[Another Audiophile]

I have mine for sale if anyone from London UK is interested. Listed in classifieds.

 

[hawk13]

Has anyone else found the MX4 to be the most capable of the Audeze offerings? I am consistently blown away by its technical prowess, especially on the low end, and yes, I’ve had the LCD-4 and 4z.

 

[Another Audiophile]

Has anyone else found the MX4 to be the most capable of the Audeze offerings? I am consistently blown away by its technical prowess, especially on the low end, and yes, I’ve had the LCD-4 and 4z.

I tried all and the MX4 was the most dynamic and vicious sounding. Selling mine not because of the sound but because I moved to OTL set up and is not a great match

 

[hawk13]

I tried all and the MX4 was the most dynamic and vicious sounding. Selling mine not because of the sound but because I moved to OTL set up and is not a great match

Glad I’m not alone!

 

[Another Audiophile]

Glad I’m not alone!

No you are not. Some people might not like it but this doesn’t mean much. After all with 2 audiophiles in a room you get 3 opinions

 

[hawk13]

Haha!! So true!!!

 

[groovyd]

Love them... best headphones in my collection especially after Sonarworks custom calibration. Probably will remain that way at least until I finally get the HE-1s.

 

[Another Audiophile]

Does anyone have an eq profile? I am using the RME ADI 2 Dac FS

 

[groovyd]

Does anyone have an eq profile? I am using the RME ADI 2 Dac FS

I posted one in this thread a few times... scroll back

 

[FullBright1]

The Mx4 :

1. Excellent clarity, soft but beautiful Treble
2. Forward Mids, but excellent
3. Wide soundstage
4. One of the best headphones for audiophiles who love to both listen and analyze
5. Amazing linear bass, textured, detailed, perfect.

As compared to the X, the MX4 has an absolute level up regarding everything that matters. It has more resolution, more balance, more musicality, more soundstage, more insight, better bass that is not as punchy, but is more accurate and true, while not being recessed.

As compared to the 2, and 3.
Yes , it has this sound, as its primary sound signature and not the X.
If you know the 2 & 3, then you'll recognize the similarity, but, its better, as its everything that needed to be resolved and tweek'd so that the 2 & 3 were dialed in. This has been declared by the MX4.
It SOUNDS more LIKE the 3, but Linearly and Tonally perfected . The Treble is better, as its has no etch, but is more clear and pretty. The mids are clearer, and the bass is just as extended but dialed in for balanced perfection.

Think of a totally balance, FR perfected, LCD-3.

This means its not dry, its not too soft, its not too linear.
It has a magical FR sweetness and easy overall listenability that is absolutely unique among Audeze Headphones.
The MX4 will amazingly reproduce the sonic character of your Dac/Amp.
So, if your set up is warm and dry, then you will hear warm and dry. If your setup is highly linear and detailed, you will hear it.

-

 

[redbaaron]

The Mx4 has the most confused "reviews" of any LCD Gear, ever created.
If you deep search the MX4 online for a few hours, here is what you'll find.

1. Bright / Thin
2. Bass light, Treble etched
3. Recessed Mids
4. Linear weak Bass
5. Small Soundstage
6. Good for studio monitoring > only

And then......

1. Excellent clarity, soft but beautiful Treble
2. Forward Mids, but excellent
3. Wide soundstage
4. One of the best headphones for audiophiles who love to both listen and analyze
5. Amazing linear bass, textured, detailed, perfect.
6. Completely different sound from any other Audeze.


Now, where did the wrong "buzz" begin ???? = as it definitely happened right out of the gate.
It began with Audeze's mostly marketing the MX4 as " mostly" a studio monitoring headphone that audiophiles can (might) enjoy.
Well, that's not the reality.

So what is the reality according to my opinion of their sound?
= Here is what i hear, as compared to the X, the 2, and the 3.

As compared to the X, the MX4 has an absolute level up regarding everything that matters. It has more resolution, more balance, more musicality, more soundstage, more insight, better bass that is not as punchy, but is more accurate and true, while not being recessed.

