[TheR0v3r]

What do you mean by laidback ?

I meant it in comparison with the MM-500. The way its tuned and its speed just gave me a more ”laidback” feeling. They are technical and detailed but not in your face with it (which the MM-500 is). The audition maybe turned them into my favorite all-around Audeze’s

Trying to understand the needs of someone like you who would use it as a ”tool” I think they are excellent also for that use case. If I was making a living producing music they seem pretty perfect to me. More hesitant about the MM-500. I’m not sure how the additional cost translates to better results versus the LCD-X in a production setting. Again this is me guessing as I have zero experience of music production.

Edit: Edit for clarification.

 

[TheR0v3r]

Some Audeze’s and the Hifiman Ananda Nano (final thoughts)
These test tracks for awesome:

If I may, I usually use 3 critical tracks for different reference point.

https://tidal.com/browse/track/110958685

Chan Chan for Buena Vista Social Club is usually my first one to have a sense of balance as the double bass is really prominent but never over the mid lows and that's really quite something to achieve. The congas are usually another thing I listen to as they hit properly in the mid lows but are not over the top. So usually listening at low volume tells me if the cans are resolving enough to let them go through without being over the top.

https://tidal.com/browse/track/93177827

I usually use That Bob Marley track for gauging kick attacks and live scene realism. There's also a quite prominent hi hats and cymbals line which is usually coming across as harsh on over done cans with extreme highs. It helps me understand if it might be an unhealthy type of can (or studio monitors) and might damage my ears overtime.

https://tidal.com/browse/track/131333084

I use that Billie Eilish (with work from Hans Zimmer) to gage the intelligibility of it all. It was mixed on the dark side but every breath and ''esses'' where mixed to perfection which makes it very intimate. There's also a very very dense part in the end and if the whole mix collapse in the cans, it tells me how sensitive the cans are and how resolving they really are.

It was very easy to quickly get a feel for each headphone by running thru these tracks:

• The LCD-X and MM-500 being both technically strong had no major issues. Any weakness was either down to the subpar setup or easily fixed with eq. The difference in presentation and cost between the two makes it difficult for me to see a future with the MM-500. IF I was earning money producing music AND in need of a portable ”mixing solution” it would make perfect sense. Otherwise the LCD-X for me. It sounded soo nice with Bob Marley.
• The LCD-2C was just so mellow. It isn’t as resolving as the other two Audeze’s but manages to make it a strength. It couldn’t handle the more dense part of ”No time to die” and it somehow made it feel alright anyway.
• The Grado’s are all about enjoyment - so different and so fun!
• The two Focal’s are not for me.

To summarize, I had a really great time trying these headphones with those tracks. I’ve learned alot.

When/if I want to upgrade from the Ananda Nano’s to something with the same flavor it won’t be to any of those I auditioned. Early next year I hope to audition the Arya Organic and the HE1000 SE. I consider these my potential upgrade path.

To complement my current headphones I’ll buy a pair of Grado’s - I really love what they have to offer. Now I just have to figure out which one

Undecided between the Audeze LCD-X and LCD-2C. It makes sense for me to have one, but not both.

Addendum: The first track I played with every headphone (apart from the Grado’s) was ”Chan Chan”. Excellent for quickly getting a feel for tonal balance, transient response and resolution. Normally I use ”Rosanna” but this was even better

 

[martel80]

Some Audeze’s and the Hifiman Ananda Nano (final thoughts)
These test tracks for awesome:

It was very easy to quickly get a feel for each headphone by running thru these tracks:

• The LCD-X and MM-500 being both technically strong had no major issues. Any weakness was either down to the subpar setup or easily fixed with eq. The difference in presentation and cost between the two makes it difficult for me to see a future with the MM-500. IF I was earning money producing music AND in need of a portable ”mixing solution” it would make perfect sense. Otherwise the LCD-X for me. It sounded soo nice with Bob Marley.
• The LCD-2C was just so mellow. It isn’t as resolving as the other two Audeze’s but manages to make it a strength. It couldn’t handle the more dense part of ”No time to die” and it somehow made it feel alright anyway.
• The Grado’s are all about enjoyment - so different and so fun!
• The two Focal’s are not for me.

To summarize, I had a really great time trying these headphones with those tracks. I’ve learned alot.

When/if I want to upgrade from the Ananda Nano’s to something with the same flavor it won’t be to any of those I auditioned. Early next year I hope to audition the Arya Organic and the HE1000 SE. I consider these my potential upgrade path.

