I understand that a lot of users do that, but you really shouldn't encourage Audeze. They need to release properly tuned headphones instead of arrogantly assuming that owners will love a 3-5k boost, or will be willing run a parametric EQ on their audio. To me that is totally alienating.
Is there really any "properly tuned" headphones or speakers? We all hear differently if for no other reason than the shape of our ears. Maybe tuned to what you like. There are lots of options of other headphones.
Is there really any "properly tuned" headphones or speakers? We all hear differently if for no other reason than the shape of our ears. Maybe tuned to what you like. There are lots of options of other headphones.
Can you imagine if when Beyer came out with the painfully bright T1 with it's 10khz peak and the response was "Maybe it's just not a tuning you like. Just EQ it or get a different headphone," It's just as lazy here.
Not all, but most LCD-5 users are applying EQ, and I'd wager most of them are cutting 3-4khz. That should not be mandatory for a headphone.
I have a Susvara, and a Dianna TC, and an Empyrean. The only one that rivals the Susvara and offers a more engaging midrange is the LCD-5, but the upper midrange peak is way over the top.
All I'm asking is that they make an LCD-5 with a neutral upper midrange. If someone wants to turn it into a tin can with EQ they can, but it should at least start from neutral.
They can even keep the painful clamp if they want and blame that on subjective preference. Just make a version closer in line with the OG Audeze house sound. Literally nobody asked them to throw their house tuning out the window and do something extreme in exact the opposite direction. I think most wanted just a more resolving a lighter LCD-4ish headphone.
I have a Susvara, and a Dianna TC, and an Empyrean. The only one that rivals the Susvara and offers a more engaging midrange is the LCD-5, but the upper midrange peak is way over the top.
Mine sound great. They are a HAIR too forward in the midrange for my taste but, I find I adapt to the tuning super fast after putting them on and that the sheer neutrality up to that mid-range peak is really nice. I bought mine a year ago and essentially left the hobby (successful endgame imo). I’ve thought about getting an MM-500 but if I end up missing something about the LCD-5 I’ll regret it and be back chasing the dragon. Sometimes I want more bass and, with EQ, the LCD-5 can give some solid bass texture and rumble. The only real criticism I have of the LCD-5 is that while it gets to a good listening volume easily. It’s hard to really push them volume-wise with EQ running. Not that you should be doing that anyway…
Can you imagine if when Beyer came out with the painfully bright T1 with it's 10khz peak and the response was "Maybe it's just not a tuning you like. Just EQ it or get a different headphone," It's just as lazy here.
Not all, but most LCD-5 users are applying EQ, and I'd wager most of them are cutting 3-4khz. That should not be mandatory for a headphone.
I have a Susvara, and a Dianna TC, and an Empyrean. The only one that rivals the Susvara and offers a more engaging midrange is the LCD-5, but the upper midrange peak is way over the top.
All I'm asking is that they make an LCD-5 with a neutral upper midrange. If someone wants to turn it into a tin can with EQ they can, but it should at least start from neutral.
They can even keep the painful clamp if they want and blame that on subjective preference. Just make a version closer in line with the OG Audeze house sound. Literally nobody asked them to throw their house tuning out the window and do something extreme in exact the opposite direction. I think most wanted just a more resolving a lighter LCD-4ish headphone.
If you’re open to EQ… I’d try giving them a bass boost and filling in the upper treble a touch rather than bringing down the midrange peak. I think what makes the midrange shouty for some is mostly that the upper treble is dark. Unit variation might even account for some of the mixed impressions.
If you’re used to old Audezes then you’re used to something that is very coloured in the upper mids. It makes voices sound so different that going to something with the filled-in midrange (including an HD600) sound incredibly shouty.
I wish I could get on board with the criticisms… it would probably save me some money. But I do think Audeze put a TON of thought into this headphone and how to give people that incredible detail that so many people praise audeze for. They may have decided that enhanced detail is associated with a lot of energy in the midrange and that might be fatiguing for some people. But they know that people buy this headphone because they want that speed, clarity, and detail and I think they succeeded at delivering that.
(EQs are not transparent and Audeze's own Reveal plugin sounds like garbage.) This is not appropriate in my system, nor even possible for anyone who would use these in any kind of analog environment. The idea that you buy a $4500 headphone and you are chained to a PC specific setup and artifact-laden 3rd party DSP products, just to make it listenable is a terrible idea.
Same problem with LCD i4, the tuning was awful unless you used it with their Cipher cable, or Reveal plugin, both of which were major bottlenecks on sound quality.
Sorry, I can't get behind this unless you just have something seriously wrong with your implementation or setup. There are just too many accounts of improving sound with eq vs. these anomalies. Maybe if I heard this non transparency or artifact laden byproduct you're claiming in mine when eq'd, that would make more sense. If you had less luck with past experiences, I would suggest taking a closer look at your hardware/software or transducer might have been lacking in it's eq-ability.
Being chained to anything is something we all are doing including yourself. I don't see how this idea is any more terrible than the thousands you and others have spent for their desk chains that are apparently better tuned and still spending and searching. Again, I have no idea what yours sound like, but how are these thoughts even formulated if you've found such better tuning?
You said this yourself. This in of itself shows that once that peak is tamed, it's arguably one of the best engaging midranges I could hope for. I know this. I see this as a benefit. A necessary evil to obtaining those wonderful mids you know i'm loving. There's already plenty of accounts of others chasing bass amp dragons or multi kilobuck synergies in the tens of thousands of dollars for little better bass or a little better mids but still coming up short somewhere.
