1. 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.

    Dismiss Notice

Audeze LCD-MX4

Discussion in 'Sponsor Announcements and Deals' started by Audeze, Oct 7, 2017.
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
47 48 49 50 51
  1. CaptainFantastic
    Continuing on my post above, I note that the Meze Empyrean page says "Magnetic field shielding - The ferromagnetic ear pads decrease the magnetic stray field affecting the listeners head." I take from this that this is a known thing by headphone designers, something to be taken into account.
  2. KMann
    Though we do not claim this explicitly, the Fluxor magnets are designed to minimize leakage and instead focus the flux where it is needed, i.e. on the diaphragm. This results in a whopping 1.5 Tesla at the diaphragm and close to nothing outside. So there is no fear of any of those strong field reaching ones head/brain. One could consider it as a form of passive magnetic shielding.

    This is the flux distribution on a typical planar magnetic design


    And this the flux distribution of the Fluxor design used in MX4, there is not much leakage as we do not like wasting the flux :)


    For comparison, the magnetic field at the diaphragm of LCD-MX4, LCD-4 and LCD-4z is about three times as strong as what you find in LCD-X and LCD-3. The stronger field, exerts a stronger force on the diaphragm for the same amount of power, thus making MX4 more efficient. the stronger force also means very good control over the diaphragm for more resolving mids and a faster transient response.
  3. nrbatista
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2019
  4. nrbatista
    How does the MX4 hold with Classical? At the Hd800 level or not quite?

    I’ve auditioned the hd800 with Classical and was absolutely amazed by them, resolution and openness as I never heard before. However these were too sibilant in the other genres.
  5. Dobrescu George
    I'd stick with LCD-4Z for classical, MX4 is more designed for mastering, it has a more intimate soundstage, and a more forward midrange, where 4Z makes a more typical listening experience. It won't be as huge a HD800 in soundstage, but it will be better defined, better controlled and much less sibilant than HD800 :)
  6. nrbatista
    Thank you. It’s a bit disappointing as it being for mastering I would expect they would do great for any music type. Is there any case/music genre where you would pick the mx4 over the 4z ?
  7. Dobrescu George
    I would pick MX-4 above 4Z for mastering

    MX4 has a unique presentation, if you want its presentation, you'll like it for any musical style, but MX4 sounds pretty midrange forward, with a thicker more expressed bass, and with a smoother treble, with less upper midrange emphasis.

    The thing is, MX4 is designed to not be fatiguing, and to let you work for hours on a row, and MX4 is also designed to reveal everything that can be revealed in the midrange, but it doesn't have the emotional expression in the upper midrange that 4Z has, and 4Z has a more traditional tuning. Both have similar levels of detail and clarity.

    Mastering headphones are forward-sounding, and since you said you liked HD800, I'd assume you'd want a more wide kind of sound.
    nrbatista likes this.
  8. CaptainFantastic
    @Dobrescu George

    Wow, nice, succint comparison. I would add that the MX4, besides being less fatiguing soundwise, is also about 50-60 grams lighter than the 4z (yes, the magnesium 4z), and for me that is the difference between pleasure and pain. But I really like how you put it: "if you want its presentation, you'll like it for any musical style".
    Dobrescu George likes this.
  9. Random Lunatic
    I really wouldn’t use it for classical... nor any audeze if I’m honest. Their frequency response is just way too uneven/coloured: the big dip in the upper midrange/lower treble just makes it sound a bit... off, with full range music. And the sibilants at the high treble can become rather unpleasant if a track happens to reach those frequencies.

    That being said, for content that does not contain those high frequencies, it give a lovely dampened/intimate presentation, due to that muted upper mid/treble, which sounds quite unique - sort of like the instrument is being played in a heavily sound proofed studio.

    But for large scale classical, i would really go with a German dynamic headphone, like the HD800 or T1 and then tuning the tonality with amps if need be, as they are just the best at large scale complex dynamic music imo, whilst there are other more suited for other genres.

