Looking out for those reviews too.
I think Passion for sound is reviewing them relatively soon.
I think Passion for sound is reviewing them relatively soon.
MEZE AUDIO ELITE - The New Isodynamic Hybrid Array Headphone - official thread
- Thread starter MezeTeam
- Start date
TheMiddleSky
Headphoneus Supremus
Just want to add one impression:
Hearing Caldera is like the stage present "here" in front of me, while with Elite, it's like the stage "floating" around me.
How many hours for the Elites to properly burn in?
Hey! I know my post is pretty late, but I make music (not professionally but still use a lot of plugins for my work) and I owned the LCD-5 for a couple months before selling them off and purchasing the Elite. In terms of mixing, I think the LCD-5 is a bit better, but not by as large of a margin as you'd think. So the LCD-5 is what you'd consider flat with an emphasis on the mid range (the upper mid range to be precise). The tuning is very similar to a set of studio monitors.
The Elite is what I would call flat with a slight V-Shape (so a slight emphasis on the bass and the upper treble). TBH, having owned both for some time, I honestly don't miss the LCD-5 at all, even for music work. Although the LCD-5 maybe ever so slightly more resolving, I think once you're able to adjust your ears to both headphones, you'd be fine mixing with either one.
artisandro
New Head-Fier
Just got back from listening to the Meze Elite and the LCD-5 for about 6 hours straight, only two tracks that I've heard more than 100 times, repeated certain busy sections about 20 times. My ears are wrecked because I really exercised them. Unfortunately, no EQ, even though it was available. The chain was very simple, HP => RME ADI-2 Pro FS => computer, because that's close to what I use in the studio (Antelope Audio Pure2).
So... there were no details that I could hear on one that I couldn't hear on the other. Out of the box, the FR I prefer is the LCD-5s. All differences I could hear, I could attribute to tonal balance (FR). Out of the box, because of the emphasis on the upper mid range, the LCD-5s just sounded more cutting, more sharp, the 1KHz - 5Khz area was more emphasised, which just made sounds cut through the lows and highs. Consequently, the Elites sounded a bit more, uhm... "muddy" in the upper mid/low treble range (1KHz - 5KHz). The details were there though. It was definitely more "warm", had more "body". The upper mid range, where a lot of instrument "clarity" and "presence" exists, and where instruments usually fight for space, was more "hidden". This is a trade-off, if you boost low/mid/high bass, you de-emphasise other areas in the spectrum. You would kind of get the same result by dipping all other areas, too (without getting too technical). A classic move is to sidechain 1KHz - 2KHz if you want an instrument to supersede another where they occupy that space. A lot of "character" from lead instruments and sounds exists in that 1 - 5KHz range, and so this made it REALLY difficult to judge "resolution" or "clarity".
Some interesting things I noticed, though, is that the LCD-5 bass is actually pretty great for the out-of-the-box FR. The lows were still palpable despite being so flat down there. That was quite nice to hear...
In terms of comfort - wow are these two headphones different. LCD-5 really fit snug on the head. No doubt that the "seal" is better around the ears. I tried the Sennheiser 800S, and they were very "loose"-fitting. This was the same with the Elites. I wonder if this had an effect on the soundstage, because the Elites were definitely more open than the LCD-5s, but that didn't affect the stereo placement of sounds in the LCD-5, which, whether by the upper-mid focus, or by some other magic, felt like it placed the wide sounds wider in relation to the other sounds, despite having a more intimate sound stage. In fact, it dealt really well with the stereo placement of sounds. However, this is also difficult to judge because sounds usually have the stereo focus in the upper-mids and highs. This is why it is a common technique in mixing to boost highs to make sounds "wider" (we do this often using saturation), because you don't usually cut stereo information in the highs, whereas one is much more careful with stereo in the lows, where phasing issues and mono-collapsibility issues can occur if one leaves too much stereo information down there. So, if you have a tonal balance that emphasises lows and highs, then all your stereo in the upper mid (also where the clarity/presence exists) will be slightly more "muted".
The radically different FR of the headphones made it really tough to judge whatever we want to call "resolution". I understand where Resolve is coming from in the earlier post. There is just no way I could make a conclusion of objective quality based on what I listened to today. The tuning is too different. A dB here and a dB there makes a HUGE difference to tonal balance... So, if I was ignorant to the effects of EQ, I would have thought that the LCD-5s were more "clear", and called it a day.
I've arranged to go back after looking at some FR graphs and planning some EQ to bring the two HPs to a more level playing field.
My wife, who loves music but is no audiophile, absolutely loved listening to the planars. The quality bump was clear, even to her. But, she couldn't tell which headphone was better. I also think they were close, but I could hear the tonal balance difference because, well, I do this every day...
