[DocHollidey]

As edited in,

For headbands made in 2022 or later: The tension can be adjusted with a 1.98mm (5/64") hex key for our standard LCD headphones, and 2mm (5/32") hex key for the LCD-5. Although the locking compound in these joint is now adjustable, make sure the hex key is well seated before adjusting or you can strip the screw.

I see the tiny hex screws. Good to know it can be adjusted, but it'd have to be loose as a goose before I'd try it. Actually, I'd just send it back to you at Audeze and pay you to do it. These head sets are worth maintaining as long as possible!

 

[kadinh]

anybody here have a comparison of the newest version of the LCD-XC vs ZMF Verite/Atrium/Caldera? wondering if ZMF is worth 2x the price....

I had the pre 2021 LCD-X and liked it a lot, but I am searching for a closed back at the moment for sound isolation. I might settle for some open backs (since Atrium and Caldera dont come in closed back at the moment).

 

[Jonne Haven]

I see the tiny hex screws. Good to know it can be adjusted, but it'd have to be loose as a goose before I'd try it. Actually, I'd just send it back to you at Audeze and pay you to do it. These head sets are worth maintaining as long as possible!

Hey @DocHollidey,

I just adjusted the hex screws on my LCD-XC and I dare say I think you could do it without much fear of damaging anything. The screws are very loose and do not offer much resistance to tighten the posts to well beyond what is needed. Like I hardly felt any resistance on the part of the hex screws when I first tried it and when I tried to move the posts, the clamp was so tight that they wouldn't move!

I think you could do it without worrying about stripping anything...I think Audeze wants to cover their butts with the warning they gave you...also I would think you would want to adjust the tightness to your liking, and not rely on what Audeze would do. Also, they may loosen over time so it you might want to know how to do it anyway.

Just my 2 cents.

I wish I could teleport myself to you right now and do it for you, it would take 5 seconds.

Happily, my LCD-XCs are now duct tape free and looking beautiful!

Blessings
-J

PS - John Doc Holliday is one of my favorite historical characters of all time. In fact, I used his name as my stage name for my teen album. (I'm a musician). I loved Val Kilmer in Tombstone...maybe his best role.

 

[DocHollidey]

Hey @DocHollidey,

I just adjusted the hex screws on my LCD-XC and I dare say I think you could do it without much fear of damaging anything. The screws are very loose and do not offer much resistance to tighten the posts to well beyond what is needed. Like I hardly felt any resistance on the part of the hex screws when I first tried it and when I tried to move the posts, the clamp was so tight that they wouldn't move!

I think you could do it without worrying about stripping anything...I think Audeze wants to cover their butts with the warning they gave you...also I would think you would want to adjust the tightness to your liking, and not rely on what Audeze would do. Also, they may loosen over time so it you might want to know how to do it anyway.

Just my 2 cents.

I wish I could teleport myself to you right now and do it for you, it would take 5 seconds.

Happily, my LCD-XCs are now duct tape free and looking beautiful!

Blessings
-J

PS - John Doc Holliday is one of my favorite historical characters of all time. In fact, I used his name as my stage name for my teen album. (I'm a musician). I loved Val Kilmer in Tombstone...maybe his best role.

Way To Go! No more tape, lol. I'll try and do the same thing, if needed, in the future, too.

 

[DocHollidey]

The problem with digital EQ plugins is that they upsample to do the EQ processing at a higher sample rate to avoid aliasing and other artifacts then downsample back to the input sample rate. The upsamplling/downsampling methods used are chosen for CPU efficiency and low latency rather than audiophile sound quality. That middling quality resampling is audible and lowers the sound quality compared to sending an un-EQed signal to my DAC. Even when I try EQ plugins that claim to be mastering quality linear phase they still negatively impact the sound quality. You can test this by patching in a EQ plugin, setting the EQ to flat or bypass so the EQ does no processing other than the upsampling and downsampling. Then listen to the EQ plugin patched in and patched out. Every digital EQ plugin I've tried has an audible difference between being patched in and patched out. Even when trying their highest quality linear phase options.

My DAC of choice are Schiit multibits using the super awesome linear phase combo burrito filter. That filter is the reason I use and love the Schiit multibits. When I use a digital EQ plugin the upsampling/downsampling the plugin does causes the sound quality to sound like the Schiit multibit Gungnir has been crossbred with a delta sigma DAC. And that's a crime against combo burrito filters. I didn't choose the Schiit Gungnir multibit only to end up using a digital EQ for my headphones that causes my system to sound like I'm using a middling delta sigma DAC. If I wanted a middling delta sigma sound I'd be using a $400 SMSL DAC instead.

