[Phronesis]

For the past few days, I've been auditioning the LCD-4 as a possible upgrade of my LCD-3. I was pretty sure that I'd like the LCD-4 more, the only question was whether the difference would be enough to justify parting with the LCD-3 and spend more to get the LCD-4. Turns out that, while I find them to be very similar, I'm actually liking the LCD-3 a little more, which is a big surprise. I recalled that Tyll reviewed the LCD-4 and liked it a lot, but had some criticisms, so I went back to his review and found these statements:

"The LCD-4 is a clear improvement over previous LCD models both technically and musically with better clarity, and bass through mid-range control and evenness. Audeze LCD line fans will be tickled pink with the LCD-4. But the added clarity make all the more obvious to me that a notch in response between 4kHz and 8kHz, and elevated response above 10kHz throw off treble balance and cause cymbals and other high-frequency sounds less snappy and more breathy. At this price, I would steer others looking for an end-game headphone in the direction of the Sennheiser HD 800 S."

"... the LCD-4 to my ears does so well in the bass and mid-range run-up to this frequency that when it all of a sudden goes missing (it's about 8dB down from where it ought be) it begins to stick out like a sore thumb. I have to say that all my commentary on the bass and mid-range performance was burdened by having to evaluate while being very conscious of this missing octave. When I switched form the Sennheiser HD 800 S to the LCD-4 it was like someone draped cloth over my ears...sort of.
I say "sort of" because the treble has another problem: the energy above 10kHz is too strong. In past LCDs (of which most all have a similar response) the presence of this added top octave juice seemed to blend in a bit with the treble as a haze making the treble problems not as obvious to spot. But with the LCD-4, which is fundamentally cleaner, this extra energy is quite apparent and separate from the mid-treble notch. "

"I'll give you a couple examples of when I can hear these two problems clearly: When a drummer hits a cymbal right at the center with modest force, you hear a "tang" sound followed by the shimmer of the cymbal. The "tang" is at a lower frequency than the shimmer, and has a somewhat bell-like quality. With the LCD-4, the initial mid-treble "tang" is suppressed some, and the subsequent higher frequency shimmer is more accentuated. The result is a breathier, less melodic sound."​

This describes well the issue I have with the LCD-4 (and I concur with his thoughts on the HD800S), and it's basically the same issue that made me not want the Z1R, though for my ears the problem is much more pronounced with the Z1R. Here's how Tyll described it for the Z1R:

"The bass is a bit too strong and remains emphasized too far into the midrange giving it a thick character. A moderately withdrawn presence region adds some veil to the thick bass. A lack of energy 4-6kHz leaves cymbals lacking body, and a big peak at 10kHz add too much zing to everything and, while not piercing as would a 5kHz be, becomes significantly fatiguing over time."
​

I'm not convinced that I can pick which headphones I'll like most from looking at FR curves, but the general character of the FR curve may provide some indication. In my case, it seems that my ears and preference are very similar to Tyll's, and for me diminishing the presence region while boosting the highs beyond that produces an unnatural sound. For those who're in the same boat and don't like the Z1R, here's a list of closed-backs Tyll liked: https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/innerfidelitys-wall-fame-over-ear-sealed. Looks like I need to give Mr. Speakers a try.

 

[Redcarmoose]

I'm jumping back into this thread to share an observation which some may find interesting.

For the past few days, I've been auditioning the LCD-4 as a possible upgrade of my LCD-3. I was pretty sure that I'd like the LCD-4 more, the only question was whether the difference would be enough to justify parting with the LCD-3 and spend more to get the LCD-4. Turns out that, while I find them to be very similar, I'm actually liking the LCD-3 a little more, which is a big surprise. I recalled that Tyll reviewed the LCD-4 and liked it a lot, but had some criticisms, so I went back to his review and found these statements:

