The Audeze LCD-X, Fazor, and a Fresh Listen to the Current LCD-2 and LCD-3

While covering the Munich High-End show for Stereophile last year, I was hanging around outside the MOC convention center just shooting the breeze with some folks when I saw Alex Rosson, CEO of Audeze. I'd been thinking quite a bit about planar magnetic cans and how they might be improved and had a couple ideas I wanted to run by Alex.

"Hey Alex! Got a minute?"

"Sure Tyll, what's up?"

"Well, I been thinking about planar magnetic cans and some of the problems I see in the measurements. I think those big magnets are creating some problems with the acoustics around the drivers. I was wondering if you've thought about shaping the magnets so they present less acoustic impedance around the diaphragms and maybe clean up the leading edge of the impulse and square wave response?"

Alex pauses and looks at me with a bit of the squint eye...

"Good thinking," Alex says, "but you'd have to stop by the factory and sign an NDA...then I could tell you what we're up to."

Cool. Obviously I had struck a chord with their developments at the time...and now we know about the "Fazor" assembly in the LCD-X. (We'll talk about it in just a minute.) But I had another idea regarding planer-magnetic headphones, which I explained and asked about.

Alex gave me another squint eye.

"Damn, more good thinking Tyll, and again I'd have to have you sign an NDA."

I won't mention the idea, because it didn't show up in the LCD-X and it's one of those "very far away if ever" ideas, but having hit two interesting and sensible (to me) ideas in a row, I've got to guess that Audeze's sleeves are ample in size and quite a few surprises are up them as we travel into the future. Good stuff.

The Audeze LCD-X ($1699)
All Audeze open-back headphones are quite similar in size, shape, and weight. These are fairly heavy headphones, which may be one of the few significant draw-backs with planar magnetic headphones. Differences in weight between the various Audeze models are fundamentally due to differences in the driver magnet structure and the headphone capsule material; the LCD-X is the heaviest in the line due to the aluminum capsule housing.

  • LCD-2 Bamboo Composite - 490 Grams
  • LCD-2 Rosewood - 522 Grams
  • LCD-X Anodized Aluminum - 600 Grams
  • LCD-3 Zebrano Wood - 548 Grams

Earpad size and shape is ample providing plenty of space for your ears; the padding and cover materials are extraordinarily soft and comfortable. Given the weight, size, and softness however, I find the headphones can move around on my head while active and feel a little insecure. This is a headphone for serious listening though, and I don't find this a problem at all while listening in a stationary position...and all these headphones are likely to stop you in your tracks.

Three different pads are available: black lambskin, dark brown premium lambskin, and medium brown micro-suede (non-leather). Black lambskin is the stock offering for the LCD-2 and LCD-X, and the dark brown premium lambskin pads come as stock with the LCD-3. All headphones can be ordered with the leather-free micro-suede pads. Spare pads are available ($80 for LCD-2 LCD-X, $100 for LCD-3) and are user replaceable. Attachement is done by a double-sided adhesive ring, so don't try to remove your pads just for a look as you'll need a new adhesive ring to replace them. Audeze headbands are also constructed with the three different materials to match with each model as shipped.

The earpads have a significant angle on them to place the drivers slightly forward on your ears with the planar wave front hitting your ears from a slightly forward angle. This configuration is believed to provide more natural reflections as the sound enters your ear. A number of other headphones have angled drivers (Sennheiser HD 800, Sony MDR-1R, for example), but usually the driver is angled in the housing; I see nothing wrong with the angled pad approach, however.

Accessory deliverables with all the Audeze headphones is excellent. All Audeze headphones use an 8-foot "Y" cable terminated with a female 3-pin mini-XLR at each headphone capsule (see here for pin-outs) and a 1/4" stereo headphone plug on the other end. The LCD-X and LCD-3 include a second cable terminated with a four-pin male XLR for balanced operation. All headphones come stock with a very cool Pelican case for storage and transport; the LCD-3 can be purchased with a very nice wooden presentation case alternatively. A 1/4" to 1/8" short cable adapter is included with all cans; a wood care kit (cloth and small bottle of wood care oil) is included with wooden models.


Audeze Product Differences Over Time
In this review I am going to try to put the LCD-X in context with its sibling headphones as they are currently being produced. There have been a lot of changes over time to the LCD-2 and LCD-3...a lot! This, in my opinion, is a good thing.

Like the guys at Audeze, in most headphone companies small and large product management is almost universally done by what I would term as "professional audio enthusiasts". In fact, I can think of no other identifiable group of people that I would call more enthusiastic about audio than the people responsible for bringing us the products we hobbyists enjoy. They fall off our radar as hobbyists when they cloister themselves behind corporate walls, but they are, I can assure you, enthusiastic about audio and rabid innovators, just as you or I would be in their shoes. Corporate environs differ from place to place, and the pace of their innovation gets throttled in different manners, but I guaranty you successful companies are continuously changing their product. They're forced to both by the internal drive to innovate and the external pressures of customer input. A company would be dumb not to have a culture of ongoing product improvement.

