[Slim1970]

Burson power!

Nice, I‘m a fan of the Burson sound.

 

[alexlevn0791]

Hi guys! I am looking into the Quad as my first planar. I have tried the Audeze line-up but none has so far been up to my liking (not to mention I am not at all a fan of ginormous headphones--comfort is a must). Reading through the thread, but just wondering if anyone could chime in about the general sound quality of the Quad. How are the bass and resolution? My reference points are Focal Elegia which comes with fantastic mids and clarity and Beyerdynamic cans with great trebles and soundstage. Many thanks!

 

[mobbaddict]

Hi guys! I am looking into the Quad as my first planar. I have tried the Audeze line-up but none has so far been up to my liking (not to mention I am not at all a fan of ginormous headphones--comfort is a must). Reading through the thread, but just wondering if anyone could chime in about the general sound quality of the Quad. How are the bass and resolution? My reference points are Focal Elegia which comes with fantastic mids and clarity and Beyerdynamic cans with great trebles and soundstage. Many thanks!

Hi! Have you tried the LDC2 and the LCD4? Personally I have prior to buying the Quad, and I was looking a lighter/cheaper/easier to drive version of those headphones. Not saying that the Quad sounds exactly like them, I would say it's brighter and probably a bit sharper/faster than the LCD2 (I put the Quad about on the same technical level as my Stax Lambda Nova Signature).

The LCD4 I heard it very briefly but I found it mighty impressive. It seems to me that the Quad is not so far technically and that it has the same kind of signature (sweet mids and polite response overall). But this is all from memory so take it with a pinch of salt.

The bass goes super deep on the Quad, as with most planar drivers, but I wouldn't say it's for bassheads specifically. I know some people here consider it to be on the heavy side of bass but with the velour pads it sounds about right to me. For the record I'm comparing it with bass-light headphones (the Stax and the HD600).

Same for the mids which sounds pretty accurate (maybe a tad forward in the upper mids) and not recessed at all. Treble is slightly forward maybe but never agressive. If you like Beyer and Focal you migtht be happy with it. It's not as bright (thank god) but it's a good compromise in terms of brightness.

There are so many options on the market today in terms of competitive planar headphones so unless you've heard them all, it's difficult to really say if this is the best buy under $1,000. Some people said that when it was launched. It's still probably one of the best buys I would say, and one you can't go wrong with, assuming you like the sound signature.

I think it's difficult to compare with dynamic headphones since people have different views on that. Personnally most of the high end dynamic headphones I heard didn't sound natural to my ears (that includes the Utopia, HD800, Ultrasone Edition 12), most of the time it's like they try so hard to make details scream at your ears (as opposed to typical planar/electrostat polite response). But some people obviously like that and maybe that's your case. Anyway, food for thoughts

 

[Arcamera]

It's funny, I own the LCD4, and some other high-end cans, but I still wouldn't give up my Quad. I just think it's a great product.

 

[mobbaddict]

It's funny, I own the LCD4, and some other high-end cans, but I still wouldn't give up my Quad. I just think it's a great product.

Do you find them similar? I do but like I said it's a distant memory...

 

[Chris Kaoss]

Sounds great.
Wished i'd be able to make a comparison myself with such high-end headphone like Lcd 4. ^^
But i think it's gonna be a hard, enjoyable fight.

 

[bagwell359]

The LCD-4 is a classic, but the list price is ~4-5x of the Quad. LCD-4 pretty much crushes everything in the $700-1200 range.

Haven't heard the Quad yet, but read every comment/review since they came out, and that along with my time with the sister can: Alara would lead me to think its not at all similar to the LCD-2 (any of the 2 versions I know). I'd think the Quad is closer to the Clear, and perhaps a more intimate version of the Arya, and a more subtle/linear Ananda.

 

[Arcamera]

Do you find them similar? I do but like I said it's a distant memory...

Roughly in the same ballpark, you could say. The LCD4 is great, but still not perfect. It's harder to drive, and can be a little too polite sounding up top, and not imaging kings. And heavy. But still great detail, low distortion, bass, midrange, beautiful materials etc. The Quad has a certain precision, while still being easy to listen to, relaxed. (I've got the velour pads on at the moment). That's how I'd say the 4 and the ERA-1 are comparable: satisfying amounts of detail, yet still easy to listen to, a bit of a relaxed presentation. (I take the treble down just a notch though on the Quad, for my tastes).