"... the LCD-4 to my ears does so well in the bass and mid-range run-up to this frequency that when it all of a sudden goes missing (it's about 8dB down from where it ought be) it begins to stick out like a sore thumb. I have to say that all my commentary on the bass and mid-range performance was burdened by having to evaluate while being very conscious of this missing octave. When I switched form the Sennheiser HD 800 S to the LCD-4 it was like someone draped cloth over my ears...sort of.
I say "sort of" because the treble has another problem: the energy above 10kHz is too strong. In past LCDs (of which most all have a similar response) the presence of this added top octave juice seemed to blend in a bit with the treble as a haze making the treble problems not as obvious to spot. But with the LCD-4, which is fundamentally cleaner, this extra energy is quite apparent and separate from the mid-treble notch. "

"I'll give you a couple examples of when I can hear these two problems clearly: When a drummer hits a cymbal right at the center with modest force, you hear a "tang" sound followed by the shimmer of the cymbal. The "tang" is at a lower frequency than the shimmer, and has a somewhat bell-like quality. With the LCD-4, the initial mid-treble "tang" is suppressed some, and the subsequent higher frequency shimmer is more accentuated. The result is a breathier, less melodic sound."​

"The LCD-4 is a clear improvement over previous LCD models both technically and musically with better clarity, and bass through mid-range control and evenness. Audeze LCD line fans will be tickled pink with the LCD-4. But the added clarity make all the more obvious to me that a notch in response between 4kHz and 8kHz, and elevated response above 10kHz throw off treble balance and cause cymbals and other high-frequency sounds less snappy and more breathy. At this price, I would steer others looking for an end-game headphone in the direction of the Sennheiser HD 800 S."
​

This describes well the issue I have with the LCD-4 (and I concur with his thoughts on the HD800S), and it's basically the same issue that made me not want the Z1R, though for my ears the problem is much more pronounced with the Z1R. Here's how Tyll described it for the Z1R:

"The bass is a bit too strong and remains emphasized too far into the midrange giving it a thick character. A moderately withdrawn presence region adds some veil to the thick bass. A lack of energy 4-6kHz leaves cymbals lacking body, and a big peak at 10kHz add too much zing to everything and, while not piercing as would a 5kHz be, becomes significantly fatiguing over time."
​

I'm not convinced that I can pick which headphones I'll like most from looking at FR curves, but the general character of the FR curve may provide some indication. In my case, it seems that my ears and preference are very similar to Tyll's, and for me diminishing the presence region while boosting the highs beyond that produces an unnatural sound. For those who're in the same boat and don't like the Z1R, here's a list of closed-backs Tyll liked: https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/innerfidelitys-wall-fame-over-ear-sealed. Looks like I need to give Mr. Speakers a try.

For me anyway.......FR curves only helped me futher understand what aspects of a headphone I liked or had slight issue with. Like if you think there is a slight issue in a place, the graph will conferm your suspicions. Though at times they can make a person curious as to what a headphone sounds like.

I think the rule is that we are not suppose to look for headphones by looking at curves. Also as you may know, people will actually hear what they think the curve sounds like after seeing the curve. This has happened when in fact the curve was a bad example and not correctly measured from the start.

To keep this on subject, going to a Head-Fi meet is where you really see and hear how different everyone’s listening preferences are. The guy with the Stax gear will roll his eyes at the other stuff because in his mind it’s sounding wrong. But...................there is no right or wrong in this hobby. If someone likes the Z1R it’s subjective. No one group is correct.

But the choice of headphone is way more complicated than it appears. Why? Because it’s in the details. The details not for the headphones always. Sometimes it’s the small issues with the headphones; but when you notice super different opinions about a headphone at times it’s because they respond different from different systems. Different amps and sources are going to affect the sound. That’s why I really look at whole systems.

 

[Bern2]

I'm jumping back into this thread to share an observation which some may find interesting.

In my case, it seems that my ears and preference are very similar to Tyll's, and for me diminishing the presence region while boosting the highs beyond that produces an unnatural sound. For those who're in the same boat and don't like the Z1R, here's a list of closed-backs Tyll liked: https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/innerfidelitys-wall-fame-over-ear-sealed. Looks like I need to give Mr. Speakers a try.

It's not about what Tyll likes...it's about what YOU like. Tyll should have just never reviewed the Z1R if he didn't like it. (my opinion). That was usually his custom. And the conflicting freq response between his pair and Judes never did seem to get resolved. Or maybe I just missed it.