I do use EQ to experiment with how a headphone would sound with a different frequency response profile. But I do not, and will not, use EQ for critical listening. The digital EQ does more harm than good.

I am not near the level of most of the posters here, but what you said makes sense to me . . . though I have a nuance here I'd like to run by you all. I may be the exception to the "hardware better than software" EQ rule.

I have an old Soundblaster ZXR. I've had it in multiple computers I've built for 10 years. I run my turntable (after pre-amped) through it, along with all my other pc sound sources, including blu-ray, DVD, CD, games . . . everything. I love it's warm sound compared to straight motherboard or USB sound DACs. I have a Scarlett 2i2 3rd Gen (for mic input, ZXR mic input sucks), but I prefer the sound off my ZXR. It's analog sound is like an old friend to me, the same way I prefer vinyl to CD, etc.

I also run my LCD-XC head set off my ZXR, using the old EQ software that comes with the Soundblaster to increase the base. It sounds just dandy to me. Perhaps the SoundBlaster Pro Studio EQ software is specially tuned to work super-duper with the ZXR and that's why, I don't know. But if I were using a digital USB sound card/DAC or motherboard sound, I would likely buy a Lokius EQ to get the analog sound the ZXR already gives me.

My question - should I consider getting a Lokius and more cables (probably $350 total) to avoid the using the dreaded "software" EQ, or should I just stay with what works for me? My brain and gut tell me to leave well enough alone, but I sure like reading and talking with you all about it!

Sound is in the ear of the beholder.

 

[Jonne Haven]

I am not near the level of most of the posters here, but what you said makes sense to me . . . though I have a nuance here I'd like to run by you all. I may be the exception to the "hardware better than software" EQ rule.

I have an old Soundblaster ZXR. I've had it in multiple computers I've built for 10 years. I run my turntable (after pre-amped) through it, along with all my other pc sound sources, including blu-ray, DVD, games . . . everything. I love it's warm sound compared to straight motherboard or USB sound DACs. I have a Scarlett 2i2 3rd Gen (for mic input, ZXR mic input sucks), but I prefer the sound off my ZXR. It's analog sound is like an old friend to me, the same way I prefer vinyl to CD, etc.

I also run my LCD-XC head set off my ZXR, using the old EQ software that comes with the Soundblaster to increase the base. It sounds just dandy to me. Perhaps the SoundBlaster Pro Studio EQ software is specially tuned to work super-duper with the ZXR and that's why, I don't know. But if I were using a digital USB sound card/DAC or motherboard sound, I would likely buy a Lokius EQ to get the analog sound the ZXR already gives me.

My question - should I consider getting a Lokius and more cables (probably $350 total) to avoid the using the dreaded "software" EQ, or should I just stay with what works for me? My brain and gut tell me to leave well enough alone, but I sure like reading and talking with you all about it!

Sound is in the ear of the beholder.

Oh boy Doc,

You've gone and done it now... stirred up the old EQ/no EQ hornets nest once again!

I also happen to have the ZxR. I have the Clarett too for recording. I have both hooked up to my computer and ended up using the Clarett for all purposes. because I find it more neutral and that is what I'm after. I agree that the ZxR and it's native EQ software sounds awesome, maybe too awesome for the likes of me who needs my music mastering projects to be as true to the actual sound as possible. Even if that means giving up the euphonic nature of the ZxR.

I have been using digital audio and software EQ for recording and mastering for nearly 25 years, both in professional audio programs and in freeware software like Equalizer APO and PEACE. I like to think I have a pretty good ear and I will offer that in my humble opinion I've never heard meaningful, if any, audio degradation from software EQ or other software DSP plugins that I use for my recording/mastering programs for things like compression, limiting, exciting, reverb, imagers, and much more. I can of course hear the difference between a 128kbps mp3 and a 160kbps mp3 most of the time, it's not like I'm deaf to quality or unnatural phasing or anything. I just like the vast control and versatility of software and have no problem using it without any concern for meaningful sound degradation because of the outweighing benefits in the enormous improvement it can afford the sound in its pliability.

This is just my humble 2 cents...but I recommend that you stick with the ZxR EQ. But in the end you should use/trust your own ears and have fun, it's supposed to be fun I say. I expect to be violently attacked by other others (Not you!) for expressing my opinion but “Así es la vida, sí, that's just life baby".

Blessings,
-Jonne

 

[DocHollidey]

Oh boy Doc,

You've gone and done it now... stirred up the old EQ/no EQ hornets nest once again!