Audeze has had a lot of opportunity to improve their product over time. They've only been at this for five years, so a lot has been, and will continue to be, learned. They've grown at an extraordinary pace over that time. They've changed production methods a number of times, and they've recently moved into a new facility where they now control the entire manufacturing process. My impression both from experiencing Audeze product over time and from conversation with the principals there, is they've been working smart and hard on continuous product improvement and, as a result, today's models are better headphones than those of old. As a headphone enthusiast I appreciate that...but yes, I know it can be a little frustrating at times. For example, even though I had models made last November, I had to significantly delay this review so that I could get my hands on the most current LCD-2 and LCD-3 with Fazors to compare with the LCD-X. If I had purchased those cans in November only to find out the Fazors were added a month later I would be bummed, but it's not like Audeze has done anything wrong. It's just the way things are. (Note: Fazors can be retrofit for an additional charge onto more recent LCD-2 and LCD-3, so Audeze is doing all they can to deliver improvements to existing customers when possible.)

When I ran HeadRoom we were continuously investigating and implementing changes both small and large to our amps. I have a Kawasaki KLR 650 motorcycle, a model that's been in production for more than 20 years. But changes have been ongoing and my 2001 is a better bike than those before it...and not as good as current models. The two year old MacBookPro I'm typing on is not quite as good as the ones in stores today. This is the way of the world: Most products are continuously undergoing change. When I see people on the forums bitching and moaning about how this or that manufacturer is changing product over time it makes me just a little bit crazy. Would you want to stop manufacturers from being innovative with current product? If you were a manufacturer wouldn't you desire to contually improve your product? When you buy a product from a manufacturer, you're buying their best effort to date. If you want next year's model, you need to wait until next year. If you buy this year's model, you need to understand that it may be improved upon.

Lastly, on the subject of product changes over time, I hope the reader understands that I cannot go back and try to resurrect a timeline of all the changes to all the models in Audeze's stable for this review. I will make a couple of generalizations about the older models, but for the most part this review is to capture a snapshot of the LCD-X in the context of the Audeze family at this current time. To do so I will be essentially reviewing the LCD-3 and LCD-2 as I compare them with the LCD-X. It is important to know that the current LCD-2 and LCD-3 now ship with Fazors (an acoustic waveguide assembly attached to the magnets), and are somewhat different sounding than previous models. So please be sure to understand that when I talk about the current LCD-2, for example, it may not sound like the LCD-2s you have heard in the past.

The Fazor

Photo shows Fazor assembly attached to the back of the outside magnetic structure of the LCD-X. Another Fazor can be found on the other side of the driver. The way to tell if your Audeze headphones have a Fazor is to rub your finger on the inside of the ear-cup to feel the ridges of the Fazor through the grill-cloth.

One of the problems with planer-magnetic headphones is the large magnet structure to either side of the diaphragm, which tend to produce acoustic problems as sound radiates through them. One recent trend is to use single-sided magnetic structures (Abyss AB-1266 and soon-to-be released HiFiMAN HE-560) that significantly reduce the acoustic obstruction to the diaphragm. But these designs do have to make trade-offs as magnetic field strength and structure are significantly altered. To the best of my knowledge, single-sided magnetic structures will not produce the iso-dynamic magnetic field (where field strength remains exactly equal over the entire excursion of the diaphragm's conductors) needed to keep diaphragm response perfectly linear. (See more on this subject in Abyss AB-1266 review.) The distortion produced, however, tends to be strongly even-order (which tends to sound good) and may be preferable to the acoustic problems associated with a bulkier magnet structures.

Audeze's solution to the problem is to keep the two-sided magnet structure, but add the patent-pending Fazor assembly to provide acoustic impedance matching. The diagram below is for illustrative purposes only and is not drawn to any particular scale, or with any particular frequency in mind. I've drawn it simply to give you an idea of where the Fazor is in the driver assembly, and to give you a rough idea of what's going on. I have no knowledge of the exact workings of the driver and Fazor assembly.


You can see in the drawing above that the Fazor assemble acts to allow sound to escape the driver assembly in in a way that is less problematic than without. The question is: What are the real world results?

Audeze_LCDX_Graphs_300SQCompareIn the 300Hz square wave plots to the right, I show responses from the LCD-2, LCD-2 w/Fazor (LCD-2F), LCD-3, LCD-3F, and LCD-X. One of the things I've always noticed with dual-sided planar-magnetic drivers is a significant second blip after the first leading edge overshoot. In both the LCD-2 and, to a lesser extent, the LCD-3, you can see a significant second bump after the initial leading edge spike. It's my opinion that headphone imaging is strongly helped by a very clean leading edge spike with little subsequent information. I think this gives the ear clear edges to get needed timing information for good acoustic localisation and therefore imaging.

In my listening tests, it did seem that the Fazor models did provide a slightly better sense of image than those without, and I would add that they also sounded just a little more refined and clear. It seems clear to me that the Fazors are doing a good job of providing an incremental improvement to these headphones, but I would definitely characterize it as a modest improvement compared to the overall changes these cans have seen over the last four years.

Fazors are identical on all current models and can be retrofitted to your later model LCD-2 or LCD-3 product at moderate cost. Please contact Audeze for details.

Alrightythen, flip the page and we'll talk a little bit about the differences between the three models, and how they all sound.