Bern

 

[Phronesis]

For me anyway.......FR curves only helped me futher understand what aspects of a headphone I liked or had slight issue with. Though at times they can make a person curious as to what a headphone sounds like.

I think the rule is that we are not suppose to look for headphones by looking at curves. Also as you may know, people will actually hear what they think the curve sounds like after seeing the curve. This has happened when in fact the curve was a bad example and not correctly measured from the start.

I don't really trust the specifics of the FR curves because of variances in how measurements are made and how variances in ear acoustics are accounted for. So I look at FR a bit more qualitatively, like the shape of the bass region and how it extends into mids, whether the presence region is accented or diminished, what happens to the highs beyond that, etc.

Generally, I think I fall in the category of preferring a relatively 'neutral' sound (though not easy to define that with headphones), with openness to small variations from neutrality to impart some tonal personality. That's why I can like headphones as diverse as the LCD-3, HD800S, Clear, and 99 Classics. But it seems that there are some specific variations from neutral which don't work for me, and the Z1R falls in the category, and the apparent significant non-neutrality of the Z1R may be why it seems to be a somewhat polarizing headphone.

Interesting though that the HD800S is generally considered to be pretty neutral, yet some people really dislike it (I hesitated to try it for that reason, but turns out that I love it - I don't find it to sound thin, or too bright or too analytical). So maybe some people - maybe a minority - have a strong preference for distinct and significantly non-neutral signatures.

 

[Phronesis]

It's not about what Tyll likes...it's about what YOU like. Tyll should have just never reviewed the Z1R if he didn't like it. (my opinion). That was usually his custom. And the conflicting freq response between his pair and Judes never did seem to get resolved. Or maybe I just missed it.

Bern

Except that it turns out that my preferences closely match Tyll's, so he's a great proxy for predicting what I'll like. And so his negative review of the Z1R has value for me and others who share his preference. But certainly, we should all be wary of giving much weight to the impressions of any reviewer unless we know that our preferences align with the reviewer. It can work the other way too: if our listening impression haven't matched a reviewer in the past and he posts a negative review of a headphone, there would be reason to expect that we might still like the headphone.

Another aspect to consider is the comparative reference frame for evaluating a headphone. I'm sure many here have had the experience, like me, of thinking that a headphone sounds good, then comparing with another headphone and discovering how much better the sound can be. In addition to listening impressions being subjective, they're also somewhat relative rather than absolute.

 

[Redcarmoose]

I don't really trust the specifics of the FR curves because of variances in how measurements are made and how variances in ear acoustics are accounted for. So I look at FR a bit more qualitatively, like the shape of the bass region and how it extends into mids, whether the presence region is accented or diminished, what happens to the highs beyond that, etc.

Generally, I think I fall in the category of preferring a relatively 'neutral' sound (though not easy to define that with headphones), with openness to small variations from neutrality to impart some tonal personality. That's why I can like headphones as diverse as the LCD-3, HD800S, Clear, and 99 Classics. But it seems that there are some specific variations from neutral which don't work for me, and the Z1R falls in the category, and the apparent significant non-neutrality of the Z1R may be why it seems to be a somewhat polarizing headphone.

Interesting though that the HD800S is generally considered to be pretty neutral, yet some people really dislike it (I hesitated to try it for that reason, but turns out that I love it - I don't find it to sound thin, or too bright or too analytical). So maybe some people - maybe a minority - have a strong preference for distinct and significant non-neutral signatures.

I added more to the past post:


“To keep this on subject, going to a Head-Fi meet is where you really see and hear how different everyone’s listening preferences are. The guy with the Stax gear will roll his eyes at the other stuff because in his mind it’s sounding wrong. But...................there is no right or wrong in this hobby. If someone likes the Z1R it’s subjective. No one group is correct.

But the choice of headphone is way more complicated than it appears. Why? Because it’s in the details. The details not for the headphones always. Sometimes it’s the small issues with the headphones; but when you notice super different opinions about a headphone at times it’s because they respond different from different systems. Different amps and sources are going to affect the sound. That’s why I really look at whole systems.”