Another note: In the highs, where the cymbals exist, I could hear the same level of detail from both the LCD-5s and the Elites. Both very clearly projected the character of the cymbals... If there was a drastic difference in objective technical quality, I think I would have heard it in this area... But I didn't. They both gave me more detail than I was able to hear with my dynamic headphones in the studio. I could hear the tone, I could hear the metallic textures, almost equally well in both headphones. Maybe SLIGHTLY better in the Elites, but I expect that this is, again, because of FR. Because it was like I could hear in the LCD-5s too, but it was, well, balanced a LITTLE differently.
So, if I had to leave after my impressions today, without an option to come back, I would have chosen the LCD-5s, because they already have the FR I'm looking for straight out of the box. In mixing, the 200Hz - 5Khz is the area you have to nail. The low end, well, there's less happening there if you know your genre, and know the tricks to get that area right. Masking usually happens in the 200Hz - 5Khz area, and one needs maximum insight there. The LCD-5s had that already. But, I know that it isn't fair towards the Meze Elites, because they just aren't tuned that way.
Imho the build quality on the Elites is just superior. The way the headphones slide when adjusting? Like it's been well-oiled or something? Excellent. The Audeze were a bit more clunky for me. EXCEPT for the seal. There's no doubt that the seal on the LCD-5s are... better. I wonder how much this matters? I would think it does... Because it would lead to a more consistent "room" for your ears. That's another point for the LCD-5s, because at the end of the day what matters is the area that house your ears, which needs to fit in a consistent way so that you're always hearing exactly the same sound. Constraint here, strikes me as a positive thing. Make sure the ear is ALWAYS in the same position within the cup. I don't think the same can be said for the Elites, I feel like the ear could move a cm left, right, up or down. Well, on my head at least, which I would consider as "medium" sized (?).
So yeah... lots of thoughts. I wonder, has anyone here tried to EQ the Elites for more studio-monitor-esque neutrality? This is what I'm going to have to do if I want to get a more fair comparison. I aim to do it before the end of the week. I'll plan my EQ adjustments and go back to the store for another round of listening. That should be more conclusive. I wanted to give the headphones a shot with their default tuning first before thinking of EQ, and that's what I did today.
The thoughts are jumbled, because I kind of touch-typed this. Hope this is helpful in some way. I'll have more conclusive thoughts after the EQ.
So... there were no details that I could hear on one that I couldn't hear on the other. Out of the box, the FR I prefer is the LCD-5s. All differences I could hear, I could attribute to tonal balance (FR). Out of the box, because of the emphasis on the upper mid range, the LCD-5s just sounded more cutting, more sharp, the 1KHz - 5Khz area was more emphasised, which just made sounds cut through the lows and highs. Consequently, the Elites sounded a bit more, uhm... "muddy" in the upper mid/low treble range (1KHz - 5KHz). The details were there though. It was definitely more "warm", had more "body". The upper mid range, where a lot of instrument "clarity" and "presence" exists, and where instruments usually fight for space, was more "hidden". This is a trade-off, if you boost low/mid/high bass, you de-emphasise other areas in the spectrum. You would kind of get the same result by dipping all other areas, too (without getting too technical). A classic move is to sidechain 1KHz - 2KHz if you want an instrument to supersede another where they occupy that space. A lot of "character" from lead instruments and sounds exists in that 1 - 5KHz range, and so this made it REALLY difficult to judge "resolution" or "clarity".
Some interesting things I noticed, though, is that the LCD-5 bass is actually pretty great for the out-of-the-box FR. The lows were still palpable despite being so flat down there. That was quite nice to hear...
In terms of comfort - wow are these two headphones different. LCD-5 really fit snug on the head. No doubt that the "seal" is better around the ears. I tried the Sennheiser 800S, and they were very "loose"-fitting. This was the same with the Elites. I wonder if this had an effect on the soundstage, because the Elites were definitely more open than the LCD-5s, but that didn't affect the stereo placement of sounds in the LCD-5, which, whether by the upper-mid focus, or by some other magic, felt like it placed the wide sounds wider in relation to the other sounds, despite having a more intimate sound stage. In fact, it dealt really well with the stereo placement of sounds. However, this is also difficult to judge because sounds usually have the stereo focus in the upper-mids and highs. This is why it is a common technique in mixing to boost highs to make sounds "wider" (we do this often using saturation), because you don't usually cut stereo information in the highs, whereas one is much more careful with stereo in the lows, where phasing issues and mono-collapsibility issues can occur if one leaves too much stereo information down there. So, if you have a tonal balance that emphasises lows and highs, then all your stereo in the upper mid (also where the clarity/presence exists) will be slightly more "muted".
The radically different FR of the headphones made it really tough to judge whatever we want to call "resolution". I understand where Resolve is coming from in the earlier post. There is just no way I could make a conclusion of objective quality based on what I listened to today. The tuning is too different. A dB here and a dB there makes a HUGE difference to tonal balance... So, if I was ignorant to the effects of EQ, I would have thought that the LCD-5s were more "clear", and called it a day.