10725 Ellis Ave, Unit E
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(657) 464 7029

Jazz Casual's picture

I've auditioned the Audeze LCD 2 and LCD 3. I found that both suffered from treble roll-off. The leading edge of notes were blunted, the overall presentation sounded closed-in and lacked air. Music sounded very smooth but lacked energy and bite where you would expect to experience it. The midrange and bass were their strengths, which seems typical of planar magnetics. But the deal breaker was the form factor. They were heavy and with the very thick earpads, I felt like I was wearing a motorcycle helmet. It was a claustrophobic listening experience. I've not felt inclined to try Audeze since. I look forward to your review of the Oppo PM-1 though.

Tyll Hertsens's picture
I think their onward march has brought some more mid and upper treble into the picture.
Jazz Casual's picture

No I haven't and that's due in part to the design and weight of the headphone, which Audeze hasn't redressed. Having said that, the changes in sound signature that you've described are welcome. I might give them another listen some time, but I honestly can't envisage owning a pair unless Audeze introduce a lighter, slimmer version.

Tyll Hertsens's picture future musings. No doubt in a direction that many are cogitating. The Oppo ergos are sweet, and the HE 560 is light. Things is happening.

But I do recommend another listen to the new cans...just for fun, eh?

Jazz Casual's picture

Sure - happy to give them another audition some time.

thelostMIDrange's picture

instruments and not an issue for electronic or highly processed compressed music which is ubiquitous after 1985. It's likely an inherent issue with the planar technology as compared to a dynamic. When anyone reviews audio gear, a reviewer would be wise to have taken stock of his basic assumptions about sound and rank his priorities and list them at the head of each review. For me, accurate instrumentation in terms of timbre and attack is THE most important aspect of music while bass and treb extension, spacial qualities, etc rank lower. I don't see how any musician of traditional instruments can hear the Planar as being accurate in terms of presence when compared to a good dynamic. You can't wring blood from a stone so it may as well just be accepted and acknowledged along with all the excellent properties the LCD does have regardless of make model or iteration.

thelostMIDrange's picture

imagine that. Something being too good. It goes against the grain to suggest such a thing, along with the other assumption- that gear always progresses and gets better with each release. Just look at windows 8 for a recent example of this fact.....My point is that presence is possibly a kind of distortion. In music gear, it is minimal and needs to be just the right kind in the right place (usually only upper mids- as distortion elsewhere does seem to take away and not add to natural accurate sound). What does a percussion symbal, guitar string or horn do when it's struck loudly or played with vigor, it distorts, either the wave or your eardrum or both, but it's not some pure scientifically isolated signal. The over resolution of the LCD (and other good planars) might be both it's finest attribute and achilles heel. Something to consider at least imo. The 2 basic assumptions - evolution(progress)as always being in the right direction, and the assumption of a total ban on distortion should be looked at. It relates to this review in as much as it's ok to suggest the LCD is not perfect for every type of music or demanding listener. It depends on his priorities and bass and treble qualities seem to figure much more into reviews here and elsewhere than the accuracy of sonny rollins selmer or jimmy pages' Martin acoustic. I scarcely hear such things mentioned in any past review here now that I think of it. So, it's safe to assume it's not tyll's no 1 priority/

thelostMIDrange's picture

certain we haven't mis-calibrated our measuring tools a little, and what we measure as low level distortion is acutally something like a negative distotion, a concept we aren't even aware exists and so it hasnt't been named, like before we knew 'dark matter' or curved space existed. Or maybe there's a nano sized elf inside every song that acts as a gatekeeper and if it senses this negative distortion (what we measure as near distortionless) it puts a mild voodoo spell on the sound because it senses the designer was only searching rationally when he made the amp/dac/etc and in it's infinite wisdom, as nano elf's may have, it forgoes the spell on gear with just the right minimal level type and placed distortion, leaving it more musically pleasing. Sure it sounds crazy but so does everything about exisence we have learned and take for granted. The point is, for some reason, when gear gets past a certain point of perfection, it starts to shoot itself in the proverbial foot and this fact, even though it appears to contradict our seemingly strict flawless logic, may be real and for who knows what reason and explanation. I use this to illustrate in a different way the possibility that there may exist such a thing as, too much of a good thing' and that maybe it's possible to have too much resolution.

thelostMIDrange's picture

read and followed this thought line so far, and done in the spririt of frank Zappa, "without deviation from the norm (real) progress is impossible". (The deviation being the holding up in our mind of the possibility that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing)'s not that I'm suggesting the LCD is 'too perfect', but that inherent to the planar mag technology exists a quality which tends to result in an aspect of the music being a bit too perfect (and then a lack of upper end presence). The way of audio judo would suggest an acnknowledgement of it, and a limit of it's impact, while trying to make up for it elsewhere with adjusting some other quality of sound or earphone design. The triangle shaped wave defractor is an example in another area of the headphone. A designer could imagine where else in the headphone, or which other abvailable variable, could be tweeked to give the feeling of more presence. The result will likely not be as good as that which can be achieved in a dynamic however because the opposite phenomenon is going on over there. namely that a dynamic tends to give this natural presence (or musical distortion) by it's nature and the task in that sense is to tame and guide it. Which Sennheiser 800 went to far with, as engineers can do sometimes. German ones more easily than italian.

