Audeze LCD-MX4
Feb 26, 2018 at 7:39 PM Post #271 of 907
What are common Mac consumer programs where the Reveal plug-in could be used for listening?
 
Feb 26, 2018 at 7:48 PM Post #272 of 907
I seriously considered purchasing the new Audeze MX4 ... I have decided NOT to get the Audeze MX4 for now.

I learned while attending the recent NYC CANJAM that the new MX4 headphones have design tradeoffs intended for the ‘PRO’ (studio mix/mastering) market.

The MX4’s diaphragm metallization (to achieve low 20 ohm impedance) is perhaps ten times more massive than the older audiophile LCD-4. It's reasonable to assume that thickness of the metal conductors deposited on the diaphragm primarily determines the total moving mass the diaphragm.

Compared to the LCD-4, the MX4 sacrifices resolution & fidelity for high efficiency. I understood that this was the design tradeoff to attain high efficiency for the PRO market -- as explained by the Audeze rep at CanJAM. The 'PRO' studio mix-mastering consoles lack the power to properly drive the original LCD-4 headphones --- so the MX4 was created.

IMO, MX4 is not intended by Audeze to be an audiophile headphone.

If the new 30% lighter MX4 only had the same ultra-lightweight diaphragm of the older LCD-4 (200 ohm impedance), then my buying decision would have been a 'no-brainer' !!!

Good Choice, the MX4's are for close to nobody.
 
Feb 26, 2018 at 8:12 PM Post #273 of 907
I seriously considered purchasing the new Audeze MX4 ... I have decided NOT to get the Audeze MX4 for now.

I learned while attending the recent NYC CANJAM that the new MX4 headphones have design tradeoffs intended for the ‘PRO’ (studio mix/mastering) market.

The MX4’s diaphragm metallization (to achieve low 20 ohm impedance) is perhaps ten times more massive than the older audiophile LCD-4. It's reasonable to assume that thickness of the metal conductors deposited on the diaphragm primarily determines the total moving mass the diaphragm.

Compared to the LCD-4, the MX4 sacrifices resolution & fidelity for high efficiency. I understood that this was the design tradeoff to attain high efficiency for the PRO market -- as explained by the Audeze rep at CanJAM. The 'PRO' studio mix-mastering consoles lack the power to properly drive the original LCD-4 headphones --- so the MX4 was created.

IMO, MX4 is not intended by Audeze to be an audiophile headphone.

If the new 30% lighter MX4 only had the same ultra-lightweight diaphragm of the older LCD-4 (200 ohm impedance), then my buying decision would have been a 'no-brainer' !!!

A lot of talk but have you actually heard it? Have you sat down with it in your own home? I don't think any one is suggesting the MX4 is better than the LCD 4,


an you may be correct that it trades fidelity for efficiency but compared to other gear in the price range it's quite good. In fact at the last meet I took the MX4 to a lot of people REALLY liked it, some of them even drove it out of the LG V series smart phones [like 5 of us had the v10/20/30] and it was very very good.

Good Choice, the MX4's are for close to nobody.

Again I think Audeze has designed this headphone to perform the same regardless of what the "system" behind it is. I found that in terms of detail it did scale nicely when I moved from my own V20 into my reference system, but thankfully tonally it was pretty consistent. My usual "cold thin" Lg V20 didn't create a harsh experience with the MX4 like it does with a lot of headphones, and while my reference system had a noticeable improvement to the overall naturalness of the MX4's presentation. It wasn't warmer by any means, so again Audeze seemed to have traded some fidelity for consistency, and a consistent tonal balance is wonderful for any one listening from a wide range of sources

An given the price difference it's not a bad trade off, as these compete'd pretty well again'st my LCD 2 even out of my crappy LGv20. So a $3000[MSRP] headphone out of a $350 cell phone compete again'st a $1000 [MSRP] headphone from a $2000 system

I guess I can save some cash buying an LCD 2 and building a system out of it, but when you factor in the time needed to get everything "just right" I think if I had a lump sum around I'd just get the better more efficient headphone to start. An going to the LCD 4, we have a $4000 headphone that likely sounds horrendous from a cell phone and will likely require a component system to get the most from it, so again there's time and even more cash needed to get the best out of that!
 
Feb 26, 2018 at 8:17 PM Post #274 of 907
A lot of talk but have you actually heard it? Have you sat down with it in your own home? I don't think any one is suggesting the MX4 is better than the LCD 4,


an you may be correct that it trades fidelity for efficiency but compared to other gear in the price range it's quite good. In fact at the last meet I took the MX4 to a lot of people REALLY liked it, some of them even drove it out of the LG V series smart phones [like 5 of us had the v10/20/30] and it was very very good.