I also happen to have the ZxR. I have the Clarett too for recording. I have both hooked up to my computer but I'm using the Clarett for all purposes. because I find it more neutral and that is what I'm after. I agree that the ZxR and it's native EQ software sounds awesome, maybe too awesome for the likes of me who needs my music mastering projects to be as true to the actual sound as possible. Even if that means giving up the euphonic nature of the ZxR.

I have been using digital audio and software EQ for recording and mastering for nearly 25 years, both in professional audio programs and in freeware software like Equalizer APO and PEACE. I like to think I have a pretty good ear and I will offer that in my humble opinion I've never heard meaningful audio degradation from software EQ or other software DSP plugins that I use for my recording/mastering programs for things like compression, limiting, exciting, reverb, imagers, and much more. I can of course hear the difference between a 128kbps mp3 and a 160kbps mp3 most of the time, it's not like I'm deaf to quality or anything. I just like the vast control and versatility of software and have no problem using it without any concern for meaningful sound degradation because of the enormous improvement it can afford the sound in it pliability.

This is just my humble 2 cents...stick with the ZxR. But in the end you should use/trust your own ears and have fun, it's supposed to be fun I say. I expect to be violently attacked for expressing my opinion but “Así es la vida, sí, that's just life baby".

Blessings,
-Jonne

Enjoy your posts and your songs . . . not an expert EQ'er like you, but I know what I like and I can adjust my ZXR EQ to get it.

'Nuff said and thanks.

 

[MusicalDoc8]

I am not near the level of most of the posters here, but what you said makes sense to me . . . though I have a nuance here I'd like to run by you all. I may be the exception to the "hardware better than software" EQ rule.

I have an old Soundblaster ZXR. I've had it in multiple computers I've built for 10 years. I run my turntable (after pre-amped) through it, along with all my other pc sound sources, including blu-ray, DVD, CD, games . . . everything. I love it's warm sound compared to straight motherboard or USB sound DACs. I have a Scarlett 2i2 3rd Gen (for mic input, ZXR mic input sucks), but I prefer the sound off my ZXR. It's analog sound is like an old friend to me, the same way I prefer vinyl to CD, etc.

I also run my LCD-XC head set off my ZXR, using the old EQ software that comes with the Soundblaster to increase the base. It sounds just dandy to me. Perhaps the SoundBlaster Pro Studio EQ software is specially tuned to work super-duper with the ZXR and that's why, I don't know. But if I were using a digital USB sound card/DAC or motherboard sound, I would likely buy a Lokius EQ to get the analog sound the ZXR already gives me.

My question - should I consider getting a Lokius and more cables (probably $350 total) to avoid the using the dreaded "software" EQ, or should I just stay with what works for me? My brain and gut tell me to leave well enough alone, but I sure like reading and talking with you all about it!

Sound is in the ear of the beholder.

EQ it and "taste" the difference. Your music hardware and software are there to please you, and thus experimenting to find what sounds good to you is the most important part!
To me, i have lots of DSD so kinda having issues EQ'ing away. But mostly because of not having had the time to sit down and learn properly how to do it!

 

[Kentajalli]

The problem with digital EQ plugins is that they upsample to do the EQ processing at a higher sample rate to avoid aliasing and other artifacts then downsample back to the input sample rate. The upsamplling/downsampling methods used are chosen for CPU efficiency and low latency rather than audiophile sound quality. That middling quality resampling is audible and lowers the sound quality compared to sending an un-EQed signal to my DAC. Even when I try EQ plugins that claim to be mastering quality linear phase they still negatively impact the sound quality. You can test this by patching in a EQ plugin, setting the EQ to flat or bypass so the EQ does no processing other than the upsampling and downsampling. Then listen to the EQ plugin patched in and patched out. Every digital EQ plugin I've tried has an audible difference between being patched in and patched out. Even when trying their highest quality linear phase options.

My DAC of choice are Schiit multibits using the super awesome linear phase combo burrito filter. That filter is the reason I use and love the Schiit multibits. When I use a digital EQ plugin the upsampling/downsampling the plugin does causes the sound quality to sound like the Schiit multibit Gungnir has been crossbred with a delta sigma DAC. And that's a crime against combo burrito filters. I didn't choose the Schiit Gungnir multibit only to end up using a digital EQ for my headphones that causes my system to sound like I'm using a middling delta sigma DAC. If I wanted a middling delta sigma sound I'd be using a $400 SMSL DAC instead.

I do use EQ to experiment with how a headphone would sound with a different frequency response profile. But I do not, and will not, use EQ for critical listening. The digital EQ does more harm than good.