Another issue that seems to be inherent to the planar is a kind of overlinearity of the bass instruments, which brings us back to the accuracy of a headpone in terms of its ability to render traditional instruments correctly in terms of timbre, dynamics and a general, yeah that sounds right kind of thing. A dynamic driver tends to round out the tone of a bass guitar or kick drum for two examples, more honestly than the planar. Speaking as someone who plays bass guitar in the real world and is not a closet basshead. There's more to quality of bass than measurements of course and accuracy should be 'measured' the same there as elsewhere in the sound, measured by its ability to most closely approximate real world sound in a live real room such as your den or the local pub.

zobel's picture

I wonder if I could hear these cans there in Bozeman at the Headroom store downtown? It would be a good outing, and the possible beginnings of actual ownership somewhere down the line.
When the Sennheiser HD 600 came out, I talked my wife into a trip to Peach Street to see you and Todd, and those cans. I brought along my Sony MDR V600 and it was easy for you to show me, (and my wife) just how much better the Senns were. I loved them. I told my wife I thought they were just a bit too costly, and we left your shop with a complimentary coffee mug, and a warm handshake. When we got home my wife called you and ordered the Senns. After replacement pads and many many hours of great music I still love them.
I don't know if another trip to Bozeman will be as fruitful, but I'm going to have to check out those Audeze cans, and my wife likes road trips, so IRIE!

Tyll Hertsens's picture
Lemme know if you come up and we'll try to get together for lunch or something. If they don't have the cans downtown (pretty sure they do) I have some you can play with.
tony's picture

Hello Tyll ,
Again , another insightful analysis , Thank You .

These headphones are not expensive , people keep on that pricy idea but it's kinda wrong in concept .

I submit that a lowly Sennheiser HD 580 ( used ) combined with an Asgard is a fine music system , a comparable High-End System would fetch staggering prices and probably be nearly impossible to sell-off when upgrading .
Starting off at the HD 580 level and moving up , a person can purchase with the comfort of knowing that these things will sell on ebay for 80% of new purchase prices , no problem at all , $2K for a headphone is hardly a stumbling block considering it as a rental in the que of transducers on the horizon , ( more lovely things coming every next year , can't wait , it's an exciting hobby ) . Of course we need our Tyll to continue pointing out fresh considerations , don't we . My thank-you to all the Manufacturers for sending you all this stuff for us to read about and contemplate as we trudge thru the drudgery of our everyday lives .
As a past participant of the High End Audio Industry I must say that these Headphones and their matching little Amps are superior transducers to any offerings of the Big Boys that manufacture the stuff that sits in living rooms for impressing guests .
Thank you and your peers for enlightening all of us , we are transitioning into an accessible world of great music reproduction , finally and at affordable price points .

audioops's picture

If you've reached the point where you think $2000 doesn't constitute an expensive headphone, then you've become so enmeshed in the hobby that you've lost grips with ordinary reality. You might find that spending $2000 on a pair oh headphones justified because of your unusual level of interest in headphone performance, but if you're actually suggesting that regular people are mistaken for thinking a $2000 pair of headphones is expensive then you're delusional.

tony's picture

I feel a person can achieve a Superb music Headphone system for $700 : an Odac , Bottlehead & HD580's ! This system will reproduce the vast world of 16/44 CDs into wonderful sounding music , no doubt about that , in fact there might be little or no reason to advance any further , unless a person hopes for a bit more of a magical experience , in which case he could pursue one of these special headphones , which he could purchase with the knowledge that he could recover his investment from a resell on ebay . The part you may be correct about is Delusion : here we , or should I say I , am contemplating the concept of being in Superb but hoping to glide into the Dopamine Cloud of these $2,000 devices .
I may be delusional to think that regular people could consider this level of investment but that dilution comes from actively working in High-End where most of the products in that group are well over $2,000 MSRP and mostly have horrible re-sale value . In reference to your entire letter , I suspect my Wife would agree with you entirely , so there probably is accuracy to what you say .
Bon Vivant

Fenderf4i's picture

My LCD-2's were made on December 17. Audeze told me that they started putting fazor's in them on December 18th. What a bummer!

Claritas's picture

I wonder how LCDX would measure (and sound) without the Fazor.

Tyll Hertsens's picture

Just joking.

My guess is that you'd start to see a second bump on the 300Hz square wave, and you'd hear it as a little poorer imaging and fine detail resolution.

gavtron's picture


Thanks for the review. Audeze have offered to upgrade my LCD-3 with the new fazor wave guide, but keeping the old drivers (50ohm). Do you think that this will result in less bass, as you have posted, or is the drop in bass due to the 110 ohm impedance in the updated drivers?



Tyll Hertsens's picture idea.
gavtron's picture

no worries - I have read on HF that the 50 ohm upgraded version does in fact reduce bass a bit as your measurements show, so I guess it's to do with the fazor tech.

theinvertedsky's picture

Just wondering when you are going to be reviewing the v moda xs?


Tyll Hertsens's picture
...but their in the house and on the block for review soon. Got the Oppo PM-1 and BottleHeadphones in the loop as well. Within the next month or so for sure.
NickS's picture

I completely agree with you that it is a good thing that Audeze does running upgrades to their line. However, Audeze needs to do more to protect consumers.