 

[ParaLoganGrado]

Hi! Have you tried the LDC2 and the LCD4? Personally I have prior to buying the Quad, and I was looking a lighter/cheaper/easier to drive version of those headphones. Not saying that the Quad sounds exactly like them, I would say it's brighter and probably a bit sharper/faster than the LCD2 (I put the Quad about on the same technical level as my Stax Lambda Nova Signature).

The LCD4 I heard it very briefly but I found it mighty impressive. It seems to me that the Quad is not so far technically and that it has the same kind of signature (sweet mids and polite response overall). But this is all from memory so take it with a pinch of salt.

The bass goes super deep on the Quad, as with most planar drivers, but I wouldn't say it's for bassheads specifically. I know some people here consider it to be on the heavy side of bass but with the velour pads it sounds about right to me. For the record I'm comparing it with bass-light headphones (the Stax and the HD600).

Same for the mids which sounds pretty accurate (maybe a tad forward in the upper mids) and not recessed at all. Treble is slightly forward maybe but never agressive. If you like Beyer and Focal you migtht be happy with it. It's not as bright (thank god) but it's a good compromise in terms of brightness.

There are so many options on the market today in terms of competitive planar headphones so unless you've heard them all, it's difficult to really say if this is the best buy under $1,000. Some people said that when it was launched. It's still probably one of the best buys I would say, and one you can't go wrong with, assuming you like the sound signature.

I think it's difficult to compare with dynamic headphones since people have different views on that. Personnally most of the high end dynamic headphones I heard didn't sound natural to my ears (that includes the Utopia, HD800, Ultrasone Edition 12), most of the time it's like they try so hard to make details scream at your ears (as opposed to typical planar/electrostat polite response). But some people obviously like that and maybe that's your case. Anyway, food for thoughts

I can tell you are obviously not regretting your purchase

I remember you and I talking about these maybe 10-15 pages back right before you bought them and I was strongly considering them myself. Well they are almost impossible to find on the used market in the US as of late, and I couldn't spring for full price (haven't run into a sale on them since I started looking..) I ended up with a pair of LCD-2 closed back for my planar needs. I needed (well, WANTED) closed back since my whole family is home / not working while I am, so need isolation! I got them used for more than 400 USD off retail in great shape and am just putting them through the paces, but still wish I could end up with a pair of these some day!

 

[mobbaddict]

I can tell you are obviously not regretting your purchase

I remember you and I talking about these maybe 5-10 pages back right before you bought them and I was strongly considering them myself. Well they are almost impossible to find on the used market in the US as of late, and I couldn't spring for full price (haven't run into a sale on them since I started looking..) I ended up with a pair of LCD-2 closed back for my planar needs. I needed (well, WANTED) closed back since my whole family is home / not working while I am, so need isolation! I got them used for more than 400 USD off retail in great shape and am just putting them through the paces, but still wish I could end up with a pair of these some day!

I'm not regretting it, indeed! Took me a while to be fully satisfied with the Quad though.

If the LCD2 CB is anywhere as good as the open version, it must be very good too! I remember when i heard it a few years ago I was thinking it would be me first choice under $1000. I mainly bought the Quad for practical reasons (weight and amping). And also hoping to get closer to LCD4 technical level (thanks bagwell and Arcamera for the comparisons!).

 

[ParaLoganGrado]

I'm not regretting it, indeed! Took me a while to be fully satisfied with the Quad though.