Again I think Audeze has designed this headphone to perform the same regardless of what the "system" behind it is. I found that in terms of detail it did scale nicely when I moved from my own V20 into my reference system, but thankfully tonally it was pretty consistent. My usual "cold thin" Lg V20 didn't create a harsh experience with the MX4 like it does with a lot of headphones, and while my reference system had a noticeable improvement to the overall naturalness of the MX4's presentation. It wasn't warmer by any means, so again Audeze seemed to have traded some fidelity for consistency, and a consistent tonal balance is wonderful for any one listening from a wide range of sources

An given the price difference it's not a bad trade off, as these compete'd pretty well again'st my LCD 2 even out of my crappy LGv20. So a $3000[MSRP] headphone out of a $350 cell phone compete again'st a $1000 [MSRP] headphone from a $2000 system

I guess I can save some cash buying an LCD 2 and building a system out of it, but when you factor in the time needed to get everything "just right" I think if I had a lump sum around I'd just get the better more efficient headphone to start. An going to the LCD 4, we have a $4000 headphone that likely sounds horrendous from a cell phone and will likely require a component system to get the most from it, so again there's time and even more cash needed to get the best out of that!
 
Feb 26, 2018 at 8:38 PM Post #276 of 907
Dude, seriously?! Are you working for Audeze? These sound OK out of a phone and sound good out of Mojo. They don’t come ANYWHERE close to their price tag.

Nope an sadly I wasn't and continued to be un impressed with the LCD 3's I've heard I also think the XC is... very very poorly optimized . An I'm not a huge Audeze fan either, the MX4 is the first modern Audeze I've liked. The LCD X was kinda meh, all the fazor'd 2/3s I've heard are very meh, I still preffer my pre fazor 2 to most of what they currently offer. An as for the LCD 4 I've only heard it at meets, and while it sounds great... I'm not crazy about the price and the more difficult amping requirements


That said, running out of my reference system, which was on par with the Hugo 2 when I spent 2 weeks with it, I found the MX4 to be a nice step up from my LCD 2 and slightly better in some area's than my HD 800. Is it worth $3000, I can't say for sure. I don't own any other $3000 headphones, and I've only heard the PS2000E which also requires a system behind it. So given how good the MX4 sounds with so little, people looking for an all in one solution will likely enjoy the MX4, the Hifiman HE X was much the same but... built horrifically and with some huge glaring faults of it's own.

Now would I pay $3000 for it... no and I don't encourage whose price conscious to pay "sticker" price for any headphone, You can always shop a lot smarter and get a much better deal on anything, but again if you've got a high budget, and you need a one and done product This isn't a bad way to go, simplicity and convenience are commodities people accept they have to pay for. An this is certainly a convenient headphone to own. An again, for about half the price you can get a Focal Clear... which is just as easy to drive imo but sadly isn't nearly as transparent as even this is, so while the MX4 isn't twice as good as the Clear people who want the best with almost no prior investment in time or money will again appreciate this headphone

There's no reason to criticize a product that isn't being marketed to you, Audeze has a lot of advertising that is aim'd at studio producers, musicians and engineers. An for some of them $3000 on a headphone is a drop in the bucket compared to a lot more crucial professional gear at this level of quality, and I'd much rather these kinda of customers pay more for the MX4 than the LCD XC... while the XC is just as efficient it's tonally... bad! Honestly, a Focal Clear is much better at the $1500 price point for a convenient efficient headphone than the XC is. So I appreciate that Audeze took another stab at a super efficient planar. Here's to hoping we will see some kind of LDC MX4C or a closed back version without the wood and hefty weight at around the same price point and efficiency
 
Last edited:
Feb 26, 2018 at 8:41 PM Post #277 of 907
Dude, seriously?! Are you working for Audeze? These sound OK out of a phone and sound good out of Mojo. They don’t come ANYWHERE close to their price tag.
Dude! Have you actually heard them? Have you compared them with the X or 3? Or even with similarly priced HPs like HeK2? Or are you just trolling?
 
Feb 26, 2018 at 8:48 PM Post #278 of 907
Dude! Have you actually heard them? Have you compared them with the X or 3? Or even with similarly priced HPs like HeK2? Or are you just trolling?

@stevedlu has, he mentioned that he didn't like it with his Questyle Amp/Dac, no reason to attack him. An honestly my first listen to the CMA 400i wasn't super impressive... but again ymmv I've not heard enough Questyle stuff to have an opinion on what does or doesn't work with them
 
Feb 26, 2018 at 8:51 PM Post #279 of 907
Nope an sadly I wasn't and continued to be un impressed with the LCD 3's I've heard I also think the XC is... very very poorly optimized . An I'm not a huge Audeze fan either, the MX4 is the first modern Audeze I've liked. The LCD X was kinda meh, all the fazor'd 2/3s I've heard are very meh, I still preffer my pre fazor 2 to most of what they currently offer. An as for the LCD 4 I've only heard it at meets, and while it sounds great... I'm not crazy about the price and the more difficult amping requirements


That said, running out of my reference system, which was on par with the Hugo 2 when I spent 2 weeks with it, I found the MX4 to be a nice step up from my LCD 2 and slightly better in some area's than my HD 800. Is it worth $3000, I can't say for sure. I don't own any other $3000 headphones, and I've only heard the PS2000E which also requires a system behind it. So given how good the MX4 sounds with so little, people looking for an all in one solution will likely enjoy the MX4, the Hifiman HE X was much the same but... built horrifically and with some huge glaring faults of it's own.

