[Somatic]

If you don't go 300B or 45, get the Evo. If you want 300B, Cabernet is tremendous. And do grab Elrogs. Trust me.

Just curious, how long do the Elrogs last with an average of 5 hours of listening a day? Thanks.

Edit: I don't know if its your avatar or what, but I am inclined to blindly follow your advice.

 

[ColSaulTigh]

Just curious, how long do the Elrogs last with an average of 5 hours of listening a day? Thanks.

Edit: I don't know if its your avatar or what, but I am inclined to blindly follow your advice.

With proper care and feeding - 10,000+ hours.

 

[paradoxper]

Just curious, how long do the Elrogs last with an average of 5 hours of listening a day? Thanks.

Edit: I don't know if its your avatar or what, but I am inclined to blindly follow your advice.

Follow us in the 300B thread.

I could tell you on a whim your whole life but it's more realistic 3-5 years of pure bliss.

 

[Somatic]

Adding this in the Atrium thread as well:

Hmmm, seems like no one on either thread has compared LCD5 and Atriums.

I used to own the LCD5s. Very good cans. I just didn’t want to EQ all the time and in stock form I found the mid tange to have too much energy for my taste.

The slam I would get on the LCD5 has not been reached with any other headphone. Very good realism for drums. Excellent cans for hip hop and very exciting for rock.

I own the Atriums now. From memory they seem to have a larger soundstage. Wider at least but not by much. Atrium’s also have a forward midrange but not pronounced as the LCD5. Atrium’s midrange sound sweeter and more emotive than LCD5. Atrium does have slam and punch but not as much. Also not as precise. In the treble region, Atriums are a bit brighter than the LCD5.

LCD5 have more overall resolution. Although LCD5 excels in technicalities. I feel the Atrium has great transparency, tonal balance, great overall tuning. Very emotive and engaging with excellent reverb/decay.

I am happy with the Atriums as they are very addictive but I can see anyone liking one or the other. These cans have similarities so I find it odd no one has compared them even in passing.

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

Adding this in the Atrium thread as well:

Hmmm, seems like no one on either thread has compared LCD5 and Atriums.

I used to own the LCD5s. Very good cans. I just didn’t want to EQ all the time and in stock form I found the mid tange to have too much energy for my taste.

The slam I would get on the LCD5 has not been reached with any other headphone. Very good realism for drums. Excellent cans for hip hop and very exciting for rock.

I own the Atriums now. From memory they seem to have a larger soundstage. Wider at least but not by much. Atrium’s also have a forward midrange but not pronounced as the LCD5. Atrium’s midrange sound sweeter and more emotive than LCD5. Atrium does have slam and punch but not as much. Also not as precise. In the treble region, Atriums are a bit brighter than the LCD5.

LCD5 have more overall resolution. Although LCD5 excels in technicalities. I feel the Atrium has great transparency, tonal balance, great overall tuning. Very emotive and engaging with excellent reverb/decay.

I am happy with the Atriums as they are very addictive but I can see anyone liking one or the other. These cans have similarities so I find it odd no one has compared them even in passing.

To add to that, it’s weird that you call the LCD 5 more technically proficient, but compared it Equalized to the stock tuning of the Atrium. Just for the record, that’s not exactly apples to apples anymore. I know many people who are very disappointed with the 5.

Of course everyone has different opinions on this, but I would not spend $4500 on a headphone that REQUIRES EQ to sound right. I will never understand Audeze and their plug-ins and EQ profiles. If I’m spending that much money, why can’t they tune their headphones better?

The Atrium sounded phenomenal to me right out of the box. And it still sounds phenomenal to me today. I don’t have to EQ diddly squat. And they cost almost half as much as the 5.

Zach > entire Audeze team

 

[gonintendo]

To add to that, it’s weird that you call the LCD 5 more technically proficient, but compared it Equalized to the stock tuning of the Atrium. Just for the record, that’s not exactly apples to apples anymore. I know many people who are very disappointed with the 5.

Of course everyone has different opinions on this, but I would not spend $4500 on a headphone that REQUIRES EQ to sound right. I will never understand Audeze and their plug-ins and EQ profiles. If I’m spending that much money, why can’t they tune their headphones better?

The Atrium sounded phenomenal to me right out of the box. And it still sounds phenomenal to me today. I don’t have to EQ diddly squat. And they cost almost half as much as the 5.