    I found the MX best with music suites to the intimate tone, like small scale jazz, piano, vocals etc.
    Dobrescu George likes this.
  10. Random Lunatic
    As an added note, if the 4z sounds like the LCD-4, it’s main fault is it’s piercing upper treble, which the MX4 still has some of, but to a mouth more manageable degree - some tracks may just sound slightly overlooked, where as with the 4, I just had to turn down the volume.
    The MX seemed more unique in its character, where the 4 honestly just felt like a more fatigueing HD800, with less soundstage, at twice the weight and three times the cost to me :p
  11. nrbatista
    @Random Lunatic

    Thanks for your impressions! I was hoping the MX4 could be the "silver bullet" headphone than could display great with all genres without much compromises. Anyway, to be fair, I hear Classical less than other genres, like Jazz, Blues or Rock. So, I guess a sound bet would be going with the MX4 for its versatility and buy a least expensive headphone for Classical alone. Maybe a second hand hd800 or even a less expensive one, like the AKG K812, others?
  12. Random Lunatic
    No problem, I was hoping something similar in spite of previous experience with Audeze - love their build, and the general idea of their sound, but felt like they never quite nailed it. (Heard them today for a while)

    On the other note, would definitely go for the 800 and not the AKG; found the AKG to be mediocre at best, quite poor at worst... which is a shame, since their build is nice and sturdy - but don’t take my word for it, Tyll reviewed it too.
    HD800 can be had unbelievably cheap these days at times - staggering considering it’s still one of the best headphones ever made from a technical perspective. Aggressive tonality or not.
    Hifiearspeakers likes this.
  13. sahmen
    The LCD-4 a more fatiguing HD-800?

    That must be the first time I ever heard anyone say that in any context.

    Now with all due allowance made for such expressions as "to each their own," "YMMV," and all caveats of that kind, I have to say that this sounds like someone calling the color white black, or claiming the sea is red. It just doesn't compute to my ears and doesn't match anything in my memory of those two cans!

    By the way, I have both cans, (LCD-4 and HD800), and I don't remember ever getting "fatigued" by the LCD-4, whereas the HD800 gets so little head time for that very reason that I do not even remember when I last used it, even though I have .a great cable (Norne Draug 2) and an amp (Violectric V281) that work to bring out its nicer aspects when I do.

    Of course, as I have already said, YMMV!
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2019
    mixman, kid vic and BenHolmes like this.
  14. Random Lunatic
    Same here, had both - bought the LCD-4 in hopes of something ‘fuller sounding’ to supplement the HD800, but in the end, like mentioned, it was just similar, except with less soundstage and the usual audeze dip, or valley rather, diving from 1k to around 5k down by almost -20db if I remember correctly, and then spiking again at 7k, 10k and 11k by almost 10db, where as fx HD800 starts rolling off after 7k.
    Apparently those 10-11k+ peaks really hurt... for me anyway.
    LCD-4 high treble (7k+) is much brighter/more elevated than the HD800 (the measurements are quite clear on that), which combined with the dipped high mid/low treble makes a stark contrast in the lcd-4.
    I’ve seen some reviewers mentions the same treble problem with recent iterations if the LCD-3

    Getting back to the MX4, those treble spikes seemed less pronounced - tolerable, more so than on the regular 4, and thus also easier to EQ if need be.

    I think the ‘issue’ is that the spikes are in the upper reaches of useable hearing for most adults, and some might not even hear/be bothered by them, being left with a lovely dark/warm cozy or ‘analogue/natural’ sound with a bit of sparkle at 7k, where others like me and the few reviewers I’ve come across, are bothered by them, as they cause the headphones to sound a bit disjointed, and stops you from turning up the volume, as the treble kills you before you get there...
    I honestly envy you specifically with the Audezes because I REALLY want to like them ^^
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2019
  15. mixman
    Yeah like Sahmen mentioned the LCD4, even the MX4 and bright do not compute. HD800 being bright and irritating to many is well know. There are whole threads on how to modify them to be less irritating. The MX4 is a midrangey HP, that’s it’s problem for me doesn’t have enough highs to offset it’s midrange peaks. The 4 for some does have a treble peak that is irritating for a few, but no where as much as the HD800’s do for others.
    Dobrescu George and sahmen like this.
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
47 48 49 50 51

Share This Page