The fact that they don't clearly label the products with a revision number is a big problem for consumers. For example, Benchmark does revisions and they label the product with a letter code to indicate a change has been made. Without this, it make it very difficult for a consumer to know what they are buying or even what they already own. It also makes selling used Audeze headphones more difficult. I don't see any benefit to Audeze from this secrecy. In fact, I think they probably lose out on a lot of upgrade sales.

Audeze should consider a trade-in/trade-up program. It would go a long way to helping buyers who feel disappointed by an upgrade being introduced after they made their purchase. It would also be consumer friendly for them to announce revisions a month or two before putting them in production, so buyers are aware.

I think that Inner Fidelity should include a box score in each review that covers all of the above, warranty info, return policy, customer service, online presence, etc.

Tyll Hertsens's picture
I wouldn't characterize it as "secrecy" necessarily, probably more like growing pains.

On your last point, I think putting a believable objective score on those kinds of things is awfully difficult and time consuming. It's hard enough just to grade the headphones.

NickS's picture

I'd love to see a future review that compares the LCD-X vs the LCD-XC. Some reviewers have said that the XC is the best in the line. If it is true that their closed headphone is as good or better than their open headphones, it is quite ground breaking.

Tyll Hertsens's picture
Reviewers say a lot of things.
NickS's picture

Thats why I'd like your opinion. :-)

Tyll Hertsens's picture
I'm going to decline comment except to say I don't think it's the the best in their line.
o153n's picture

I'm the reverse of Fenderf4i, I attended some meets and listened to LCD-2 rev. 2, saved my coins the was looking forward to the incredible bass extension that the LCD offers. My pair has Fazer, and as your review points out, better imaging, less bass. Not what I thought I was buying. I canned my Audio-gd amp for a Lyr trying to get some impact, and now I'm down to tube rolling trying to find some freaking bass response. My previous (and still current) rig is HD-600's with Bottlehead Crack. For the most part at the moment (sans some Lyr tube rolling...) the 600 is the winner. Better treble, and dare I say it, better bass impact. I don't hear any better imaging in the LCD. My question to Audeze would be, can you remove the fazer and give me back the LCD-2 rev 2?

Tyll, thanks for the great reviews. Once again, this review matches exactly what I hear with my own setup.

Tyll Hertsens's picture
Could be other things as well. You'd just have to try it. Or just EQ...the Audeze cans respond well when tweaked that way.
MattTCG's picture

I had the exact same experience. I auditioned the lcd2r2 and was in love with the darker, warmer signature and that other worldly bass extension. Then unknowingly ordered the newer fazer version just when it had been silently added. I heard a very different hp than the one that I auditioned.

My hd650 with the speedball and quickie pre-amp (the quickie is key) offered better sub bass than the lcd2r2 F IMO.

Eli's picture

Hey Tyll,

I read you talking about using a (good) equalizer in conjunction with the HD 800 a few times. Are you having a hardware or software solution in mind? Or do you mean parametric when you say ,good'? Would you mind sharing some favorites? I am currently exploring the use of eq quite a bit and really like the Denon Audio and the Audioforge Equalizer apps for iphone when it comes to portable use.
Thanks for the review! Do you think an eq could maybe also be of help for reestablishing the bass of the older LCD-3 (without fazor) for people who miss it, so one could have the best of both: fazor and bass? Of course I understand your reviewers hat, but maybe in the comment section you could take it off just for a little :)

Tyll Hertsens's picture
To tell you the truth, I just don't use EQ very much and would be poking in the dark to make a really good recco. There's good threads over on Head-Fi. I'd use a parametric EQ on a computer as it's pretty much my sole non-portable source.
bernardperu's picture

Hi Tyll, just got the oppo pm-1, finished with break-in and i am bit dissapointed. The bass is overwhelming and these headphones seem geared towards movie watchers and non-audiophiles.

An audiophile with a good sounding music collection should look for a set of headphones that targets audiophiles, not the Oppos.

My he-500s which are half the price seem a lot more musical and sound like my maggies.

I have used the hifi-m8 and auralic taurus for my listening.

Would you agree with my assessment?

Tyll Hertsens's picture
....keep your eye out.

I don't think they have too much bass but rather not enough up top. They have a sound I rather like, but no, they're not flat.

bernardperu's picture

Thanks, Tyll. Aren't are the great recordings of the 60s 70s and 80s all about the top end? By the way, i am a young audiophile who apprecites good recordings.

If the pm-1s lack top end and, soundstage imo, then, they are bound not to be audiophile cans.

I sort of semi fixed the issue by turning up the treble on my hifi-m8. Never did that before.

Look forward to your reviw!

eggil's picture

Tyll, like always, this was very informative and enjoyable reading.
Thank You man!

Tyll Hertsens's picture
You're welcome, mate.
Stefraki's picture

It would be interesting to show the 'traditional' and Olive curve for new headphone reviews. Any plans for this?

Tyll Hertsens's picture
...but it's likely quite far away. The ideal thing would be to bring my head down to Harman and put it in a killer listening room and then gather a calibration curve with real sound. That's a bit of a pipe dream though. Maybe I could talk to the Folks at Head Acoustics (who make my head) and they could work out the right compensation curve.

Eventually I'll have a tool like HeadRooms that will do on-line graphing, at that point compensating curves could be built for the tool and make it easy. But again, that's a way down the's something that we're commited to do when we are able though.

Stefraki's picture

... thanks for the response!

