[bust3r]

Nice one! Do you have one for the LCD-5?

I got it from here, it doesn't look like they have one for the LCD-5 just yet.

https://teddit.net/r/oratory1990/wiki/index/list_of_presets

 

[jlemaster1957]

This may help in sorting out your EQ worries, when using an EQ this will tell you what EQ values to set if you're looking for the Harmon shelf sound (if I even said that right, I'm still new here).
I use MathEQ to get these values personally.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/sloaf7ptogjmjkx/Audeze LCD-X (2021 revision).pdf?dl=0

@koursaros, 1 plug here for Roon. As per above, the DSP in Roon includes Audeze EQ pre-sets, but @Resolve from the HEADPHONE show also provides EQ recs for the X and I think also @Chronos. IMHO the addition of Roon to my audio life was the single biggest and best jump in my overall experience- opening up not just the easy ability to ‘tune’ each and every IEM and HP I have -using the Roon parametric EQ in its DSP functionality-, but (more) to make all my audio library available throughout my home (I use a Bluesound Node streaming to 3 Flex 2i speakers and also a Sonore MicroRendu in my listening room for HPs). Each of the speakers has a headphone se jack so I can plug in the iems or HPs wherever they are in the house, or directly plugin to the Node. This greatly increases the flexibility I have for tailoring my listening experience anywhere in tbe house. TIDAL and Qubuz are fully integrated. It unfolds MQA or upsamples PCM files and plays DSD if you are into any of that (I am). It is a bit of a palaver to set up the Roon Core (I used an old MacBook rather than a new dedicated Roon Nucleus or equivalent), and not every DAC plays well with Roon- Roon has certain products (mostly streamers) that it has certified as ‘Roon ready’ that are set up to work with it and others that are ‘Roon tested’ including the Audeze HPs themselves. Once you have it set up and going tho there is no looking back. Is it expensive?- for slightly more than $100/year you could say so, but I assert that it gives me at least as much enjoyment as a $4 Starbucks latte once a week. Here is @Resolve’s vid on EQ and here is Darko’s introduction to Roon.

 

[reivaj]

Pulled the trigger on the LCD-X to complement my Auteur, I was hoping to avoid EQing them since I have never done it before.
IMHO it's not really worth getting those to use without EQ.
Out of the box they sounded a bit off, maybe fake would be the right word.
I just used the peace EQ to bring them closer to harman using Resolve's measurements and oof.

I used to own Sundaras so the planar bass wasn't something new to me but that punch and rumble sure was.
The only thing that turns me a bit off for now, is that im not super used with the idea of EQ yet and "messing up" with how they are supposed to sound.
Otherwise seems to be an excellent headphone with great value.

I might try out resolve's EQ just to see how it compares to the oratory one. Yeah this thing really comes to life with EQ. My observations were the same as yours. Especially since I did not touch EQ prior to the LCD X. Still really have no desire to EQ any of my other headphones.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

In older days phones that didn't work without heavy EQ were considered junk. It is a really lazy way from Audeze to release them with tuning like that dumping problem on end user.

 

[mikecheck95]

In older days phones that didn't work without heavy EQ were considered junk. It is a really lazy way from Audeze to release them with tuning like that dumping problem on end user.

In the “older days” almost no headphone was able to match the harman target so I’m not sure what or how you’d be EQing. Headphones like the HD800 and LCD-2 both missed the target severely and suffered a similar deficit in terms of how “out” they were. Also, the only headphones on the market currently that track the target reasonably well in the upper mids are:

Sennheiser HD6X0 series
AKG 371
HifiMan Sundara
Hifiman Susvara
Audeze LCD 5
Audeze LCD XC
Some of the newer DCA cans


People are going to be like “what about focal”

I think focals are probably warmer-leaning just looking at the graphs. They are so peaky throughout the ear-gain region it’s hard to know exactly how “neutral” they are. They also suffer some sub-bass drop off not to mention driver clipping at levels as low as 90db (which is loud but don’t think you’re buying these to EQ the bass up to Harman).

According to ASR’s measurements you could give the LCD-X a 20db bass shelf and still be at like 1% distortion in the absolute lowest bass frequencies. This is what people mean when they say it “takes EQ well”. It also helps that despite its major dip in the mids the actual frequency response is a a flat line. Most other other headphones have many peaks and dips that make it difficult to “fix” even if they are a bit off.

 

[Golyatx]

Nice one! Do you have one for the LCD-5?

-2dB at 3kHz, Q1 so far only this is for lcd5, it tame some mids

 

[mikecheck95]

In older days phones that didn't work without heavy EQ were considered junk. It is a really lazy way from Audeze to release them with tuning like that dumping problem on end user.

