[ptr516]

If you're impatient like me, you can just download the filters (https://www.head-fi.org/threads/audeze-dsp-presets-now-available-in-roon.858730/post-16996246) and upload your preferred preset filter into a separate convolution filter.

Thank you for posting the link. Blown away by their presets so far.

 

[TheFrator]

In order to add a slight bass shelf with the convolution filter in Roon, should the shelf be added before or after the convolution?

 

[shwnwllms]

In order to add a slight bass shelf with the convolution filter in Roon, should the shelf be added before or after the convolution?

After, convolution approximates the target curve then you add a parametric EQ afterwards to tweak to your liking

 

[Aquileolus]

Wondering how to use convolution presets with HQPlayer? I guess I should put same file for left and right? And which file should I put, 705.6 or 768? I have tracks in both 44.1 or 48 in my playlist

 

[Aquileolus]

Wondering how to use convolution presets with HQPlayer? I guess I should put same file for left and right? And which file should I put, 705.6 or 768? I have tracks in both 44.1 or 48 in my playlist

From HQP manual I found following

Note! When source material sampling rate differs from the impulse sampling rate, impulse responses will be scaled to the source material's sampling rate. This can have a huge impact on CPU load, and with large impulse responses will require significant amount of CPU processing power

So I guess if I have 90% as 44.1 track, it's better for me to put 705.6 to avoid scaling

 

[shwnwllms]

From HQP manual I found following

So I guess if I have 90% as 44.1 track, it's better for me to put 705.6 to avoid scaling

No. Convolution files work differently than upsampling. (And use very little CPU regardless.) You want to use the highest available so all frequencies are available, it picks the correct one for the source material.

 

[shwnwllms]

Wondering how to use convolution presets with HQPlayer? I guess I should put same file for left and right? And which file should I put, 705.6 or 768? I have tracks in both 44.1 or 48 in my playlist

They are mono files, just pick the same file for left and right. You don’t need to use the convolution engine, you have can plug them straight into the matrix under channel 1 & 2

 

[Somatic]

Anyone rocking the LCD5 directly off the Dave? If so, what is the volume at? Are you able to add a +5db low bass shelf at 85hz while still having enough headroom? Just not sure if the Dave is powerful enough to run it with low bass shelf. Thanks.

 

[EMINENT]

Anyone rocking the LCD5 directly off the Dave? If so, what is the volume at? Are you able to add a +5db low bass shelf at 85hz while still having enough headroom? Just not sure if the Dave is powerful enough to run it with low bass shelf. Thanks.

Can't help with that, but in my experience with -6db preamp and eq, I felt there wasn't enough out of balanced 1.5W WA7 3rd. gen.

Early on I tried just a shelf and it sounded less detailed and dull to me so much that I haven't bothered again with it. It was really night and day for me. This didn't do it for me and probably many others.

Anyone who has used Mitch Barnett's FIR Convolution filter, I'm curious to hear your impression on the new Audeze Presets from Bob Katz & Gary Cole.

(I'm preferring the Linear 256K tap filter, over the zero latency, which lines up from my prior experience with Audeze Presets for other headphones)

Early impressions so far is that Mitch's filter are a reference filter, which is to be expected given they are tuned dead neutral. Adding a 3.5 db Low Shelf at 80Hz is the sweet spot for me here. Overall this filter to me is for critical listening the detail is off the charts.

Linear Audeze filter is more engaging that Mitch's, but with a trade off in detail. There is more punch, sub bass is present. This is the filter you want if you just want to sit back and enjoy the music and aren't concerned with critical listening or hyper detail retrieval. No Low Shelf needed here.

+1 on looking forward to the comparison.

To my ears, I hear the Linear filter to be more treble-oriented, and the zero latency more mids-focused. However the zero latency balances out the mids into a very rich, smooth mid-centric presentation compared to the more forward, aggressive upper-mids stock tuning.

I am liking Linear for EDM/eletronic/metal, and zero latency for more vocal/indie tracks. Adding an additional parametric bass shelf to match my slight basshead preferences.