TMRaven's picture

Too bad there won't be a review on the LCD-XC. I tried it out for a week and found it quite a bit better than the LCD2 I tried earlier. Its one glaring flaw to me was that the wood cup on the back isn't burly enough to contain the entire backwave of the large LCD driver, so it does leak quite a bit for a closed can. Its isolation is decent, though. I found it rather neutral upon listen, then I went to IF's measurements and saw that it followed the Harman curve very faithfully.

Tyll Hertsens's picture
...just that it's not immanent right now.
Armaegis's picture

Interesting note about those second blips on the 300Hz square waves... so this is essentially a wave diffraction grating. It'd be interesting to see correlations (if any) vs the grid spacing and distance to ear. It (should really) just break down to geometry, as the wavefront leaving a grid gradually smooths the further away it moves, and the fazors effectively increase that distance (or rather it reduces the diffraction angle exiting the grid).

superjawes's picture

I couldn't look at that picture without remembering the double-slit experiment (the one that proved that light is a wave...or at least behaves like one).

But I do imagine that there will be some more experimentation with such waveguides. It seems like a pretty easy (and inexpensive) way to alter the sound profile of the headphones. That really opens the doors to more innovation and competition :D

Stefraki's picture

But I actually thought of an idea similar to the "Fazor" a few years ago when I was modding vintage orthos. I wondered whether using triangular bar magnets (if such a thing even existed) with the flat side to the diaphragm and the pointed side facing out might improve sound by acting as a wave guide. Nice to see something similar does actually work in practice...

bronson's picture

Well, I'm sure glad to see the LCD-X's hit the wall of fame but you had me worried for a second after watching the YT viddy, when you left the cliffhanger to check here to see if they made it or not.

I also appreciated the guest appearance of black kitty cat, though this does further add to speculation of Steve Guttenberg co writing your reviews as he is known to travel with his faithful black kitty who rumour has it also acts as a third party analytical listener when you two guys can't agree on an octave or two.

All in all, I love the LCD-X and enjoyed watching and reading your review on this considerable can - amen to that, and keep up the good work, your services to headcannery is top sonics for the win :)

tony's picture

Interesting observation ; the PM 1 being specifically designed for 24/96 reproduction of Blue Ray . Connecting the dots here we might consider this product being the first to be designed to be capable of 144 db dynamic range . No technical description of Audio products ( other than Active Monitors ) relates the dynamic capability . This may become an important parameter for our trusted review staff to include . It is probably safe to consider that the Movie Industry uses much less compression than the Music Industry , hence a Headphone designed for Movies would need considerable dynamic range capability .

Nice going Mr. BernardPeru , you definitely brought something important to the table .

Heretix_Aevum's picture

I'm excited to see that the new hifiman headphones are significantly lighter than the Audeze offerings. I think the Audeze's are actually kinda handsome (albeit large) but I think the weight would be something I'd dislike, especially on their new models! I look forward to your HE-560 review. A light, comfortable, excellent sounding and competitively priced planar could be what it takes for me to graduate from dynamics for my desktop listening.

AGB's picture

There are lighter headphones, but one can get used to the heavier cans. Heavy is in the head of the beholder. The sound of the X is just so beguiling, open, big, luscious and on occasion (more than less) fantastic. Tyll didn't mention one quality. You can listen to these for hours without exhaustion. Clear is not the same thing as transparent. The best dynamics are clear. They are NOT as transparent.

I enjoyed Tyll using the word "uncompensated." I too, once, was resistant to using EQ anywhere. With today's high end music player software one need no longer worry about phase shift and other nasties. One only needs to get it "perfect." OK, forget perfect, enjoy the perfectible. Using parametric octave-wide EQs specifically in the areas Tyll mentioned gets you closer - it's as simple as that.

You can have flat at the ears, which doesn't mean you need to date flat. OK?

Headphone amps have a strong sonic influence on the sound, especially the bass, for many reasons. If the sound is getting fatter, there might be good technical reasons for it, damping and distortion being the primary. A fat and big bass is not necessarily desirable. Chances are that an amp that has LESS, rather than more bass, also has less distortion and better damping. It's counterintuitive.

Headphone wires also influence the sound a great deal. So the magic is a moving target.

Lastly, the newer FPGA-based programmable DACs are friggin' outta this world. More costly generally, not always, but I find them significantly superior against DACs using off the shelf chips, regardless of their cost. The FPGA is an entirely different technology, the two have little in common.

The LCD-X is a heavy hitter, a winner, and is worth every cent of its price.

lizwatts's picture

The Audeze's are definitely some high-end headphones. The seem a little big...but I think they're really comfortable to wear. I also found this website that compares audio recordings of headphones. I think it's pretty accurate... but what do you think? They're all recorded in high-resolution format with all the same samples so I think this might be pretty un-biased.

FHC's picture

Wonderfully in depth look at the Audeze cans. Also very much in line with my experiences. (nice to see those backed up with technical explanations.) See you at Newport.

William_Antrican's picture

I am using a Gungnir - Cary SLP 05(with vt231s) - Mjolnir set up. I understand I am violating many rules by making the path longer but it allows me to shape the amount of tube effect to match the phone. A little more Cary gain for the HD800s a little less for the LCD3s. Even with longer path I can detect no background noise or degradation on the rendered sonic image. To my ear the result sonic image is excellent. Also - My recent request to upgrade my LCD2s was met with "Upgrade service no longer available because of lack of customer interest." Unfortunate.