But, to roughly agree, I think audeze should develop something to make EQing to their in-house target much more user friendly. If they want you to EQ their headphones they should make it easy to do so. Reveal + is not a solution IMO. It doesn’t do enough.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

In the “older days” almost no headphone was able to match the harman target so I’m not sure what or how you’d be EQing. Headphones like the HD800 and LCD-2 both missed the target severely and suffered a similar deficit in terms of how “out” they were. Also, the only headphones on the market currently that track the target reasonably well in the upper mids are:

Sennheiser HD6X0 series
AKG 371
HifiMan Sundara
Hifiman Susvara
Audeze LCD 5
Audeze LCD XC
Some of the newer DCA cans


People are going to be like “what about focal”

I think focals are probably warmer-leaning just looking at the graphs. They are so peaky throughout the ear-gain region it’s hard to know exactly how “neutral” they are. They also suffer some sub-bass drop off not to mention driver clipping at levels as low as 90db (which is loud but don’t think you’re buying these to EQ the bass up to Harman).

According to ASR’s measurements you could give the LCD-X a 20db bass shelf and still be at like 1% distortion in the absolute lowest bass frequencies. This is what people mean when they say it “takes EQ well”. It also helps that despite its major dip in the mids the actual frequency response is a a flat line. Most other other headphones have many peaks and dips that make it difficult to “fix” even if they are a bit off.

HE-6Se are pretty close too, spot on with fenestrated leather pads.
And phones do not have to be on Harman target to be awesome and fun, that includes HD800S/SDR, some wooden ATH, TH900/600, etc.
This EQ or bust is just wrong IMHO.

 

[mikecheck95]

HE-6Se are pretty close too, spot on with fenestrated leather pads.
And phones do not have to be on Harman target to be awesome and fun, that includes HD800S/SDR, some wooden ATH, TH900/600, etc.
This EQ or bust is just wrong IMHO.

Idk if it’s “EQ or bust” with the LCD-X for everyone. The LCD- X is still more neutral than your TV, your cellphone, your laptop, even probably studio monitors (because it has subbass). They might even be more neutral than speakers in a poorly-treated room. But, for me, it would be a dealbreaker… I wouldn’t purchase anything that I couldn’t get to roughly match the harman target. Because I’m a classical musician and I want instruments in recordings to sound realistic.

As I become more and more skeptical of things like “detail retrieval” these LCD-Xs look like something that could be sold off for a good set of noise-cancelling headphones. But then I sit with them for a few hours and they always change my mind.

The thing with having an FR like the LCD-X is that it actually doesn’t matter a whole lot for music that is recorded well. Because you can still hear everything anyway. Where it struggles is with poorly-recorded tracks because certain aspects become buried. However, my experience is that, if you EQ them, you’ll hear more than you ever have in your music.

 

[Uguccione]

From today, I too am officially waiting for my X 2021.
In my short career in headphonephile I had always kept away from the Audeze, mainly for 3 reasons: the need to equalize them, weight, and doubts about reliability.
Now it seems that these problems are - at least in part - solved and I have decided to buy a used pair.
They are headphones that have always attracted me and I am very curious to try them.

P. S .: the seller has not been able to tell me if the pads are in "real leather" or "imitation leather". How can I understand it?

 

[jlemaster1957]

From today, I too am officially waiting for my X 2021.
In my short career in headphonephile I had always kept away from the Audeze, mainly for 3 reasons: the need to equalize them, weight, and doubts about reliability.
Now it seems that these problems are - at least in part - solved and I have decided to buy a used pair.
They are headphones that have always attracted me and I am very curious to try them.

P. S .: the seller has not been able to tell me if the pads are in "real leather" or "imitation leather". How can I understand it?

If they are the original owner they should be able to determine this or at least find out from the original retailer. If they themselves bought secondhand, unless the pads have been changed (not an uncommon practice) at least it should be possible to determine by contacting Audeze with the serial number.

 

[Uguccione]

OK thanks. He is the first owner, but evidently he never asked himself the problem. I will check - when they arrive - if there is anything written on the purchase invoice.

 

[bust3r]

Has anyone tried the FabFilter Pro-Q 3 EQ? Its a little pricey, up there with Reveal. It seems to be very good.

https://www.musicradar.com/reviews/fabfilter-pro-q-3

 

[Alex May]

Has anyone tried the FabFilter Pro-Q 3 EQ? Its a little pricey, up there with Reveal. It seems to be very good.

https://www.musicradar.com/reviews/fabfilter-pro-q-3

Well, it's a VST/AAX-plugin for a DAW, not a system wide EQ like Equalizer APO. We use FabFilter Pro-Q along with other plugins as a tool for production, mixing, and mastering in Pro Tools, Ableton Live and other hosts. It's clinical, surgical, "lifeless", mathematically correct. This is one of the most convenient and versatile tools for music production, especially given its visual signal analysis. A tool for a sound engineer in order to create music but not for listening)) FabFilter Pro-Q is mainly used to correct separate instrument resonances, tones, and to fit an instruments into the mix. So I guess, FabFilter Pro-Q is not applicable for an audiophile experience.