I've arranged to go back after looking at some FR graphs and planning some EQ to bring the two HPs to a more level playing field.
My wife, who loves music but is no audiophile, absolutely loved listening to the planars. The quality bump was clear, even to her. But, she couldn't tell which headphone was better. I also think they were close, but I could hear the tonal balance difference because, well, I do this every day...
Another note: In the highs, where the cymbals exist, I could hear the same level of detail from both the LCD-5s and the Elites. Both very clearly projected the character of the cymbals... If there was a drastic difference in objective technical quality, I think I would have heard it in this area... But I didn't. They both gave me more detail than I was able to hear with my dynamic headphones in the studio. I could hear the tone, I could hear the metallic textures, almost equally well in both headphones. Maybe SLIGHTLY better in the Elites, but I expect that this is, again, because of FR. Because it was like I could hear in the LCD-5s too, but it was, well, balanced a LITTLE differently.
So, if I had to leave after my impressions today, without an option to come back, I would have chosen the LCD-5s, because they already have the FR I'm looking for straight out of the box. In mixing, the 200Hz - 5Khz is the area you have to nail. The low end, well, there's less happening there if you know your genre, and know the tricks to get that area right. Masking usually happens in the 200Hz - 5Khz area, and one needs maximum insight there. The LCD-5s had that already. But, I know that it isn't fair towards the Meze Elites, because they just aren't tuned that way.
Imho the build quality on the Elites is just superior. The way the headphones slide when adjusting? Like it's been well-oiled or something? Excellent. The Audeze were a bit more clunky for me. EXCEPT for the seal. There's no doubt that the seal on the LCD-5s are... better. I wonder how much this matters? I would think it does... Because it would lead to a more consistent "room" for your ears. That's another point for the LCD-5s, because at the end of the day what matters is the area that house your ears, which needs to fit in a consistent way so that you're always hearing exactly the same sound. Constraint here, strikes me as a positive thing. Make sure the ear is ALWAYS in the same position within the cup. I don't think the same can be said for the Elites, I feel like the ear could move a cm left, right, up or down. Well, on my head at least, which I would consider as "medium" sized (?).
So yeah... lots of thoughts. I wonder, has anyone here tried to EQ the Elites for more studio-monitor-esque neutrality? This is what I'm going to have to do if I want to get a more fair comparison. I aim to do it before the end of the week. I'll plan my EQ adjustments and go back to the store for another round of listening. That should be more conclusive. I wanted to give the headphones a shot with their default tuning first before thinking of EQ, and that's what I did today.
The thoughts are jumbled, because I kind of touch-typed this. Hope this is helpful in some way. I'll have more conclusive thoughts after the EQ.
Last edited:
Hey! So it sounds like you're probably more used to the type of tuning that comes with the LCD-5. I personally haven't EQ'd the Meze to be more monitor neutral just as I already have studio monitors I use at home in conjunction with my headphones, but also because I've gotten used to the Meze Elite's tuning after a couple weeks of daily use.
I'd say if you want to make the Elites a little more neutral, put a low shelf filter at around 100 HZ for -2 or -3 DB, and place a high shelf filter around 10khz for -2 or -3 DB as well. That will probably make it a bit more neutral for yah.
Last edited:
artisandro
New Head-Fier
Thanks dude. Was going to respond to your first post which is ridiculous helpful. I also agree with you, I don't think I heard anything that would indicate that one headphone is technically superior. Just a differently presented soundstage (probably due to the ear pad's tight fit on the LCD-5 [?]), but still a great stereo representation. In fact, the LCD-5's more "intimate"/"centered" soundstage represented the stereo field slightly better than the Elites in the 800Hz - 5KHz area, but, like I said, could be because of the bump in midrange that usually contains more stereo in the mixes. Higher volume here would increased the perceived stereo width in the area of the sounds that contain their "presence", and the LCD-5 has that because of the tuning.
My honest takeaway is that these two are so close that either will work.
I also have studio monitors (Genelec 8351bs, calibrated, in well-treated room), but I need to work remotely sometimes and can't necessarily check on my monitors. And even when I do, I don't want to have to make radical adjustments because of huge differences in tuning. I want to trust my headphones completely. I appreciate the EQ suggestions. They sound pretty much like exactly what I want to remove some of the "fun" "low/mid bass", which should allow more of the upper mids / low treble / mid treble to cut through more. I didn't realise that the Meze Elites actually had some extra "air". It makes sense why I would have heard more of the "tone" of the metallic sounds of the cymbals on the Elites. I'll have to cut that too. This will change the signature quite dramatically, especially 2 - 3dBs. That's a huge difference...