Sjeb's picture

So in comparing the two, would you say the former for use with AK240, but latter if you have Auralic Taurus for example?

Tyll Hertsens's picture
Sure. Okay.
The Headphone Viking's picture

I commented on your youtube video a few months ago regarding this, but having owned a pre Fazor LCD-3 for about half a year now and having grown to like it I feel I'm closer to being able to determine which is the best, for me (3 or X) and hope you can help clarify.
Basically I really like the LCD-3 as a supplement for the HD800 for when I want a bit more mid-centric and full sound, but the on gripe I have with the LCD-3 is still its complete lack of impact.
I listen to metal, ambient and classical music mostly and the problem is that the drums etc. tend to lack excitement and presence on the LCD-3. As far as I can understand the LCD-X might resolve that, but I fear losing resolution and that full-bodied sound. From your review I'm not completely sure, when you say the LCD-3 is more refined, if this means the LCD-X is less detailed.
(For reference my go to setup is HD800 is straight out of a good balanced solidstate amp, with no added warmth, just crisp detail and big soundstage.)

Tyll Hertsens's picture
Boy, that's a tough one. Since you like the 800 so much I think you'd find the LCD-X a step backwards in terms of fine resolution, without a significant gain in the areas you're talking about. I sort think you might want a basshead can to complement these other two. You maight be able to do it with a less expensive can. I'd suggest a listen to the Shure 1540 (u-shaped response), Focal Spirit Pro (fairly neutral with good bass punch), Philips Fidelio X1 (warm tilt but a little lacking in sub-bass), or the NAD VISO HP50 (Love it). None of these will get you treble resolution on par with the 800 or LCD-3, but the 1540 and HP50 will get closest.
The Headphone Viking's picture

Thanks for the response! Thats also the conclusion I'm slowly reaching... Darn this is an expensive hobby. Here I was naive and hoped the perfect can might be out there :P
The TH900 would be if it wasn't for its treble response shredding my ears, which I never found a way to solve - thats why I got the LCD-3 instead, that was from one imperfection to another though, but at least this one doesn't damage my ears.
By the way, you mentioned something about it being possible to retrofit the "old" models with the Fazors - how do I go about getting my hands on the parts? I've tried contacting Audeze, to no avail so far... It sound like somthing I'd want to do as soundstaging is important to me.

firstmithrandir's picture

I had my Sennheiser HD580 for around 10 years and I was always happy with them. As I mainly listing to my headphones at work from laptop I connect them directly to Sound Blaster Audigy ZS and now to Sound Blaster Omni. At home I used in addition a DIV amplifier. While the years passed I changed a cable few times to the one from HD650 model and ear pads. Recently my HD580 just go away, one of the speakers was not in good condition and by cleaning it I just kill it completely. As I both recently a quite nice stereo system I thought that I will upgrade my HD580 too.

Firstly I thought that I will go to HD650, but then many people said that HD600 is better in response and actually HD600 is only a revision of HD580 and I would love to go some level up. I got to closest shop and I listen CD connected to Bryston BHA-1. They even do not have HD600. So I tried different other headphones: HD800, T1, LCD-2 (I think that this is the older revision) and recently LCD-X. I read most reviews in the internet too, more than 100 articles and many more comments.
I found: HD800 has a biggest sound stage, nice bass, you can find with them details you cannot find anywhere else. But there were not involving. You are not attracted by the sound. The voice of Norah Jones is not a warm one I remember from live unplug concert, but it is like from transistors and silver cables: too sharp. I heard HD800 before many times on Audio High-End shows and I have always the same feeling. I put them on, listen to them for 10 minutes and do not want to listen again. With Bryston it was better, because I like the soundstage and enormous level of details I heard.

On my Audio High End shows I listen to all kind of headphones models, even to Stax ones and in the end I always come back to HD600/HD650 and they were the perfect ones. The ones I like to listen. I even cannot convince myself to listen to others. Then the guy in the shop gave me Audeze LCD-2 and I have the most strange feeling of my life. The stage was quite small, let’s say that it was 5 cm wide and in my head, on HD600 it is 10 cm, and HD800 is 20 cm. The sound sounds dull when compared to HD800, like some details were missing. But regardless this I listen to headphones for long time. I love them so much. Norah Jones voice was like natural one. Bass was so energetic. Organs sound was so cool. Actually with HD800 for the first time I heard on Metallica live concert voices of many people I did not know that there were there before. With LCD-2 you can hear them too, but you have to concentrate more.

Last time in the shop I have tried LCD-X model with XLR 4 pin connection. As I like the bass music too from Munich High-End Show music I remember how they play – Scream and Shout on Avantgarde Horn speakers with huge 2x2 meters subwoofer (>0,5 mln EUR), picture here:
I would say that I heard the bass and the music in the same fashion on LCD-X. I was just in the shop and WOW-WOW runs in my head. But still I missed a little bit of big stage of HD800.