 

[Andii]

After owning this headphone for a few months, I have to say that one of the best aspects of this piece of hardware is that it just does not sound all that much like the usual audiophile headphone. The LCD-X really does have a tremendous ability to mimic the sonic capabilities of a high quality 2 channel loudspeaker system in a room. It is obvious why this headphone is in such high demand for studio usage. I keep seeing reviews which claim this headphone has an average soundstage. This is just not correct. This headphone has fantastic soundstage width, depth, and height characteristics. On top of this, the way this headphone images is just spectacular for the price point. Instrument separation and definition is insanely good. I highly recommend this headphone. I will admit that it does require a bit of EQ, but once this is done, the sound quality will blow your doors off.

<<<<EDIT>just noticed what thread I'm in. For clarity: This entire post I'm talking about the X, not the XC.>>>>​

From my small bit of experience with sources, this headphone scales with amps and DACS and that is probably the explanation on why so many people have different experiences and impressions of the soundstage.

I have experienced the stage being within the space right outside of the headphone with a less powerful, less refined source, and on my current setup the imaging is EXTREMELY strong and the stage extends well outside the confines of the outside of the earcups. Some instruments on a really good recording(especially hard panned high frequency centric sounds) sound like they're as far as at the edge of my shoulders. When something pans across, the image is completely continuous and pinpoint. To me that is really awesome and the width of the image is impressive to have that level of pinpoint precision simultaneously. These are also reference headphones, and imaging precision is really important to audio engineers while getting the widest image possible isn't. Engineers are the ones creating the stereo image, so they need accurate insight into it. Headphones have a different type of sound stage than speakers. It's different directionally, loudspeakers create positional cues and imaging that's in front of you and have a lot of front to back depth, but in a weird way I feel like the lateral width of the X's stage kind of emulates loudspeakers that are set up mid field in front of me. It's the front to back depth that I find kind of small, but I'm not a headphone expert, I haven't heard what the flagships that show what the cutting edge of what headphones can do in that regard and don't know if that's just because they're headphones.


From my experience, these scale. And I imagine they might continue to scale beyond the setup that I have, but I won't be exploring that haha. My DAC and amp together already exceed the cost of the headphones themselves. I'm completely satisfied and I've also reached the limit on what I'm willing to spend other than wanting a Norne Audio Drausk lite cable eventually for purely tactile and aesthetic reasons and that will be it for me.

If it's so linear why EQ is a must then?

In older days phones that didn't work without heavy EQ were considered junk. It is a really lazy way from Audeze to release them with tuning like that dumping problem on end user.

These do not need EQ. I'm actually a little baffled at some of the EQing I see, especially the bass boosts. For me, if I have the right gain staging into a good amplifier, the bass sounds just right. I find more than that to be fatiguing. The bass is Very powerful and fast with extremely detailed and accurate texture. Powerful dynamic planar bass is incredible. As for the other areas, it's subjective. I do not run eq on mine right now. Sure, there's a little dip at 4k according to measurements, but I am sensitive to that area and to my ears the FR is just completely agreeable to me for long listening sessions. Any deviation from whatever "correct" is, is so close that it's nothing that brain burn in hasn't fixed for me.

The most reasonable EQ that I've seen and agree with after testing a lot of them was a 2.5db bass shelf and a 2db boost at 4khz. It's fairly subtle. I listened to that for the longest and it was by far the EQ curve I've seen people talking about that I could really hear a valid enhancement to me subjectively and it still sound natural.

Has anyone tried the FabFilter Pro-Q 3 EQ? Its a little pricey, up there with Reveal. It seems to be very good.

https://www.musicradar.com/reviews/fabfilter-pro-q-3

I'm an audio engineer. (feels a little impostor syndrome to say that) I have it. It's absolutely excellent. The GUI is incredible. Exceptionally good. And it's transparent ability to shape the sound without artefacts like ringing and unpleasant phase shifts is very impressive. Me buying that plugin was a defining moment for me where I gained the ability to shape sound in very powerful ways that other plugins can't handle transparently. The only way I have induced artefacts with that plugin was ringing with some ridiculous brickwall 96db per octave filters. That particular experimentation is where the limit was found. I would consider 24db per octave a steep filter. 96 is just insanity that I thought wouldn't even exist and maybe it shouldn't. As for using it for DSP, it's excellent. Give the trial a shot and listen for yourself and evaluate. I recommend the natural phase setting.

It may be overkill for listening DSP. It's a mastering grade EQ.

Audirvana runs VST. That's how I tried it for listening. But I found Audirvana EXTREMELY and INCREASINGLY unstable, glitchy and a huge pain. Currently using Roon and it's much better, but I don't know what all it can do yet or if it loads VST. I know that it includes DSP in it somewhere. The DSP in roon will preserve bitperfect playback unlike equalizer APO, which has to allow your audio to pass through the OS mixer and get resampled and downsampled.

Roon does an excellent job of using the RME ASIO driver and switching my interface's sample rate to each song(confirmed in the DAC's control panel). I'm very impressed.