+1
As for your suggested test, it should be 1db up by every slider, and then use a -1db preamp to bring it all back down. You can even use widest Q for the parametric. Problem with zero EQ is that some software detect that, and switch off! If your system has two parametric EQs, you can elevate one band by 1dB and then bring it down by the same amount using a secondary PEQ. Even with "dither" enabled, you can sometimes tell which is which. (on Jriver you can)
This brings me to an experiment that I had suggested, which NO ONE tried, or at least no one gave any feedback on.
We all know LCD-XC 2021 is a little Bass light! our friend @Jonne Haven routinely posts PEQ profiles for this headphone with Bass EQs of +(a lot)dB to correct this with obvious preamp reduction of the same amounts (a lot again), dictating that one may need a speaker amp to power this headphone.
Going back to my experiment, it was a simple attempt to raise the Bass by removing "one screw" from the cups on each side, to see if they heard a difference!
I even suggested it to a famous pro reviewer. His attitude was similar to most users, " Don't bother, just EQ away!, it's easier".
But you and I know it is not.
A simple 1dB or 2dB here and there can be forgiven, but 6dB or 10dB ? and a good number of them? is not.
Putting sound quality issues aside, once you implement a +6dB bass boost, you MUST add -6dB gain to the whole frequency band, or you risk getting into digital overload, we all know this (actually 9dB if indeed the PEQ system uses oversampling). -6dB means, if your headphone amp had 400mW of power (most portable gear), now it has become a 100mW amp! you have lost your headroom (9dB means 50mW).
what is not so common-knowledge is that, the same does not apply to frequencies past a few hundred Hz! Why? because Musical peaks are naturally at -6dB and more for higher frequencies, probably at -20dB for +10kHz.
I offered a simple mod. that would Naturally/Acoustically boost the bass by up to 5.5dB, and nobody was interested!
Oh Well . . .

Here are the details of the mod. and measurements that went with it.

 

[Darylc]

Not a single member tried it!
I suppose, nobody is interested in measurement results either . . .
Happy EQing.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...eze-lcd-xc-21-effects-of-small-venting.42829/

Hey, I say your post there the other week and I was going to join ASR just to thank you for this but came here instead. I should have joined here a long time ago.

Anyway! I removed just 1 screw on each cup and yes instantly more sub-bass and enough that I removed EQ entirely on the XC ('21) Soundstage is also a tiny bit wider.

It's just enough extra bass that the highs don't seem as sharp, I was adding a high end shelf EQ around 8k -2.5dB, but you lose a little too much detail with that I think.
The highs are totally fine on the most part but there are a few genre's like hip-hop, electronic that have a lot of sharp percussion above 8k that can just cut into me sometimes.

I need to experiment with some material/foam inserts to see if I can just even out the sharpness a bit, If I could get some of the DCA filter material they would be ideal i think.

I prefer not to EQ for reasons as you mentioned and I just don't like doing it, can can't a bit fiddly for setups and if I go to any studio with these I don't want to be messing with internal routing EQ's just for these headphones!

Anyway thank you for the suggestions on this & work on the objective results.

 

[Kentajalli]

Hey, I say your post there the other week and I was going to join ASR just to thank you for this but came here instead. I should have joined here a long time ago.

You just did, thank you too, I appreciate it.

I need to experiment with some material/foam inserts to see if I can just even out the sharpness a bit, If I could get some of the DCA filter material they would be ideal i think.

Don't bother!
Audeze damping is so good already, it is second to none.
I use a high shelf of -3dB at 7kHz, that's it!
You don't even need a preamp cut, that's the beauty of it.

 

[Jonne Haven]

Enjoy your posts and your songs . . . not an expert EQ'er like you, but I know what I like and I can adjust my ZXR EQ to get it.

'Nuff said and thanks.

Doc,

I hope I didn't offend you by miscommunicating my posts intentions. I have edited it to clarify that I didn't suggest that you go out and get other software EQ and become more involved in EQ by any means...just the opposite in fact. I like the ZxR AND its EQ software immensely (they were built to be used together) and I was recommending that you stick with that blessed arrangement. I think SoundBlaster can be over criticized sometimes and it's my opinion that they hit it on the nail for the non-recording consumer with the ZxR. I can only hope that it lasts you many more years which I believe they will (I have never had a Soundblaster card fail on me and I've owned a lot of them, all the way back to the Live! from the 90s)

Also I didn't mean to suggest that I expected that YOU would attack me by any means, also just the opposite, I meant that others might, and maybe not even that. Sorry to sound so defensive.