I have the same problem with new phones EVERY time. It usually goes like this:

1. Find a pair I'm interested and read, read, read. Balance the obvious over-the-top-praise vs. fringe cases of something went really wrong vs. general overall impressions.
2. Search for a month or two for a used pair in good condition for good price.
3. Get them and be super excited
4. Find some things that don't meld with my expectations / differ (to me) from the mostly glowing reviews or sound impressions
5. Keep listening to justify my purchase and end up finding parts I really like that I didn't expect
6. Suddenly realize (again..) that everyone has different tastes, preferences, and ears. And that ear/brain burn-in is WAY more significant than equipment burn-in

There have been very few audio products -- headphone related or hifi -- that immediately wowed me. I have to keep reminding myself that it's going to be different, and that usually stuff that is good across the board immediately is just "jack of all trades, master of none". I know there are some people that have found that one piece of equipment, or an entire chain that works perfectly for them with no complaints but I can't see myself ever finding that. Because to me, if something is completely objectively neutral and adds nothing to the recording (supposedly what the goal of audio equipment really is) then it's going to sound bad with poorly recorded material, or might sound harsh with certain types of rock or metal with loud distorted guitars. So then, if your goal is to find a piece of equipment that is forgiving and plays well with lots of musical styles, it's probably not "objectively" pure meaning it has some coloration. Whether that coloration is taming mids or highs that might be harsh. Or adding some bass for punch and liveliness. And when you get to THAT point, you realize that we all have subjective preferences and basing purchases of others' reviews is probably going to differ with your own

Thanks for coming to my TED talk

 

[mobbaddict]

I have the same problem with new phones EVERY time. It usually goes like this:

1. Find a pair I'm interested and read, read, read. Balance the obvious over-the-top-praise vs. fringe cases of something went really wrong vs. general overall impressions.
2. Search for a month or two for a used pair in good condition for good price.
3. Get them and be super excited
4. Find some things that don't meld with my expectations / differ (to me) from the mostly glowing reviews or sound impressions
5. Keep listening to justify my purchase and end up finding parts I really like that I didn't expect
6. Suddenly realize (again..) that everyone has different tastes, preferences, and ears. And that ear/brain burn-in is WAY more significant than equipment burn-in

There have been very few audio products -- headphone related or hifi -- that immediately wowed me. I have to keep reminding myself that it's going to be different, and that usually stuff that is good across the board immediately is just "jack of all trades, master of none". I know there are some people that have found that one piece of equipment, or an entire chain that works perfectly for them with no complaints but I can't see myself ever finding that. Because to me, if something is completely objectively neutral and adds nothing to the recording (supposedly what the goal of audio equipment really is) then it's going to sound bad with poorly recorded material, or might sound harsh with certain types of rock or metal with loud distorted guitars. So then, if your goal is to find a piece of equipment that is forgiving and plays well with lots of musical styles, it's probably not "objectively" pure meaning it has some coloration. Whether that coloration is taming mids or highs that might be harsh. Or adding some bass for punch and liveliness. And when you get to THAT point, you realize that we all have subjective preferences and basing purchases of others' reviews is probably going to differ with your own

Thanks for coming to my TED talk

Haha I have a pretty similar (exhausting) process to purchase new gear. Except for part 6. I don't believe at all in brain burn in. I try to listen to headphones as if it was the first time I auditioned them. Honestly if I heard the Quad for the first time in the same conditions as I use it these days, I don't see how I couldn't be impressed. Maybe not exactly LCD4-level impressed but probably not that far.

I'm pretty convinced the Quad went through a real burn in process as I initially found its timbre very so-so. Also at some point I convinced myself that the leather pads sounded better but realized weeks later that they were harming transparency/resolution with resonances. Then finally got a proper desktop amp with the K5 pro (not a big difference versus a simple E5 but still, better to have it).

Regarding neutrality, I don't necessarily agree. I bought the HD600 after getting the Quad just to have a good benchmark for timbre and neutrality (I think we can agree that the HD600 is widely accepted as a good reference for that) and it is both a jack of all trades and a master of none (to paraphrase you), but that's what makes it sound great with pretty much anything to my ears! Even bright pop or electronic music. Maybe not great with everything but always enjoyable at least. Music is usually not mastered using Beats headphones but rather with neutral monitoring gear, so I don't see why the final product should always sound bad on a well balanced headphone? Which is typically a bit more forgiving than reference gear. The Quad for instance is a bit bright but quite forgiving as well which was a great concern for me. On a sidenote, the only headphone that completely blew my mind on the first listening was the Abyss.