To complement my current headphones I’ll buy a pair of Grado’s - I really love what they have to offer. Now I just have to figure out which one

Undecided between the Audeze LCD-X and LCD-2C. It makes sense for me to have one, but not both.

Addendum: The first track I played with every headphone (apart from the Grado’s) was ”Chan Chan”. Excellent for quickly getting a feel for tonal balance, transient response and resolution. Normally I use ”Rosanna” but this was even better

Thanks for that review ! That’s very enlightening.

If I may, I have a few questions.

When you audition them, did you had your Nanos in hand and was able to listen to the same track in the same setup ?

If so, how was the instrumentation resolution and detail level comparing the 500 vs LCD-X vs Nanos ? Was there more depth and separation ? Was the instrument more defined ? Also, how was the transient response comparison ? Was the LCD-X able to achieve as much or more pronounced sense of transient resolution ( it should have been evident at low level on Chan Chan, if that’s the case). I mean how does the peak of the drums coming across ? How was the 500 in the transient response vs the nanos and LCD-X ?

Did you find the LCD-X to have more details in the bass and sub frequencies? Was it more articulate?

Last thing, I know the focals have a very “plasticy” feel to their treble and mid high frequencies ( which I believe is what you heard and didn’t like) and the Hifiman have a more metallic resonant tone in the high frequencies ( like a hollow metal post resonating.) How would you describe the tonal effect of the Audeze’s in the high frequencies ?

 

[martel80]

I meant it in comparison with the MM-500. The way its tuned and its speed just gave me a more ”laidback” feeling. They are technical and detailed but not in your face with it (which the MM-500 is). The audition maybe turned them into my favorite all-around Audeze’s

Trying to understand the needs of someone like you who would use it as a ”tool” I think they are excellent also for that use case. If I was making a living producing music they seem pretty perfect to me. More hesitant about the MM-500. I’m not sure how the additional cost translates to better results versus the LCD-X in a production setting. Again this is me guessing as I have zero experience of music production.

Edit: Edit for clarification.

I am more of a “ in front of me” type of presentation type of guy than a “ all up in your face” type of presentations which the later I believe is the 500 rendering. So you mentioning that makes perfect sense to me. The NDH30 for example are headphones that provide an all up in your face type of presentation. I have a hard time finalizing my masters with that type of devices as it hardly tell me how my whole mix is interacting together.

Thanks for that !

 

[TheR0v3r]

Thanks for that review ! That’s very enlightening.

If I may, I have a few questions.

When you audition them, did you had your Nanos in hand and was able to listen to the same track in the same setup ?

If so, how was the instrumentation resolution and detail level comparing the 500 vs LCD-X vs Nanos ? Was there more depth and separation ? Was the instrument more defined ? Also, how was the transient response comparison ? Was the LCD-X able to achieve as much or more pronounced sense of transient resolution ( it should have been evident at low level on Chan Chan, if that’s the case). I mean how does the peak of the drums coming across ? How was the 500 in the transient response vs the nanos and LCD-X ?

Did you find the LCD-X to have more details in the bass and sub frequencies? Was it more articulate?

Last thing, I know the focals have a very “plasticy” feel to their treble and mid high frequencies ( which I believe is what you heard and didn’t like) and the Hifiman have a more metallic resonant tone in the high frequencies ( like a hollow metal post resonating.) How would you describe the tonal effect of the Audeze’s in the high frequencies ?

Learning alot thanks to you asking me questions so keep ‘em coming

Travelling light and because of that didn’t bring any hardware and that was a mistake. Next time I’ll at least bring a portable DAC to have something “known”. This became a problem.

We had some different possible setups but they all introduced too many unknowns. I ended up using my iPhone connected to a Burson Conductor 3XP. I’ve used exactly that combo and (faintly) remember what it could do.

This made it very hard to get a good grasp of technicalities.

 

[HardstyleLoco96]

Some Audeze’s and the Hifiman Ananda Nano (final thoughts)
These test tracks for awesome:

It was very easy to quickly get a feel for each headphone by running thru these tracks:

• The LCD-X and MM-500 being both technically strong had no major issues. Any weakness was either down to the subpar setup or easily fixed with eq. The difference in presentation and cost between the two makes it difficult for me to see a future with the MM-500. IF I was earning money producing music AND in need of a portable ”mixing solution” it would make perfect sense. Otherwise the LCD-X for me. It sounded soo nice with Bob Marley.
• The LCD-2C was just so mellow. It isn’t as resolving as the other two Audeze’s but manages to make it a strength. It couldn’t handle the more dense part of ”No time to die” and it somehow made it feel alright anyway.
• The Grado’s are all about enjoyment - so different and so fun!
• The two Focal’s are not for me.

