dynamic and holographic.

Vocals (and general smoothness) were the main aspects where the LCD-R gave the LCD-5 a bit more competition. I actually used the LCD-R as a reference for EQ to see if I could tune the LCD-5 to the same "flavor" the LCD-R has. After several hours of back and forth listening, I feel like I finally found an EQ profile that satisfies me.

So where does that leave my opinions? Well, without EQ, the LCD-R is a more smooth, more musical headphone with the best, by far, vocals I have ever heard. The LCD-5 is more mid forward, but has a dynamic presentation that is immediately noticeable and bass that can almost be felt. I find that without a proper EQ setup, I prefer the LCD-R on older rock and live music, while the LCD-5 sounds better for electronic and pop music. There would be no way I could get rid of either.

After figuring out the EQ, I can't really find any music I prefer to listen to on the LCD-R. When I factor in the weight of the LCD-R, it's low choice in amplification, the chance that the pads will break in and the fazors will touch my ears, I can't really find a reason to listen to / keep them. Even after going back to only the LCD-5, I found a song I wanted to compare the LCD-R to. After a very short listen, it was apparent that the LCD-5 played the song better (to my ears) in just about every metric. In the coming days, I will (almost reluctantly!) be putting my LCD-R up for sale so I can further invest in the amplification for my LCD-5.

20211019_130405.jpg
Mind posting the EQ you landed on?
 
Oct 21, 2021 at 12:34 AM Post #1,812 of 6,756
Mind posting the EQ you landed on?
Sure thing, these are the settings I used in my RME Adi, I also have a few additional EQ APO profiles set up on hotkeys for different music genres:

1 - 5db 140hz q shelf
2 - (-)3db 970hz q.7
3 - 6db 7.3khz q 3.5
4 - 3.5db 8.5khz q 5
5 - 2db 10khz q shelf

On my other profiles I have like a -6db gain low Q at 500hz, I have an absolute vendetta against that frequency. I also have another profile that I boost the general 5khz region if the recordings aren't to my liking.

I made about 5 different RME profiles and switched back and forth until I landed on these settings before I was satisfied. This may not work for everyone, but I hope it gives you a good starting off point.
 
Oct 21, 2021 at 3:32 AM Post #1,813 of 6,756
LCD-5 to me is a improved LCD-4, and at the same time different form the other headphones you mention. LCD-4 and LCD-5 are similar in bass through lower mids. But, you will hear more detail in the mids with LCD-5 than you did with LCD-4. Clarity and imaging has also improved on lCD-5.

I hear you. I'm wondering however how the new LCD-4 earpads rank up in this matter.

I read your posts that the earcup design is very key in the ("house") sound of all the previous LCD models.

Apparently the new LCD2->4 earpads have been changed and completely redesigned (no more memory foam, but open cell foam now) to already lift some of the upper midrange/ high freq anomalies? Or am I wrong there?

I'm very much in need of earpad replacement for my LCD-4 and have ordered end of july (in Belgium, through Thomann, which is being supplied by CMA.audio, the official Audeze dealer in my region). Still no update on delivery times... (current earpads completely ripped off in the meantime... I used "Pritt" to stick 'm back on, out of fear to use stronger more fluid glue and damage my LCD-4. Feels incredibly stupid, but I can't miss my main heaphones)

I'm very curious how the new pads will change the sound of my LCD-4 (old style pads cannot be ordered any more, so not much choice there if I would prefer the old sound :p) and even more so now how these new pads sit between "old style LCD-4" and LCD-5.
 
Oct 21, 2021 at 5:23 AM Post #1,815 of 6,756
Is the general consensus that the lcd5 needs eq? I just want a totl set of cans with sufficient balance that I don’t need to faff around with the frequency response. Is this too much to ask?

I guess that fully depends on how picky you are. When people pay top dollar while striving for utter perfection to their personal tastes, they can finetune using EQ.

Everybody has a unique hearing... so if a headphone nails perfection for just a few of these demanding perfectionists, other perfectionists will still feel the need to tweak the sound to their liking/perfection.

Only the end user can decide on his/her desire to further alter a headphones' sound to his/her preference.

That doesn't make the stock tuning wrong or less perfect.

There is no such thing as a common reference point of perfection. Maybe that's the most important message that shimmers throughout all the measurement and Harman Target curve discussions as well...

There's a big chance that the posted EQ settings won't match your subjective personal idea of perfection. You could well EQ differently, or find the stock tuning just perfect.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top