But back to graphs. I’m starting to realize it’s also................how is the response of the headphone in relation to itself. At first this idea sounds simplistic, but there is much more to it. A graph is supposed to show how the headphone responds to itself and the entire frequency response in relation to someone’s idea of flat. But the over all balance (if it can truly be ascertained?) from a graph is hard to see. That’s why every headphone needs to be thought of as it’s own thing. IMO

 

[Phronesis]

But back to graphs. I’m starting to realize it also................how is the response of the headphone in relation to itself. At first this idea sounds simplistic. But there is much more to it. A graph is supposed to show how the headphone responds to itself and the entire frequency response in relation to someone’s idea of flat. But the over all balance (if it can truly be ascertained?) from a graph is hard to see. That’s why every headphone needs to be thought of as it’s own thing. IMO

Not sure I follow what you're saying here, but one point to consider along these lines is the tactile dimension of the sound, since headphones have to try to compensate for our not feeling bass through vibrations of our bodies, and there are variations among headphones in this regard.

The starkest contrast in my collection is between the LCD-3 and HD800S. The LCD-3 is heavy, the big pads clamp on the head fairly firmly, and the big drivers generate a lot of bass energy, so the lows are transmitted partly through vibration of the head and thereby felt rather than only heard. By contrast, the HD800S is light, and the pads exert little pressure, so the bass is hardly felt. My initial impression when switching quickly from the LCD-3 to the HD800S is lack of bass, but after 1+ minutes the bass from the HD800S reappears and doesn't seem lacking.

With a closed-back like the Z1R, of course the acoustics are different, and it's not difficult to produce a sensation of strong bass.

I don't know if anyone has tried it, but it would be interesting to combine headphones with a subwoofer in the room.

 

[Redcarmoose]

Not sure I follow what you're saying here, but one point to consider along these lines is the tactile dimension of the sound, since headphones have to try to compensate for our not feeling bass through vibrations of our bodies, and there are variations among headphones in this regard.

The starkest contrast in my collection is between the LCD-3 and HD800S. The LCD-3 is heavy, the big pads clamp on the head fairly firmly, and the big drivers generate a lot of bass energy, so the lows are transmitted partly through vibration of the head and thereby felt rather than only heard. By contrast, the HD800S is light, and the pads exert little pressure, so the bass is hardly felt. My initial impression when switching quickly from the LCD-3 to the HD800S is lack of bass, but after 1+ minutes the bass from the HD800S reappears and doesn't seem lacking.

With a closed-back like the Z1R, of course the acoustics are different, and it's not difficult to produce a sensation of strong bass.

I don't know if anyone has tried it, but it would be interesting to combine headphones with a subwoofer in the room.

The inventer of the AKG k701 and AKG K1000 uses a sub with his headphones.

Basically what I was saying is every headphones needs to be judged on it’s own account, thus graphs can be somewhat pointless. Graphs don’t actually show the different sonic changes by upstream gear causing a headphone to be a keeper or a loser in the end.

Also just be aware people’s ideas of what they like are not actually consistent. They can be consistent but can also vary depending on music listened to and personal musical trends. They can shift throughout the year to a degree.

 

[Phronesis]

Also just be aware people’s ideas of what they like are not actually consistent. They can be consistent but can also vary depending on music listened to and personal musical trends. They can shift throughout the year to a degree.

For sure. My preferences change somewhat with mood, how I slept, sinus congestion, how long I've been listening to music during the day, genre, the particular recording, how I direct my attention while listening, etc. This variability provides a good excuse for having multiple headphones!

 

[Redcarmoose]

Not sure I follow what you're saying here, but one point to consider along these lines is the tactile dimension of the sound, since headphones have to try to compensate for our not feeling bass through vibrations of our bodies, and there are variations among headphones in this regard.

The starkest contrast in my collection is between the LCD-3 and HD800S. The LCD-3 is heavy, the big pads clamp on the head fairly firmly, and the big drivers generate a lot of bass energy, so the lows are transmitted partly through vibration of the head and thereby felt rather than only heard. By contrast, the HD800S is light, and the pads exert little pressure, so the bass is hardly felt. My initial impression when switching quickly from the LCD-3 to the HD800S is lack of bass, but after 1+ minutes the bass from the HD800S reappears and doesn't seem lacking.