To summarize, I had a really great time trying these headphones with those tracks. I’ve learned alot.

When/if I want to upgrade from the Ananda Nano’s to something with the same flavor it won’t be to any of those I auditioned. Early next year I hope to audition the Arya Organic and the HE1000 SE. I consider these my potential upgrade path.

To complement my current headphones I’ll buy a pair of Grado’s - I really love what they have to offer. Now I just have to figure out which one

Undecided between the Audeze LCD-X and LCD-2C. It makes sense for me to have one, but not both.

Addendum: The first track I played with every headphone (apart from the Grado’s) was ”Chan Chan”. Excellent for quickly getting a feel for tonal balance, transient response and resolution. Normally I use ”Rosanna” but this was even better

I wasn't joking when I said It'll be hard to upgrade from the Ananda Nano. The price to performance is absurd. The Audezes may have better build. But in sound, the Nano will have an edge only if you are looking for something more laid back. Maybe the LCD-X 2021 can be a pick. With better gear and some eq, the Nano scales amazingly. I certainly agree on looking at the Arya Organic or HE1000 line. They 100% will be an upgrade

 

[dd051]

I will have to use an EQ plugin in my DAW to try to figure it out as the low shelf is obviously not comparable to what you must have did.

One thing that I can already point out is that I think you should change your approach as far as frequency range you are trying to fix. Especially because you mention Violin and cello which live right in the mid range and you are currently beefing up the smiley curve so your details and definition return gets deminished even more.

As i said previously , I’m definitely a bass fan but your +12 db low shelf is way over the top. I’d bring it back to +6db knowing that I’m still putting my whole frequency balance on loan for the benefits of the bass. You’ll gain a ton of bass details as it will have more overhead to articulate.

Also, as much as the highs are effortlessly going through on your tuning, I would add a -3db high shelf (at least) at 3.5khz. Also, remove those peak you added in the treble range. Again, you are killing the mids by putting high frequencies energy upfront.

Another part that was seriously revealing to me was the +4db peak at 2khz with a medium wide bell shape. Enough to cover from 1khz to 3.5khz and have its peak at about 2 kHz. Yours is good, just put the bell wider.

That will help you massively with instrumentation resolution and details and will also reveal a lot more depth.

That to me is just a testimony that you should try, as a listener, to give more attention to the mid highs, mids and mid lows. Bass and highs are cool put music and balance live in the mids.

So to resume quickly.

+6db low shelf at 55 (experiment going to +4db)
-3 db high shelf at 3.5 kHz (experiment going down to -6db)
+ 4.5 db at 2khz with a wide bell.

Try getting use to it and then I’ll follow with more specific frequency adjustments once you understand where we are heading. And I’ll also provide an explanation why we are going there so you can understand and hear what’s going on.

Let’s get those violin and cello alive again.

Let me know once you’re done and comfy.

So, something like this? I'm also trying out @TheR0v3r 's bass shelf

 

[martel80]

So, something like this? I'm also trying out @TheR0v3r 's bass shelf

No, definitely not something that look anything like that.

As explained in my previous post, you heard that your violin and cello lack details and definition but all you are currently boosting doesn’t impact their fundamentals or anything close to it.

You are currently building yourself a smiley curve which is using all your cans overhead (or room for correction) and put all that energy in the trebles and bass frequencies. As a result you are forcing your headphones toward rumbling and an aggressive behaviour .

Musicality lives mainly in between 100hz and 4khz but all you are boosting is the frequencies outside that region which gives you a diminishing possibility as far as details and definition in the mid range area.

If I was you, I would change my approach and start from scratch. Pin point a goal and fix it. You cannot keep on boosting frequencies without addressing the elephant in the room. And as you pointed out, currently you killed the mid range. (i.e. violin and cello).