As compared to the 2, and 3.
Yes , it has this sound, as its primary sound signature and not the X.
If you know the 2 & 3, then you'll recognize the similarity, but, its better, as its everything that needed to be resolved and tweek'd so that the 2 & 3 were dialed in. This has been declared by the MX4.
It SOUNDS more LIKE the 3, but Linearly and Tonally perfected . The Treble is better, as its has no etch, but is more clear and pretty. The mids are clearer, and the bass is just as extended but dialed in for balanced perfection.

Think of a totally balance, FR perfected, LCD-3.

This means its not dry, its not too soft, its not too linear.
It has a magical FR sweetness and easy overall listenability that is absolutely unique among Audeze Headphones.

And what else? Is that it is an amazing sonic Chameleon regarding how it defines, sonically, your gear. It will amazingly reproduce the sonic character of your Dac/Amp.
So, if your set up is warm and dry, then you will hear warm and dry. If your setup is highly linear and detailed, you will hear it.
What you put in, it absolutely gives out, exactly.
-

I'll have to diverge from this take, which is almost spot on, to say that I found the upper mids to be a bit painful at times and the image/soundstage hard to quantify. To the latter point, focusing on one instrument seemed to be crystal clear, but the stereo image as a whole always seemed unnatural in the "space" it was presenting.

 

[FullBright1]

I found the upper mids to be a bit painful at times and the image/soundstage hard to quantify

As compared to what?

So, keeping it in the Audeze family, Lets compare the MX4 to the "X", the "2" the "3", (Fazor).

There is no comparison regarding soundstage, as the MX4 is the widest, in a truthful way, tho maybe thats a bit of a moot point as the 2 and X have no soundstage, mostly.
The 3, is a tad more sound stage centric, but, i think it fakes it by recessing some mids to achieve that illusion.
So, if you found the upper mids of the MX4 to be painful, then do yourself a favor, and never buy anything created by Audeze, Focal, Ultrasone, Beyerdynamic, or AudioTech, with the exception of the X5000.
Reason? Because every other Audeze has a more forward and punched upper mid then the MX4, and the Focal group is worse, and the Audiotech is also, save for the X5000, and the BDynamic is another that pushes too much "cuppy" forward mids, while it slashes you with too much treble etch, more often then not.
And Avoid Hifman as they will pound you with the same, especially if you get any of the "1000" series, as those major in "metallic".
And the Abyss? is the worst of all, if you dont love mid forward dominance.
So, if you find the MX4 to be a midrange beast, upper mid wise, then don't ever buy any of those Brands i listed.
And of course avoid the HD700, and HD600, as those are worse.

See, here is the thing, The MX4 is the most refined sounding Audeze, so, if you find it to be biting your eardrums with upper mids, then you must have some extreme treble sensitivity.. or you are not using an amp, and what you are powering them with, is making them too lean sounding.
I have this Treble sensitivity issue , but i didnt find the MX4 to have any upper mid or TRBL issues.
And i was directly comparing it to the LCD2 and 3 and X, and they are upper mids in your face.
I was also comparing the MX4 to the Diana V2, and it was much more midrange jarring in my ears.

It could be that you need the Meze Empyrean, as its a somewhat soft round lush warm sweet forgiving sound, as compared to any Audeze or Hifiman, or any other set of Planar's in general.

 

[redbaaron]

As compared to what?

So, keeping it in the Audeze family, Lets compare the MX4 to the "X", the "2" the "3", (Fazor).

There is no comparison regarding soundstage, as the MX4 is the widest, in a truthful way, tho maybe thats a bit of a moot point as the 2 and X have no soundstage, mostly.
The 3, is a tad more sound stage centric, but, i think it fakes it by recessing some mids to achieve that illusion.
So, if you found the upper mids of the MX4 to be painful, then do yourself a favor, and never buy anything created by Audeze, Focal, Ultrasone, Beyerdynamic, or AudioTech, with the exception of the X5000.
Reason? Because every other Audeze has a more forward and punched upper mid then the MX4, and the Focal group is worse, and the Audiotech is also, save for the X5000, and the BDynamic is another that pushes too much "cuppy" forward mids, while it slashes you with too much treble etch, more often then not.
And Avoid Hifman as they will pound you with the same, especially if you get any of the "1000" series, as those major in "metallic".
And the Abyss? is the worst of all, if you dont love mid forward dominance.
So, if you find the MX4 to be a midrange beast, upper mid wise, then don't ever buy any of those Brands i listed.
And of course avoid the HD700, and HD600, as those are worse.