With a closed-back like the Z1R, of course the acoustics are different, and it's not difficult to produce a sensation of strong bass.

I don't know if anyone has tried it, but it would be interesting to combine headphones with a subwoofer in the room.

Also take note the Z1R doesn’t act like a closed back in ways. Same as the Fostex line can be thought of as semi closed or semi open. The idea of closed back now can have multiple vents. Z7 has vents Z7 MK2 has more vents, and the paper material and mesh screen has a way to not create reverberation/resonance like a closed-back. That’s why the Z1R is different.

 

[up late]

I don't really trust the specifics of the FR curves because of variances in how measurements are made and how variances in ear acoustics are accounted for. So I look at FR a bit more qualitatively, like the shape of the bass region and how it extends into mids, whether the presence region is accented or diminished, what happens to the highs beyond that, etc.

Generally, I think I fall in the category of preferring a relatively 'neutral' sound (though not easy to define that with headphones), with openness to small variations from neutrality to impart some tonal personality. That's why I can like headphones as diverse as the LCD-3, HD800S, Clear, and 99 Classics. But it seems that there are some specific variations from neutral which don't work for me, and the Z1R falls in the category, and the apparent significant non-neutrality of the Z1R may be why it seems to be a somewhat polarizing headphone.

Interesting though that the HD800S is generally considered to be pretty neutral, yet some people really dislike it (I hesitated to try it for that reason, but turns out that I love it - I don't find it to sound thin, or too bright or too analytical). So maybe some people - maybe a minority - have a strong preference for distinct and significantly non-neutral signatures.

i can't think of many headphones that aren't polarising, if the forum threads are anything to go by. i didn't dislike the hd800s and preferred it to the hd800, but i liked the utopia more. it too has a relatively even fr according to tyll's measurements, which some may regard as "pretty neutral". it's apparent to me at least, that there are people who prefer a "fun" sound signature (so called), but i'd be reluctant to speculate on whether they are in the minority. there are lots of people wearing beats headphones, for example. speaking for myself, i have headphones with v-shaped, n-shaped and relatively flat frequency responses, and i enjoy them all. the variety of headphones on offer is part of the fun of this hobby for me, and i am yet to encounter two headphone models from different manufacturers that sound the same.

as i wrote in an earlier reply to one of your posts, while i can relate to tyll's review and fr measurements of the z1r (noting that the 10khz peak has been a point of contention), i still liked it regardless. i intend to give it another audition this week actually.

 

[Phronesis]

it's apparent to me at least, that there are people who prefer a "fun" sound signature (so called), but i'd be reluctant to speculate on whether they are in the minority. there are lots of people wearing beats headphones, for example. speaking for myself, i have headphones with v-shaped, n-shaped and relatively flat frequency responses, and i enjoy them all. the variety of headphones on offer is part of the fun of this hobby for me, and i am yet to encounter two headphone models from different manufacturers that sound the same.

as i wrote in an earlier reply to one of your posts, while i can relate to tyll's review and fr measurements of the z1r (noting that the 10khz peak has been a point of contention), i still liked it regardless. i intend to give it another audition this week, actually.

I'm willing to say that the vast majority of headphones, including relatively cheap ones, sound "good" in the sense that a non-picky listener, who's focused on music rather than sound quality, can enjoy music with them. Combining that with the cool factor probably explains headphones like Beats being popular. But when we start focusing on sound quality, being picky about it, and comparing headphones, the differences in sound quality and signatures become more noticeable, and that's where I think the research shows that a relatively 'neutral' signature is preferred by the majority of listeners. Here are some links:

https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.4984044

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2017/02/twirt-337-predicting-headphone-sound_17.html

https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/price-sound-quality-headphones

https://www.innerfidelity.com/conte...headphone-frequency-response-and-retail-price

https://www.listeninc.com/wp/media/Perception_and_-Measurement_of_Headphones_Sean_Olive.pdf

I don't think this excludes the possibility of a minority of listeners having atypical ear acoustics and/or preferring a substantially non-neutral signature.