[the finisher]

@commtrd , so do you work for Audeze in marketing

When buying from Sonarworks, or any software really, look for deals.
You can almost always get a break off retail with a code at purchase.
Not always, but I did. Google is your friend.

 

[commtrd]

Absolutely not. However I have always seemed to gravitate back towards Audeze headphones simply because I have always preferred planar magnetic in general and Audeze in specific. Guess that sounds like a fanboy but really it's not. Just the way they sound I just love these things. Someday I think I might pick up Atticus but I suspect before that happens I will continue working on the rest of the audio chain first.

Happiness is not HAVING to EQ... But not to imply that if someone WANTS to EQ that is not valid. Interesting I have been all over the map this evening from metal to blues to carribean to female vocalists (Norah Jones on now) to soul piano to trance to... 4z is just gettin' it done with no EQ necessary at all. So how many headphones out there can realistically do that and do it well?

Rhetorical query...

 

[the finisher]

I love the X, I'm hooked on the orthos, I will be on the hunt for 4z someday

 

[rutter]

I had a little showdown between the X, MX4, and 4 a while back. MX doesn't have that dark lush Audeze house sound, they were the most neutral LCD by far. MX sounded the cleanest and had the best treble extension. To me the MX is more similar to Utopia (but less forward/aggressive) than other LCDs. As for the X, it is quite similar to the 4 signature except resolution is not as good. Ultimately I like the 4 most but X is certainly a bargain at a fractional price.

...Isn't that amp $10k?

maybe ref 4 is better but that wasnt the one I demoed I used the other one that was what they called for the music lover or listener or something like that and I did try it with the bass down and still heard distortion in the sound it wasnt as bad but definitely still noticeable to me and again I am not suggesting that people shouldnt use it but just that it was unusable for me. I have heard others say they cant stand the LCD-X without it but thats just not me I much prefer the house sound. Although it is also possible that the ref 4 is just better Im not sure cause I didnt try that one but prolly not going to as I do plan to step in to the LCD-4 or Utopia at somepoint in the next year or so.

Ref 4 won't do anything extra for you. Avoid clipping addresses distortion. It does what Ref 4 does automatically, very simple concept. The dry/wet has nothing to do with this, it just diminishes the EQ if you find the correction to be too much. So it incidentally has something to do with it perhaps but it's beside the point. Surprising to read some of these responses.

Also, I'm amused by the people who talk about head rattling and how good the bass of the LCD-X is. To my surprise I got true head-rattling and much better defined bass with the HD800S. The bass of the LCD-X is not that great, but at least it's not particularly deficient. I'm disappointed by the lack of definition, not to mention lacking some of that vibrating and head-rattling slam, and yes, I've heard it through expensive equipment. People are prone to exaggerate in threads of products they own. Head over to the Magni 3 thread and if you had no idea what the amp actually is you might think you're at the end-game... although, anyway.

One thing the vast majority of us do agree on is that Sonarworks EQ is tremendous value for the LCD-X. Glad to see something worthwhile being recognized.

PS

Having heard a number of headphones now I don't understand what the distinction between planar magnetic and dynamic is supposed to be. Aside from dynamic headphones possibly being drier I cannot recall another characteristic that held consistent between different planar magnetic and dynamic headphones, and I'm not jumping to the conclusion that dynamic headphones are intrinsically drier.

 

[bigswell]

...Isn't that amp $10k?



Ref 4 won't do anything extra for you. Avoid clipping addresses distortion. It does what Ref 4 does automatically, very simple concept. The dry/wet has nothing to do with this, it just diminishes the EQ if you find the correction to be too much. So it incidentally has something to do with it perhaps but it's beside the point. Surprising to read some of these responses.

Also, I'm amused by the people who talk about head rattling and how good the bass of the LCD-X is. To my surprise I got true head-rattling and much better defined bass with the HD800S. The bass of the LCD-X is not that great, but at least it's not particularly deficient. I'm disappointed by the lack of definition, not to mention lacking some of that vibrating and head-rattling slam, and yes, I've heard it through expensive equipment. People are prone to exaggerate in threads of products they own. Head over to the Magni 3 thread and if you had no idea what the amp actually is you might think you're at the end-game... although, anyway.

One thing the vast majority of us do agree on is that Sonarworks EQ is tremendous value for the LCD-X. Glad to see something worthwhile being recognized.

PS

Having heard a number of headphones now I don't understand what the distinction between planar magnetic and dynamic is supposed to be. Aside from dynamic headphones possibly being drier I cannot recall another characteristic that held consistent between different planar magnetic and dynamic headphones, and I'm not jumping to the conclusion that dynamic headphones are intrinsically drier.

 

[bigswell]

I was not too impressed with bass resolution when I first tried the X. I find that minute positioning is crucial to bringing the bass into focus and adding the slam.

 

[rutter]

By the way, this has been my go-to song for judging bass. Quite a big difference between the LCD-X and the HD800S, with others ahead of me claiming that the HD800S had better bass, they actually used the word "more", which I'm not sure I agree with. The LCD-X has quantity, but that ends up being just one quality.

 

[the finisher]

I was not too impressed with bass resolution when I first tried the X. I find that minute positioning is crucial to bringing the bass into focus and adding the slam.

Unsure what you mean by minute positioning?

...Isn't that amp $10k?

That's over 10k in headphones and cables, the Cavalli amps you can not even buy anymore new.
Anything wrong with having lots of nice gear? How many high end headphones have you even tried, two?

I value these guys opinions because they have nice gear to evaluate with, and have tried many expensive phones/amps/DACs/whatever.

Your wrong about the extra features/adjustability in Ref 4 being useless, at least you're consistent.