Now would I pay $3000 for it... no and I don't encourage whose price conscious to pay "sticker" price for any headphone, You can always shop a lot smarter and get a much better deal on anything, but again if you've got a high budget, and you need a one and done product This isn't a bad way to go, simplicity and convenience are commodities people accept they have to pay for. An this is certainly a convenient headphone to own. An again, for about half the price you can get a Focal Clear... which is just as easy to drive imo but sadly isn't nearly as transparent as even this is, so while the MX4 isn't twice as good as the Clear people who want the best with almost no prior investment in time or money will again appreciate this headphone

There's no reason to criticize a product that isn't being marketed to you, Audeze has a lot of advertising that is aim'd at studio producers, musicians and engineers. An for some of them $3000 on a headphone is a drop in the bucket compared to a lot more crucial professional gear at this level of quality, and I'd much rather these kinda of customers pay more for the MX4 than the LCD XC... while the XC is just as efficient it's tonally... bad! Honestly, a Focal Clear is much better at the $1500 price point for a convenient efficient headphone than the XC is. So I appreciate that Audeze took another stab at a super efficient planar. Here's to hoping we will see some kind of LDC MX4C or a closed back version without the wood and hefty weight at around the same price point and efficiency

To be honest, I loved LCD-4 already, but always thought they were heavy and too hard to drive, so LCD-MX4 is like a heaven-sent thing for somebody like me. This being said, I still have to compare it to other heavy duty headphones, like HD800S and LCD-4 for sonics :)

I haven'y experienced with LCD-XC so cannot speak about them at all.

There are many open-back and closed-back options in between, so I don't think people will be limited in their choices any time soon, LCD-MX4 surely has its place in my mind though, it is a prodigy headphone, and clarity and transparency alone are things it does well. Convenience is something we need in today's world, I think it is a good step to have something you can simply use and enjoy rather than build around.

Same thing with building a computer though, you might require an i5 CPU for gaming, while I require an i7, and I need to clock it as much as I can for video rendering, those headphones are already a bit in the territory of professional tools as well as for really trained listeners :)
 
Feb 26, 2018 at 8:53 PM Post #280 of 907
@stevedlu has, he mentioned that he didn't like it with his Questyle Amp/Dac, no reason to attack him. An honestly my first listen to the CMA 400i wasn't super impressive... but again ymmv I've not heard enough Questyle stuff to have an opinion on what does or doesn't work with them
Point taken. I can only say that I have spent some relaxing afternoons with my Xs and QP1r. Just that the word 'dude' is a trigger word for me. I always hear a snearing voice in my head. My problem, not yours or his.
 
Feb 26, 2018 at 10:24 PM Post #282 of 907
@stevedlu has, he mentioned that he didn't like it with his Questyle Amp/Dac, no reason to attack him. An honestly my first listen to the CMA 400i wasn't super impressive... but again ymmv I've not heard enough Questyle stuff to have an opinion on what does or doesn't work with them
The 600i (with a proper dac, not internal) is a dream with the 2,x,3.
 
Feb 26, 2018 at 10:33 PM Post #283 of 907
The 600i (with a proper dac, not internal) is a dream with the 2,x,3.
its a shame to hear the internals what holds it back, good that it has a seperate analog input. That's a bit uncommon on an all in one... or at least uncommon to me

Though I've switched to tubes as my primary amps atm. SET 4 my dynamics and a hybrid for planars, an I do prefer the M4X n my own 2PreFazor from a good tube

hopefully I'll explore some nice solid states here shortly
 
Last edited:
Feb 26, 2018 at 10:38 PM Post #284 of 907
Well as for me, my MX4's are due to arrive tomorrow. So long as I find them to be a meaningful upgrade over the LCD-X's over the long term, I ought to be happy with them. It takes me a long time (about a month maybe?) to fully form an opinion on a new piece of gear I own, but based on a brief audition a little while ago, am quite optimistic. Nevertheless, I'm actually finding the differing opinions aired out so far to be interesting. I'll be driving them from a Holo Spring + iFi Pro iCan (and possibly some time later thru a GS-X mk2?), so hopefully I'll having something useful to comment on that combination...
 
Last edited:
Feb 27, 2018 at 10:50 AM Post #285 of 907
Well as for me, my MX4's are due to arrive tomorrow. So long as I find them to be a meaningful upgrade over the LCD-X's over the long term, I ought to be happy with them. It takes me a long time (about a month maybe?) to fully form an opinion on a new piece of gear I own, but based on a brief audition a little while ago, am quite optimistic. Nevertheless, I'm actually finding the differing opinions aired out so far to be interesting. I'll be driving them from a Holo Spring + iFi Pro iCan (and possibly some time later thru a GS-X mk2?), so hopefully I'll having something useful to comment on that combination...
Look forward to your opinion in a month.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top