 

[TheR0v3r]

Let’s make a reference curve. I offer this as a starting point:

• At 22 Hz, +3 dB with Q=1.41 (Bell)
• At 50 Hz, +3 dB with a slope of 12 dB per octave (Low Shelf)
• At 70 Hz, -2 dB with Q=1.41 (Bell)*
• At 163 Hz, +1.0-2.0 dB with Q=1.41 (Bell)*
• At 2190 Hz, +3.5 dB with Q=2.6 (Bell)*
• At 3850 Hz, -2 dB with ”slow” slope of 6 dB per octave (High Shelf)
• At 5750 Hz, +1.3 dB with Q=4.3 (Bell)
• At 6500 Hz, -2.5 dB with Q=4.0 (Bell)
• At 8400 Hz, -2.0 dB with Q=5.0
• At 10800 Hz, -4.0 dB with a slope of 12 dB per octave (High Shelf)*

Suggestions?

@martel80 @HardstyleLoco96

 

[TheR0v3r]

Let’s make a reference curve. I offer this as a starting point:

• At 22 Hz, +3 dB with Q=1.41 (Bell)
• At 50 Hz, +3 dB with a slope of 12 dB per octave (Low Shelf)
• At 70 Hz, -2 dB with Q=1.41 (Bell)*
• At 163 Hz, +1.0-2.0 dB with Q=1.41 (Bell)*
• At 2190 Hz, +3.5 dB with Q=2.6 (Bell)*
• At 3850 Hz, -2 dB with ”slow” slope of 6 dB per octave (High Shelf)
• At 5750 Hz, +1.3 dB with Q=4.3 (Bell)
• At 6500 Hz, -2.5 dB with Q=4.0 (Bell)
• At 8400 Hz, -2.0 dB with Q=5.0
• At 10800 Hz, -4.0 dB with a slope of 12 dB per octave (High Shelf)*

Suggestions?

@martel80 @HardstyleLoco96

This does need some adjustment… Did I do this?

It’s surprising how small adjustments in the midrange can make a big difference to the overall sound.

 

[TheR0v3r]

This does need some adjustment… Did I do this?

It’s surprising how small adjustments in the midrange can make a big difference to the overall sound.

Did some adjustments (in bold):

• At 22 Hz, +3 dB with Q=1.41 (Bell)
• At 50 Hz, +3 dB with a slope of 12 dB per octave (Low Shelf)
• At 70 Hz, -2 dB with Q=0.7 (Bell)
• At 163 Hz, +2.0 dB with Q=1.41 (Bell)
• At 625 Hz, +1.5 db with Q=3.0 (Bell)
• At 2190 Hz, +5.0 dB with Q=2.6 (Bell)
• At 3150 Hz, -3 dB with ”slow” slope of 6 dB per octave (High Shelf)
• At 3850 Hz, -2 dB with ”slow” slope of 6 dB per octave (High Shelf)
• At 5750 Hz, +1.3 dB with Q=4.3 (Bell)
• At 6500 Hz, -2.5 dB with Q=4.0 (Bell)
• At 8400 Hz, -2.0 dB with Q=5.0
• At 10800 Hz, -4.0 dB with a slope of 12 dB per octave (High Shelf)
• At 16000 Hz, +9 dB with a slope of 24 dB per octace (High Shelf)

Wishing you all a Merry Christmas!

 

[marekm]

Is the Nano indeed useless without EQ ?

 

[TheR0v3r]

Is the Nano indeed useless without EQ ?

Useless?

It’s a headphone costing €800 that with EQ is competitive with much more expensive headphones.

Edit: And it’s unmatched at sub €1000. IMHO.

 

[Lightspeed12]

Useless?

It’s a headphone costing €800 that with EQ is competitive with much more expensive headphones.

Edit: And it’s unmatched at sub €1000. IMHO.

Thats probably why its so cheap its a headache to try & get the sound right out of it.
This thread has become an equalizer thread & lots of people just want to buy headphones that are good straight out of the box.
There is no perfect sounding headphone that is why we buy a heap of them. Lol
Don't get me wrong I'm not having a qo at you just stating a fact.

 

[martel80]

Wouldn’t bet on that fact but it’s definitely worth it. Now, trying to reach for balance on any headphones is something on its own as we all have different taste. ie DD051 that seems to live very well with the treble boost and even adding to it while I’m basically deducting about 9db from his EQ under 8khz. Something I would never attempt on my HD650 nor my NDH30.
The nanos are phenomenal compared to other headphones at this price point. But I would love to buy headphones that are good out of the box but such thing doesn’t exist under 5K$ . They all have something to fix . One thing you Cannot fix in a set of cans is their ability to transmit the transient response accurately and very fast. Thankfully, the nanos are just monsters in that aspect.

@TheR0v3r , I’ll give a go at your last EQ tonight and will report tomorrow.