I thank you for your appreciation of my posts, and especially my songs! That means SO much to me! After all, I am not an just an EQer, if that, I am foremost and utterly a composer/musician/recording artist and THAT is my greatest joy and pursuit. Headphones and the hobbies that it engenders are just a bonus. Making music is my passion!

Happy listening and happy reading/educating!

Blessings,
-J

 

[PixelSquish]

You cannot mess with this bass with a bit of EQ, to go along with fantastic sound in all the other places. Modified Oratory Harman Curve EQ with tweaks seen on the latest LCD-X eq, from our local EQ expert in this thread.

This stuff is mind blowing good. Listening to a bunch of tracks I just recently added to my master playlist via Spotify Radio off of one of my tracks.

Thank you LCD-X.

Now I just gotta save up for a year for an incremental upgrade for thousands of bucks more in the planar world! Absolutely no way I will be getting another dynamic until I get a TOTL planar!

 

[Ham Sandwich]

+1
As for your suggested test, it should be 1db up by every slider, and then use a -1db preamp to bring it all back down. You can even use widest Q for the parametric. Problem with zero EQ is that some software detect that, and switch off! If your system has two parametric EQs, you can elevate one band by 1dB and then bring it down by the same amount using a secondary PEQ. Even with "dither" enabled, you can sometimes tell which is which. (on Jriver you can)

VST style EQ plugins and other plugins can be tricky. You don't always know what they're doing inside their black box. The way the filter and upsample to do their processing and downsample can be different in different situations. They create an unknown about what is exactly going on in the audio chain.

My main issue with EQ plugins is that they aren't as transparent as people think. You don't really notice that loss of transparency when using lower end headphone gear. But you can with the higher end gear. I have a fascination with DACs. Some DACs have a way of doing things that gives me a "you are there" style of sound with headphones. The Schiit multibits and the Chord DACs and the Berkeley DACs are some that do that for me. Once you do EQ to get the headphones to sound neutral (of whatever flavor of neutral or fun you prefer) then that "you are there" sound goes away. And at that point I may as well be listening to an SMSL or Topping DAC.

I'm also able to better hear qualities of the recording better with no digital EQ. For example, I can tell by ear when a recording used a Pacific Microsonics AD converter because the Pacific Microsonics has a certain style of sound and imaging. I can hear that sound signature with my system when I don't use any digital EQ. But when I use digital EQ that sonic signature goes away and I can't identify those recordings as well or if at all. Similar with CD vs high res. I can hear a difference between CD and high-res when not using any digital EQ. Engage the digital EQ and that difference goes away.

The Audeze headphones really are special. And good planar headphones are special. They have a special style of sound and style of imaging that I really enjoy and like to indulge. I can best indulge and explore those sound qualities if I don't use digital EQ. For me the Audeze headphones and other similar headphones really are better listening with no EQ, even if their frequency response is a little wonky. I'll deal with a wonky frequency response if in return I get to indulge and explore the other sound qualities of the headphone.

 

[DocHollidey]

Doc,

I hope I didn't offend you by miscommunicating my posts intentions. I have edited it to clarify that I didn't suggest that you go out and get other software EQ and become more involved in EQ by any means...just the opposite in fact. I like the ZxR AND its EQ software immensely (they were built to be used together) and I was recommending that you stick with that blessed arrangement. I think SoundBlaster can be over criticized sometimes and it's my opinion that they hit it on the nail for the non-recording consumer with the ZxR. I can only hope that it lasts you many more years which I believe they will (I have never had a Soundblaster card fail on me and I've owned a lot of them, all the way back to the Live! from the 90s)

Also I didn't mean to suggest that I expected that YOU would attack me by any means, also just the opposite, I meant that others might, and maybe not even that. Sorry to sound so defensive.

I thank you for your appreciation of my posts, and especially my songs! That means SO much to me! After all, I am not an just an EQer, if that, I am foremost and utterly a composer/musician/recording artist and THAT is my greatest joy and pursuit. Headphones and the hobbies that it engenders are just a bonus. Making music is my passion!

Happy listening and happy reading/educating!

Blessings,
-J

No offense taken at all. I think you are an EQ genius and damn good artist. You are doing what you are meant to do.

I've also owned several Sound Blaster cards, including the very first MS-DOS one.

I just happen to be lucky enough to have the just the sound I like. Glad I got there! If I didn't feel this way about my sound, I'd probably be EQing like you! Nothing wrong with that. It looks like fun.

It's only Rock 'N Roll, but I like it!