I finally tried these with and without a shelf and I agree with the above statements. Very subtly different. Both having slightly more energy than Mitch's up top. The more I listened, the more similar they sounded to earlier presets like Resolve and Crinacle's.
One thing that i'll add is I noticed the zero latency had a tad slower sounding trailing tones in the treble. Don't know if i'm describing it correctly. Both very good though.

In the end, I went back to Mitch's filters with my shelf. It is like I said earlier, so well balanced and seemingly can reach higher volumes without nearing being too energetic up top is the best I can describe. Bass is full and enveloping that I can feel more, giving a nice massage with all the detail in the mix perfectly arranged.

 

[Shagatron]

Anyone have a Mjolnir 2 and move to a newer amp that they are happier with? I'm thinking about the McIntosh MHA200 and the Benchmark HPA4.

 

[shwnwllms]

Can't help with that, but in my experience with -6db preamp and eq, I felt there wasn't enough out of balanced 1.5W WA7 3rd. gen.

Early on I tried just a shelf and it sounded less detailed and dull to me so much that I haven't bothered again with it. It was really night and day for me. This didn't do it for me and probably many others.







I finally tried these with and without a shelf and I agree with the above statements. Very subtly different. Both having slightly more energy than Mitch's up top. The more I listened, the more similar they sounded to earlier presets like Resolve and Crinacle's.
One thing that i'll add is I noticed the zero latency had a tad slower sounding trailing tones in the treble. Don't know if i'm describing it correctly. Both very good though.

In the end, I went back to Mitch's filters with my shelf. It is like I said earlier, so well balanced and seemingly can reach higher volumes without nearing being too energetic up top is the best I can describe. Bass is full and enveloping that I can feel more, giving a nice massage with all the detail in the mix perfectly arranged.

I'm back to Mitch's filter with a Low Shelf as well. Its very balanced as you said, and I feel it showcases the talent of the LCD-5 without a loss of fidelity that I was experiencing with the Audeze Presets. There was certainly more energy up top on the Audeze Presets, but not to the point of fatigue for me. For those interested, here are the three convolutions plotted via HQPlayers pipeline matrix so you can see the Frequency Response on each.

Mitch's LCD-5 FIR Filter with a Low Shelf added (+3.5 dB 80 Hz Q 0.71)

Audeze Preset Zero Latency

Audeze Preset Linear 256K Tap

 

[marcus2704]

Decided to stick with my Diana's, so if anyone is looking for a decentish priced mint LCD-5 set then have a look HERE

 

[EMINENT]

Decided to stick with my Diana's, so if anyone is looking for a decentish priced mint LCD-5 set then have a look HERE

Some lucky future owners out there!

 

[TheMiddleSky]

Decided to stick with my Diana's, so if anyone is looking for a decentish priced mint LCD-5 set then have a look HERE

Actually I'm also at DTC side. I think she does technicalities better than LCD-5 in some area (clarity, imaging quality, soundstage, and bass). However, If I only allowed to have one headphone, I may still prefer LCD-5. DTC is a bit on aggressive side in treble, and may tiring my ears if have to use it as daily headphone. Of course playlist, set up and preference play big role here.

 

[tawmizzzz]

(For those who don't believe in power conditioners and power cables, please ignore).

Thicc boiii. So I need to give the AQ Thunder a few days to settle in, but plugged into the Niagara1200, the space in between notes sounds larger than the AQ Blizzard. Blizzard does have a sweeter tone out of box which seems to mirror other users who have compared the two---but Thunder is more technical, both in micro and macro dynamics. I hear more energy to the point where I don't feel the need to turn the volume up as high. In fact i can drop my Ferrum to 0 db/unity instead of +db gain.

We'll see if I ultimately prefer Thunder to Blizzard for my LCD5 chain, as I have a strong preference for sweeter undertones- but I think that is where my incoming TWL XLR and power cord for the Ferrum could help rebalance.