Looking forward to round two!
EDIT:
I'd also say that I'm not used to the tuning of the LCD-5 more. I was just judging what emphasises the areas of the mix that I would consider most troublesome. I think this is why studio monitors are calibrated the way they are. The most important part of the mix to nail, is the mid range of the spectrum (200Hz - 5Khz). Where instruments are going to mask a lot is that mid range. This is why, I think, that even Meze's customer service very clearly told me that they don't make headphones for PRO Audio, but rather for audiophiles. Whereas Audeze makes it clear that they make the LCD-5 for pro audio as well as audiophiles, and encourage EQ to that end. In favour of the Audeze though, flat is easier to EQ. If you have bumps, or slightly more "erratic" curves, it makes it more difficult to EQ because you need more complex, and narrow, filters to be applied. From what I can see, the FR on the Elites are slightly more, "erratic", with a few very slight boosts with higher Q-values in the areas between 60Hz all the way to 2KHz. So, some manipulation of the energy here is required to get a more flat curve. That dip (caused by the boosts) in 1KHz - 2KHz is what needs to be resolved. How can one compare these two headphones when the FR has such drastic differences? That 1KHz - 2KHz dip in the Elites has a huge effect in the sound! That will quite literally translate as "less clarity" "less presence", in favour of more "mid bass". So, until those are more constant between the headphones, I don't think I can really pass much judgement. Both sound great though! That much is easy to conclude...
Last edited:
Yeah, great post! Unfortunately, graphs aren't always 100% accurate to judge sound with either as people have different head shapes which can influence how sound is perceived from person to person.
Based on your response, I honestly think you'd be fine mixing with either. I'll put it like Thai since I've owned/used a number of high end headphones over the past several months. If I had to choose three to use strictly for mixing, it'd be either the LCD-5, Meze elite, or the HD 800s as I found those to be closest to neutral that I've heard from a headphone (a close forth to the Dan Clark audio expanse).
I think for you it'll come down more to other factors. Which headphone you find more comfortable to use for hours at a time, which sound profile do you prefer from an enjoyment level, etc.
I can tell you the main reason I sold the LCD-5 is that I found them to be too uncomfortable for extended periods of time, even with using the new headband. I didn't realize it at first, but after using it for a couple months, the discomfort really became too evident to ignore, especially when comparing to the Meze Liric's that I had at the time.
So definitely keep that in mind as well if you're planning to be mixing for hours at a time with the headphones.
Crgreen
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2016
- Posts
- 665
- Likes
- 304
I’d say 150 to 200 hours.
sloomingbla
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Posts
- 784
- Likes
- 219
Anyone here have the chance to compare these to the Fostex th900s?
I'm currently running the Th900's and the Abyss 1266 TCs.
From what I've heard these don't compare in terms of detail to the TCs, but I am hoping to have a more fun, relaxed, and less analytical sound than the TCs provide. Currently, I lean on the th900s for that, as they have booming bass and lots of soul.
Was looking for an upgrade to the TH900s in terms of technical performance, detail retrieval, ect, while still hopefully retaining a fun and soulful sound. Something with elevated bass levels, a good soundstage, and "soul", and these seem to be one of the potential headphones to fit into that category.
I'm currently running the Th900's and the Abyss 1266 TCs.
From what I've heard these don't compare in terms of detail to the TCs, but I am hoping to have a more fun, relaxed, and less analytical sound than the TCs provide. Currently, I lean on the th900s for that, as they have booming bass and lots of soul.
Was looking for an upgrade to the TH900s in terms of technical performance, detail retrieval, ect, while still hopefully retaining a fun and soulful sound. Something with elevated bass levels, a good soundstage, and "soul", and these seem to be one of the potential headphones to fit into that category.
Last edited:
I think the Elites will happily fill that gap for you as the definitely have those qualities. Are you able to demo them anywhere?
Andrewteee
100+ Head-Fier
This describes the Elite. I would not describe them as "elevated bass levels" but they have good bass. Fun, musical or soulful is apt IME.
I used the Elites primarily for space/ambient/electronic music but they are starting to take over all genres. Part of that is simply a desire to simplify.
FooFighter
Headphoneus Supremus
You could also demo the T&A Solitaire P if you have the chance which get very close to TC bass tonality while being warmer.
Solitaire P are more subbass oriented while Elite is more midbass oriented.
Ultra wide pads on Solitaire P improve stage but reduce bass a little.
I am swapping between Elite and Solitaire P depending on my mood
IMO, the Elite strikes the perfect balance between being highly technical/analytical while still providing a great listening experience that you can simply enjoy. You may end up selling both headphones if you end up buying the Elite lol.
I have the exact opinion! Anything more "analytical" and you would lose that magic balance. Meze has really nailed that perfectly with the Elites.
Users who are viewing this thread