See, here is the thing, The MX4 is the most refined sounding Audeze, so, if you find it to be biting your eardrums with upper mids, then you must have some extreme treble sensitivity.. or you are not using an amp, and what you are powering them with, is making them too lean sounding.
I have this Treble sensitivity issue , but i didnt find the MX4 to have any upper mid or TRBL issues.
And i was directly comparing it to the LCD2 and 3 and X, and they are upper mids in your face.
I was also comparing the MX4 to the Diana V2, and it was much more midrange jarring in my ears.

It could be that you need the Meze Empyrean, as its a somewhat soft round lush warm sweet forgiving sound, as compared to any Audeze or Hifiman, or any other set of Planar's in general.

Perhaps we can chalk it up to unit variation then. After all, I've seen several different (albeit similar) frequency graph variations among the same model when viewing people's custom Sonarworks results.

For my own experience, I'm comparing to the LCD-2 Fazor, LCD-X, Focal Elex, the HD800s, and a few others. When watching a video with binaural audio, for example, I always found the MX4 to throw off the experience of "realism" (take that with a grain of salt) due to its stereo presentation. The Focal Elex, by contrast, would deliver the spatial correlation easily without distraction. Are yours giving you a natural soundstage where mine didn't? (Note: Mine were given driver replacements by Audeze, so it shouldn't be an issue with wear or having an old variation.)

Here's an example video:

As for the mids, I felt they were significantly more piercing than the LCD 2 and X to the degree that I had to eq a negative spike around 1k-2k khz. (Then I had to go the opposite direction to counter the Audeze dip, but that's just personal preference.)

They are a great headphone though, with many amazing strengths. But these are ultimately the reasons why I let them go.

 

[FullBright1]

Perhaps we can chalk it up to unit variation then. After all, I've seen several different (albeit similar) frequency graph variations among the same model when viewing people's custom Sonarworks results.

For my own experience, I'm comparing to the LCD-2 Fazor, LCD-X, Focal Elex, the HD800s, and a few others. When watching a video with binaural audio, for example, I always found the MX4 to throw off the experience of "realism" (take that with a grain of salt) due to its stereo presentation. The Focal Elex, by contrast, would deliver the spatial correlation easily without distraction. Are yours giving you a natural soundstage where mine didn't? (Note: Mine were given driver replacements by Audeze, so it shouldn't be an issue with wear or having an old variation.)

Here's an example video:

As for the mids, I felt they were significantly more piercing than the LCD 2 and X to the degree that I had to eq a negative spike around 1k-2k khz. (Then I had to go the opposite direction to counter the Audeze dip, but that's just personal preference.)

They are a great headphone though, with many amazing strengths. But these are ultimately the reasons why I let them go.

Totally understandable, Mr R. Baaron.

3 things we know.....

1. ) all ears hear differently (unit variation)

2. No 2 headphone drivers are exactly the same . (unit variation).

Add 1+2 and you get a Cool Forum full of honest Opinions and that is also. 3.) "unit variation".

I vote YES !

 

[sahmen]

Well speaking of "unit variations," subjective preference variations, and other such human quirks, my own experience of the X and MX4 might appear to be different from what has been just reported here, and maybe even a bit on the startling side for some readers here : for me, it is rather the similarities between the two sound signatures (of the X and MX4) that I found to be unacceptable and even off-putting. I owned the X first, and later went for MX4, which I liked a lot. To my dismay, however, the two sounded way too close on my rigs--so close, in fact, that it was not always easy for me to tell the difference, in loose pseudo blind tests, although I wanted a clear and notable difference between the two, owing to the magnitude of my investment in the MX4. It seemed rather insane to go to that trouble to get a new pair of cans that sounded almost too much like "more of the same."

My solution was to return the MX4 in exchange for the 4, which exhibited the clear difference I was looking for, apart from sounding much more beautiful and pleasing to my ears than the X and MX4... And as they say, the rest is "history." I have not looked back since, although I still own and enjoy the X, which is a pleasure in its own right, and no slouch at all.

Yes, Mileages may vary as usual.