Now I would like to buy headphones. I have on my list since 3 weeks: HD800, LCD-2, LCD-X and LCD-3 and LCD-XC too. Up to now I liked the most the neutral sound form LCD-X and the sound stage and details of HD800. They have too LCD-XC to listen, but not LCD-3. In the internet all the models you can buy in the price range 900-1500 EUR. If I will go for used ones I can get even older revisions of LCD-2 and 3 models. So what to chose? I have to buy for them something which I can take with me to the office. Some smaller backup dac+amp up to 2 kg I can put to the bag and maybe in the future buy something bigger for home. I thought too about buying in the future one of the silver-gold toxic cable. I still think that even with the basic amp the sound of LCD-X would be much better than HD600. I thought too about LCD-3 or HD800 if I could tune them to sound nice to my ears.

DiRo's picture

The bigger picture I am getting from this review is that closed back is ever so close to being on even playing field as open? Who would of thought...

bwright's picture

The Fazor upgrade really delivers a substantial improvement. I did an extensive comparison when the LCD-3 was first released, and the HiFiMan HE-500 outclassed the entire Audeze line at the time - I found both the LCD-2 and LD-3 to be a bit too warm, rolled off and lacking detail. I recently revisited the upgraded line-up and did the same comparison, and I was surprised to find the Fazor now set Audeze on top, at least with the amplification I was using (Chord Hugo and Pathos Aurium). The HE-1000 demo at CES 2015 was also promising, and if HiFiMan improves the dedicated amp, they will give the LCD-3 a serious run for the money.

micha661's picture

on the website they say the headphone amplifier needs between 1 and 4 watts. but my amp goes to 600 miliwatt. is that enough to make them work well? Thankyou tyll

bblegram's picture

Hello Tyll,
I'm a big doubt and please, I need the opinion of you.
I'm in doubt between buying AMP Woo Audio WA22 or Aurilic Taurus MKII for use with LCD-3 Audeze (fazor)
I always liked more amplifiers with tubes, and I was already decided to buy the WA22. However, after reading some reviews, I was very interested in the Taurus Auralic MKII, mainly because the two are in the same price range.
After reading the reviews about Taurus MKII, I saw that technically it is better than the WA22, however, all are emphatic in saying that it is very transparent and that's exactly why I'm a little worried. I like the sound a bit Warm.

What is your opinion about the AMPs ?

...Has anyone proved the two AMPs ? Please give your opinion !

Currently, I use my LCD-3 with an AMP SS Meier Audio CONCERTO.

Thank you

Tronedor's picture

I'm looking to buy headphone/amp combo in the thousand dollar range. I'm just getting into this hobby and kind of overwhelmed to be honest lol. I listen to a bit of everything from top 40, to rap/hip, house/trance music, and even a little classical in the mornings. I'm definitely a fan of planar magnetic and great sounding bass. I've been considering the LCD-2's and the HiFiMAN HE560's with the EF100 amp combo. Which should I be getting of these two? Or perhaps a different suggest all together? Any headphone/amp combo suggestions would be greatly appreciated. This will be for use only at home while on my computer and comfort is also a must for my big noggin :). Thanks in advance.

Duke40's picture


Thank You four your insightful reviews on InnerFidelity ... I also enjoy your youtube reviews as well.

I absolutely love the sound quality (and comfort) of the Audeze LCD3, it is a true reference HP that others should be judged against.

Though I do have issues with the reliability of the LCD3, specifically due to the number of driver failures that this model experience. Over at headfi a poll has been created and the number of people who have reported an issue, that is required to send back there LCD3 for servicing or RMA is currently at ...
61 %

It is still a young poll, so I hope more people vote and report there experience , so we (as consumers) can gain more insight to the actual severity of the LCD3 failure problem.

The actual breakdown of that 61% failure figure is;
39% None
30% Once
24% Twice
5% Three times or more

Yes, that does only adds up to 98%, though the vote count is just 53 votes so far, so there is a bit of rounding to zero decimal places.

5 Driver failures so far ... in 2.5 years of ownership ... that is my experience. A couple of Single Ended cables as well.

My experience is that the Audeze Mean Time Between Failure (AMTBF) is 6.5 months. That is the average of which they will last ... before the next failure.

Also, when they get repaired by Audeze ... they come back to me ... damaged. For instance, I sent them in once for a failed driver issue ... and they were returned with a loose connector (about 5mm of movement) on the opposite earcup. Another driver repair only lasted 3 hours. So Quality Control for repairs is poor as well.

My LCD3 experience has been they only work 80% of the time, else they are travelling around the world getting repaired all the time.

I wish Audeze every success and the LCD3 is a true reference HP as far as sound quality goes ... but this model has been in production since, I think late 2011 and yet it still exhibits a failure rate which is shameful.

So, does it really deserve to remain on the "Wall of Fame" ?

Look forward to your thoughts.


Peragulator's picture

Excellent review. ......a fun read. While I'd love a pair of LCD-X headphones in my living room the price (they are expensive: not a debate)isn't something I'll be able to attain, but after Beyerdynamic gets the quality controls issues sorted a pair of DT-1770's will look good on the coffee table.

jaty1900's picture

Thanks for the many reviews you have done here, I find them very informative. I know there is a lot of back and forth comparison between the LCD 2 and 3. Having listened to all pre Fazor and post Fazor, what would be the main sonic differences between the LCD 2.2 non Fazor(which I have now) and the LCD 3F( which I am considering upgrading to)?