Zach > entire Audeze team

Audiophile terms are weird but "technical" often means all perceived aspects other than frequency response (even if some of these aspects do show up in FR in various ways). ZMFs IMO are great because Zach is so good at balancing tuning to an enjoyable FR target with allowing a driver to be as technical as it can. Audeze often skews a bit more towards favoring technicalities with their cans. Some people (myself included) like the way many of their cans sound without EQ, but it's also very easy to improve their sound with a small amount of EQ without sacrificing any of the technicalities. I'm not an Audeze employee so I obviously don't know this for sure, but I would bet that any attempts they made to further clean up the FR on the LCD-5 caused some degradation of its technical ability that they deemed unacceptable. This is just going off of how they've talked about their philosophy around tuning in the past. It's an opinion around design that they're fairly upfront about. As to their plugins, I think it actually takes a lot of confidence in your engineering to say "we built this product within a certain set of physical constraints, but we'll give you a tool to further improve how they sound if you choose to use it." I'm glad I have access to Audeze and ZMF cans as they do different things and I enjoy each of them in different ways (and I honestly think ZMF and Audeze are more alike than different in the audio world)

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

Audiophile terms are weird but "technical" often means all perceived aspects other than frequency response (even if some of these aspects do show up in FR in various ways). ZMFs IMO are great because Zach is so good at balancing tuning to an enjoyable FR target with allowing a driver to be as technical as it can. Audeze often skews a bit more towards favoring technicalities with their cans. Some people (myself included) like the way many of their cans sound without EQ, but it's also very easy to improve their sound with a small amount of EQ without sacrificing any of the technicalities. I'm not an Audeze employee so I obviously don't know this for sure, but I would bet that any attempts they made to further clean up the FR on the LCD-5 caused some degradation of its technical ability that they deemed unacceptable. This is just going off of how they've talked about their philosophy around tuning in the past. It's an opinion around design that they're fairly upfront about. As to their plugins, I think it actually takes a lot of confidence in your engineering to say "we built this product within a certain set of physical constraints, but we'll give you a tool to further improve how they sound if you choose to use it." I'm glad I have access to Audeze and ZMF cans as they do different things and I enjoy each of them in different ways (and I honestly think ZMF and Audeze are more alike than different in the audio world)

I appreciate your thoughts. I used to own the LCD 2, 3, and 4Z. But I won’t buy from them anymore unless they make some changes. Their frequency response needs a bit of improvement, they’re not that comfortable to wear, and their glued on earpads is just so asinine and outdated, and especially for the price range of the 3, 4, and 5. Just my opinions.

 

[gonintendo]

I appreciate your thoughts. I used to own the LCD 2, 3, and 4Z. But I won’t buy from them anymore unless they make some changes. Their frequency response needs a bit of improvement, they’re not that comfortable to wear, and their glued on earpads is just so asinine and outdated, and especially for the price range of the 3, 4, and 5. Just my opinions.

The glued on earpads are great, they're the only planars that slam without a nuclear reactor and the glued on pads are why. Caldera might change that though

 

[Somatic]

To add to that, it’s weird that you call the LCD 5 more technically proficient, but compared it Equalized to the stock tuning of the Atrium. Just for the record, that’s not exactly apples to apples anymore. I know many people who are very disappointed with the 5.

Of course everyone has different opinions on this, but I would not spend $4500 on a headphone that REQUIRES EQ to sound right. I will never understand Audeze and their plug-ins and EQ profiles. If I’m spending that much money, why can’t they tune their headphones better?

The Atrium sounded phenomenal to me right out of the box. And it still sounds phenomenal to me today. I don’t have to EQ diddly squat. And they cost almost half as much as the 5.

Zach > entire Audeze team

I'm on team ZMF. Atriums are very nice. Mmmmmm ...

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

The glued on earpads are great, they're the only planars that slam without a nuclear reactor and the glued on pads are why. Caldera might change that though

My Verite, Auteur, and Atrium slam without needing glued on pads. The Hifiman he1000 series have solid slam without glued on pads. The DCA Expanse slams without glued on pads (bass anyway). It’s definitely not required, limits pad rolling, is a mess to change, and voids the warranty if you change them yourself on their higher models like the 4, 4Z, and 5. I hate glued on pads.