 

[ParaLoganGrado]

Haha I have a pretty similar (exhausting) process to purchase new gear. Except for part 6. I don't believe at all in brain burn in. I try to listen to headphones as if it was the first time I auditioned them. Honestly if I heard the Quad for the first time in the same conditions as I use it these days, I don't see how I couldn't be impressed. Maybe not exactly LCD4-level impressed but probably not that far.

I'm pretty convinced the Quad went through a real burn in process as I initially found its timbre very so-so. Also at some point I convinced myself that the leather pads sounded better but realized weeks later that they were harming transparency/resolution with resonances. Then finally got a proper desktop amp with the K5 pro (not a big difference versus a simple E5 but still, better to have it).

Regarding neutrality, I don't necessarily agree. I bought the HD600 after getting the Quad just to have a good benchmark for timbre and neutrality (I think we can agree that the HD600 is widely accepted as a good reference for that) and it is both a jack of all trades and a master of none (to paraphrase you), but that's what makes it sound great with pretty much anything to my ears! Even bright pop or electronic music. Maybe not great with everything but always enjoyable at least. Music is usually not mastered using Beats headphones but rather with neutral monitoring gear, so I don't see why the final product should always sound bad on a well balanced headphone? Which is typically a bit more forgiving than reference gear. The Quad for instance is a bit bright but quite forgiving as well which was a great concern for me. On a sidenote, the only headphone that completely blew my mind on the first listening was the Abyss.

Good points! Sorry, didn't intend to derail this thread, I promise!

But regarding the "brain burn-in" -- it's definitely a thing for me for anything other than a pair of <$50 big-box store ear buds. With those, I've got not problems putting them in and listening to whatever I'm in the mood for because I don't have high expectations for them. Just use them as a tool to convert electrical signals to physical sound waves. But those rarely will grab you by the balls with excitement. With cans that cost more than a few hundred USD, I expect SOMETHING to impress. Whether that's a huge, realistic soundstage for immersion, or a fun U-shaped frequency response while still having details to engage you, or something super flat and acting just as a conduit to the studio where the band is recording the album.

The HD600 and 650 (yet to try any 660s) are good across the board, but I just thought they were mostly "boring". I'm sure if I spent the time to listen to them long enough like I've done with my other relatively more costly purchases, I'd grow to like them. But having heard the 600 & 650 they seemed a bit dull to me and never got excited about them enough to purchase even though they don't really do anything wrong.

 

[mobbaddict]

Good points! Sorry, didn't intend to derail this thread, I promise!

But regarding the "brain burn-in" -- it's definitely a thing for me for anything other than a pair of <$50 big-box store ear buds. With those, I've got not problems putting them in and listening to whatever I'm in the mood for because I don't have high expectations for them. Just use them as a tool to convert electrical signals to physical sound waves. But those rarely will grab you by the balls with excitement. With cans that cost more than a few hundred USD, I expect SOMETHING to impress. Whether that's a huge, realistic soundstage for immersion, or a fun U-shaped frequency response while still having details to engage you, or something super flat and acting just as a conduit to the studio where the band is recording the album.

The HD600 and 650 (yet to try any 660s) are good across the board, but I just thought they were mostly "boring". I'm sure if I spent the time to listen to them long enough like I've done with my other relatively more costly purchases, I'd grow to like them. But having heard the 600 & 650 they seemed a bit dull to me and never got excited about them enough to purchase even though they don't really do anything wrong.

Where I can agree is that if you only have one headphone as a point of reference, it's easy to get accustomed to this headphone's flaws and to forgive them. Especially if you have spent a lot of money in this headphone. But personally I try to remain extremely critical with my purchases. If eventually I stop nitpicking and start enjoying the music instead of the headphone, it means it's a really good headphone...

 

[Beagle]

Hi guys! I am looking into the Quad as my first planar. I have tried the Audeze line-up but none has so far been up to my liking (not to mention I am not at all a fan of ginormous headphones--comfort is a must). Reading through the thread, but just wondering if anyone could chime in about the general sound quality of the Quad. How are the bass and resolution? My reference points are Focal Elegia which comes with fantastic mids and clarity and Beyerdynamic cans with great trebles and soundstage. Many thanks!

You might find the QUAD a bit dull and laid back.