I suggest people test both for themselves, the price difference is small. I tested True-fi, no contest Reference 4 is better for me, YMMV.

 

[SuperU]

Unsure what you mean by minute positioning?



That's over 10k in headphones and cables, the Cavalli amps you can not even buy anymore new.
Anything wrong with having lots of nice gear? How many high end headphones have you even tried, two?

I value these guys opinions because they have nice gear to evaluate with, and have tried many expensive phones/amps/DACs/whatever.

Your wrong about the extra features/adjustability in Ref 4 being useless, at least you're consistent.

I suggest people test both for themselves, the price difference is small. I tested True-fi, no contest Reference 4 is better for me, YMMV.

Agreed. I too tested True-fi and Reference 4 is far superior. Further it works well with my DAW (Ableton Live 10) as a plugin. Couldn't ask for more.

 

[the finisher]

Some people don't get the pro tool origin of this software, I'm looking forward to EQing my room as well.
And yes the DAW plugins and the following ASIO driver support is kinda desirable.
All for $10 more True-fi cost with discount.

 

[rutter]

Didn't say there was something wrong with having very expensive equipment. The profiles of True-Fi and Ref 4 are the same. I think Sonarworks might say as much, and I have tested both too. Lo and behold, like Sonarworks implies, there's no difference for headphones. In terms of distortion both applications do the same thing, which was the person's question you were unable to answer. One uses an avoid clipping setting, the other one let's you set the db value to match the max correction. The only person who doesn't get something about the software is you. You might find value in reducing the EQ effect through dry/wet, I don't. Like many of us agree, the EQ effect is good, no need for me to reduce it. The tilt is silly, and like the one other difference doesn't really do anything. Just setting the facts straight for anyone wondering as some of you appear to not understand the applications and are factually misleading people. I encourage everyone to try both applications as I have. Reference 4 will give you plug-ins or a plug-in for music software, which I haven't tried. Reference 4, if you pay for a different version, will also enable you to calibrate speakers, where there may be actual value. Sales also apply to True-Fi, just to descend to your level of pettiness. I was more than willing and able to buy Reference 4 but I found it completely worthless over True-Fi and hence just kept my $20. And yea, I've heard more than a couple of higher end headphones.

 

[the finisher]

The clipping limiter is adjustable in Ref 4, it also works in bypass for my monitors.
And I use wet/dry always. I tune to the type of music I am listening to.
And also the B&K 1974 speaker profile is not bad on the speakers sometimes.

This is real value for $20, not counting the pro only features and upgradability.

 

[thebkt]

Ref 4 won't do anything extra for you. Avoid clipping addresses distortion. It does what Ref 4 does automatically, very simple concept. The dry/wet has nothing to do with this, it just diminishes the EQ if you find the correction to be too much. So it incidentally has something to do with it perhaps but it's beside the point. Surprising to read some of these responses.

Do you understand the primary cause of digital EQ causing distortion?

Reducing the output gain ('diminishing the EQ') is a potential solution to the distortion @Dan Lee mentioned. Let's say that the Sonarworks correction is increasing the bass by 6db, then you need to reduce the output gain by at least that amount. Anything over 0db output will distort, AFAIK. I can't recall if True-Fi allows you to manually adjust the output gain, but Ref 4 does. That means Ref 4 can potentially resolve this issue if True-Fi can't.

There have been many posts recently when you seem to fly in and try to shut people down, or tell them directly that they're wrong, despite you seemingly misunderstanding their post or the point they've tried to make. I fully anticipate this to go the same way, but the above clarification might at least be useful to someone else, so I'll post it regardless.

 

[rutter]

Avoid clipping in True-Fi automatically sets the value to match the highest correction value, which is minimal for eliminating EQ related distortion. I think Reference 4 caps the value you can manually set at that minimal value, so you end up with the exact same thing in both applications. This is not "your mileage may vary" stuff, just like implying that Reference 4 might use different profiles isn't as SuperU finds great superiority somewhere. You can use dry/wet all you want, what it does is reduce the EQ effect. Value for you, pointless for me. The fact of the matter is both applications (again, I haven't tried the plug-ins) do the same thing. Reference 4 adds a few very questionable extras. Value for some, certainly not universal.

Do you understand the primary cause of digital EQ causing distortion?

Reducing the output gain ('diminishing the EQ') is a potential solution to the distortion @Dan Lee mentioned. Let's say that the Sonarworks correction is increasing the bass by 6db, then you need to reduce the output gain by at least that amount. Anything over 0db output will distort, AFAIK. I can't recall if True-Fi allows you to manually adjust the output gain, but Ref 4 does. That means Ref 4 can potentially resolve this issue if True-Fi can't.

There have been many posts recently when you seem to fly in and try to shut people down, or tell them directly that they're wrong, despite you seemingly misunderstanding their post or the point they've tried to make. I fully anticipate this to go the same way, but the above clarification might at least be useful to someone else, so I'll post it regardless.

Perhaps you should google True-Fi and find out how Avoid Clipping works as opposed to preoccupying yourself with shutting me down.

https://sonarworks.zendesk.com/hc/e...the-Personalization-and-Settings-sections-do-

• Lower volume to avoid clipping

Ticking this box will lower the output volume by the maximum peak in the applied calibration curve to prevent the output from potential clipping.

When boosting bass Reference 4 automatically raises this corrective value and I would imagine the same happens with True-Fi. True-Fi also enables boosting treble so I would really think they have accounted for these manual boosts. These boosts are part of the applied calibration curve so arguably that description covers it.

 

[the finisher]

What if I want to sent Sonarworks my Xs so I can mix on them?
I never said Ref 4 was for everyone.