Even if we had this perfect tuning unicorn we all wish existed, you and I know we'd still be chasing that dragon synergy stack. So, why shackle oneself?
Don't fight it. In the end, LCD5 is the way. Jk.
Not sure if the unit Crin got was from one of the early batches (with the old headband). FR is a bit different, but then again possibly due to different rig used and positioning etc.
Midrange timbre on these is simply amazing... probably the best among flagship planars. It's something to rave about!
P.S. I have also measured a handful of aftermarket pad options for the LCD-5. So far I find the Yaxi Alcantara and Dekoni Elite Hybrid pads quite good. Looking to try the MM500 pads as well but man those are expensive.
I prefer Jude's measurements from the first page as he normalizes at 500 Hz to help compare and contrast with the LCD-4. Measurements only tell a small part of the story, but yes, the 5's are definitely prominent in the upper midrange.
Definitely a different flavor from the 4, but I think that's also kind of the point, no?
Why would Audeze just re-release the same thing over and over again?
I was astonished by the technicalities of the LCD-5, but the FR didn't mesh well with my ears. I also couldn't justify having such an expensive, technical piece in my collection (I'm a music lover, not an audio engineer), so I ended up selling it.
That said, it truly is a statement in engineering and audio reproduction. Applying an EQ target turns the 5 into a musical scalpel. It's a very interesting experience hearing audio playback with such low distortion and accuracy to the source.
I may end up adding a used LCD-5 to my collection again one day -- but this time through a different perspective.
Mine sound great. They are a HAIR too forward in the midrange for my taste but, I find I adapt to the tuning super fast after putting them on and that the sheer neutrality up to that mid-range peak is really nice. I bought mine a year ago and essentially left the hobby (successful endgame imo). I’ve thought about getting an MM-500 but if I end up missing something about the LCD-5 I’ll regret it and be back chasing the dragon. Sometimes I want more bass and, with EQ, the LCD-5 can give some solid bass texture and rumble. The only real criticism I have of the LCD-5 is that while it gets to a good listening volume easily. It’s hard to really push them volume-wise with EQ running. Not that you should be doing that anyway…
The LCD-5 is something like +-2 to 3db away from the HD600 in most of it's range.
People look at the graph, and listen to it, then think what they hear is directly related to the graph they just saw. It's not. Our brains hear sound in it's entirety, not in individual frequency chuncks. The general slope of the frequency response is much more important than the peaks and dips.
In reality, the combination of the ~-5db treble plus the linear/flat bass actually magnifies not just the 3 to 5khz, but also the Equally large and audible 1.5khz honk.
Using EQ to add a bass shelf and treble shelf almost completely eliminates the overly audible mid-range by repositioning the slopes of the frequency response.
So why did Audeze do this? Because they found, in their past research, that fine-tuning the frequency response to match the Harmon target led to a decrease in the headphones technical performance. This is why the previous LCD models have a huge chunk missing out of the ear gain region, and it's why the LCD-5 has it added back. They believe that creating a headphone with superior technical performance, but needs slight EQ to perfect the frequency response, allows the user to have their cake and eat it, too.
Sorry cable disbelievers...
I must report I am hearing differences.
I've gone back and forth a few times already and even went so far as to swapping cables as carefully as I could have while still on my head, and even swapping in the old copper WBC interconnects.
Not ready to report conclusions yet as I want to try and eliminate variables like time of day and mood, etc.
Sorry cable disbelievers...
I must report I am hearing differences.
I've gone back and forth a few times already and even went so far as to swapping cables as carefully as I could have while still on my head, and even swapping in the old copper WBC interconnects.
Not ready to report conclusions yet as I want to try and eliminate variables like time of day and mood, etc.
All they have to do is bring that peak down 5-10db, and the bass and top end up by say 2-3db. Nobody could complain about that. If someone really wants to crank 3-4khz or cut the bass and treble, they can do that with DSP. Or, they can buy the other OG tuned version with all the 3-4khz their hearts desire. Just give us options.
5-10 db?!? I’d complain about that. 2 db maybe, but not at the expense of technicalities. Mastering folks (including myself) much prefer the new audeze sound to the old. Much flatter. Sounds like you are actually more used to a scooped sound.
I do love the old audezes as well, but the new ones can resolve this crucial midrange in a better way than the old ones could, even with the eq matched to be the same. This is a crucial range to be able to dial in, and the new audezes are really great for this.
+1 re: cable discussion. The OEM cable is actually quite well thought out, ergonomic and not cheap to replace.
Apologetics need not explain the LCD-5 tuning. It is what it is. Audeze released it that way for a reason. The tuning and signature has been well described ad nauseous. You either like it or you don’t. And if you don’t and choose not to EQ then quite simply, the LCD-5 isn’t for you.
I’m wondering whether the sound has evolved as batches have continued production. Early adopter here. I bought the very first pair my AD received.
+1 re: cable discussion. The OEM cable is actually quite well thought out, ergonomic and not cheap to replace.
Apologetics need not explain the LCD-5 tuning. It is what it is. Audeze released it that way for a reason. The tuning and signature has been well described ad nauseous. You either like it or you don’t. And if you don’t and choose not to EQ then quite simply, the LCD-5 isn’t for you.
I’m wondering whether the sound has evolved as batches have continued production. Early adopter here. I bought the very first pair my AD received.
I think the biggest contributor to how new LCD-5s may sound different from older models would be changes in the pads. There was an earlier post showing how older models did have more of a mid hump than new models, but the test was done with different rigs at different times, so it may not be admissable.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Jk.