 

[gonintendo]

My Verite, Auteur, and Atrium slam without needing glued on pads. The Hifiman he1000 series has solid slam without glued on pads. The DCA Expanse slams without glued on pads (bass anyway). It’s definitely not required, limits pad rolling, is a mess to change, and voids the warranty if you change them yourself on their higher models like the 4, 4Z, and 5. I hate glued on pads.

None of the ZMFs I've tried (VC, Atrium, Atticus, and Aeolus) slam in the same way Audezes do, down to the lowest sub-bass. I like other things about them but the sub bass tends to roll off a bit. It's a trade off to facilitate pad rolling (and probably other aspects of the tuning) but glued on earpads have their place IMO. The only slammy hifimans I've tried were the he6se, but they sounded brittle to me, and swapping pads with their weird clip mechanism was a nightmare. I'd much rather rip some pads off, apply glue, and then stick new ones on when they wear out.

 

[TheMiddleSky]

The glued on earpads are great, they're the only planars that slam without a nuclear reactor and the glued on pads are why. Caldera might change that though

Nah, we have Diana TC, 1266 TC and Meze Elite for slam with advance pad technology: Magnet System

To add to that, it’s weird that you call the LCD 5 more technically proficient, but compared it Equalized to the stock tuning of the Atrium. Just for the record, that’s not exactly apples to apples anymore. I know many people who are very disappointed with the 5.

Of course everyone has different opinions on this, but I would not spend $4500 on a headphone that REQUIRES EQ to sound right. I will never understand Audeze and their plug-ins and EQ profiles. If I’m spending that much money, why can’t they tune their headphones better?

The Atrium sounded phenomenal to me right out of the box. And it still sounds phenomenal to me today. I don’t have to EQ diddly squat. And they cost almost half as much as the 5.

Zach > entire Audeze team

I can make the comparison possible, but too lazy to write them. LCD-5 is great in term of rendering detail, speed, and imaging precision. However it is not enjoyable to listen to them. Peaky midrange, dark treble, just-ok bass, with small soundstage. Atrium on the other hand, while also produce forward midrange, but got other things more balance like airier treble, punchy bass, and significantly larger soundstage compared to LCD-5.

 

[jinxy245]

None of the ZMFs I've tried (VC, Atrium, Atticus, and Aeolus) slam in the same way Audezes do, down to the lowest sub-bass. I like other things about them but the sub bass tends to roll off a bit. It's a trade off to facilitate pad rolling (and probably other aspects of the tuning) but glued on earpads have their place IMO. The only slammy hifimans I've tried were the he6se, but they sounded brittle to me, and swapping pads with their weird clip mechanism was a nightmare. I'd much rather rip some pads off, apply glue, and then stick new ones on when they wear out.

I think that might have more to do with driver capabilities than pads, though both make a huge difference when tuning a headphone IMO. There aren't too many dynamic driver HPs that hit hard in the true sub-bass region (IIRC Eikon might be ZMF's best in that regard) but there are many planars that do reach to 20hz, some actually kick decently too. There are always tuning trade offs, and ZMF & Audeze have their own priorities and tune accordingly I think. Haven't heard Caldera (yet...I will...I will) but I'll bet it has that reach down low.

 

[Somatic]

Can you guys test this track? At 2:24 I believe the upper mids are too much. Hard to handle at louder volumes. I believe I am using radial mesh and Auteur Hybrid Pref.

Empire Ants (feat Little Dragon)
https://open.qobuz.com/track/1767962

Ok added the solid mesh. Helped with tracks that sounded too harsh. It doesn't sound noticeably darker. Maybe treble peaks are just smoothed out but I think a subtle difference? Not sure if it lost some air? Anyways, seems like it worked.

 

[Dawgfish]

I keep hearing and reading in a lot of reviews that the Atriums are not that detailed. I'm sorry but I don't agree with this. Are not soundstage, imaging, and macro dynamics part of the package in being detailed? The Atrium excels in these regards. I think a lot of reviewers and listeners confuse overly focused, etched, and extended highs with being detailed. The Atriums sound like real music and really that should be the goal. In the end there are phones that do place an emphasis on overly extended highs, but is that really natural? My ears tell me the Atriums sound like real music much more than many phones that place an unnatural emphasis on highs. Ymmv but that's what I hear when listening to the Atriums.