The Technologically Impressive LCD-4 Planar Magnetic Headphone Manufacturers Comments

Editor's note: After my review of the LCD-4, Audeze emailed me concerning discrepancies between my measurements and theirs. Numerous fairly technical emails were exchanged, I sent a number of Excel spreadsheets of my measurements for their use in comparisons, and there certainly does seem to be a discrepancy between measurements.

The folks at Audeze asked if they could write an article about these measurement observations and their response to my LCD-4 review. I said, "Of course, I've got plenty to learn on this subject." This article is Audeze's response.

How much do you trust measurements to determine how a headphone will sound? What if measurements from different systems vary significantly, which set of measurement would you use to judge how a headphone will sound?

Headphone measurements are tricky. Interpreting them and relating to what you would likely hear is a bigger problem.

Before we get into the recently published review and measurements on the LCD-4, let's begin with an example. Here's a comparison of the EL-8 measured on Tyll's setup and a calibrated GRAS 43AG ear and cheek simulator at Audeze. As you can see, Tyll's measurements shows a significant drop between 5 and 8 kHz, but you don't see it in the GRAS 43AG. How will you know which of the two measurements reflect what you will hear?

160413_Blog_AudezeMeasurementsExplaination_Photo_Img1

The differences we see in measurements -- not just on Tyll's system but across multiple systems -- are due to many factors, including how the inner ear is modeled, the differences in pinna and concha geometry, and how the headphone and earpad interact with the pinna. Adding to the confusion are measurements published by different users.

Measurements of the same headphone on multiple systems yield significant, if not dramatic, variations in the plotted frequency response, especially above 2kHz. It's not easy to interpolate and go from one system to another, let alone interpret them.

Measurements are useful if their limitations are understood and they do play a key role in our design process.

Audeze Design Philosophy
Audeze designs its headphones to sound as natural and as close to the original performance as possible. We always strive to accurately reproduce instruments and vocals, each in their own space. Our goal is to make them sound like a good pair of speakers in a well treated room.

We accomplish these goals by evaluating our headphones in a number of ways:

  1. Our engineers have their own set of measurements made with probe microphones near the eardrum and we measure the response of our headphones and our reference stereo speakers. Then we measure using dummy heads and ear simulators. Over time we've accumulated tens of thousands of these measurements in our database.
  2. We compare test tracks played through our headphones to those played through a pair of reference stereo speakers in a well-treated room.
  3. We conducted dozens of live recording sessions with a grammy award winning recording engineer and recorded vocals and instruments in controlled environments including position of the artists, microphone orientation, etc. We listen carefully to how our headphones reproduce the music. We're proud of the accurate imaging and natural tonal balance of our headphones.
  4. We have developed DSP tools that allow us to modify the frequency response and impulse response of our headphones without introducing artifacts and without the need to physically modify our headphones. These tools help us evaluate how changes and tweaks to the headphone's response affect what we ultimately hear.
  5. We use several sound engineers to beta test them in studios.

LCD-4 Measurements
The LCD-4 is the results of years of research and development to ensure the most natural and transparent sound possible. That's why it was a shock to read Tyll's LCD-4 review. We respect Tyll's subjective opinions about the sound and we'll leave it at that. But the measurements published on Innerfidelity and their interpretation contradicts our own.

After Tyll's comments on the measurements, we reviewed everything objectively; the summary of our findings and our view of the measurements are provided below. We also measured the LCD-4 at a third-party facility and shared this information with Tyll.

The Issue
Here's what Tyll's article said about the frequency response of the LCD-4 he reviewed:

(Quote: A) "Most all LCD headphones I've measured in the past have a distinct drop in treble response starting at 4kHz and going up to about 8kHz."

(Quote: B) "You can see that the LCD-4 is essentially flat from 4kHz to 20kHz when it should be a falling response."

We simply do not see this in any of our measurements. And we do not see this in the audio quality descriptions we get from the vast majority of LCD-4 owners.

More measurements, Checking and Double-Checking.
We measured the LCD-4 on:

a. Artificial head: GRAS KEMAR RA0045 Ear Simulator, KB0066 and KB0065 Pinnae in IEC 60318-4 (previously 60711) configuration.

b. Ear and Cheek Simulator: GRAS 43AG in IEC 60318-4 configuration.

c. Headphone test fixture: GRAS 45CA, KB0071 pinnae, IEC 60711 Ear Simulator. (This setup is similar to the one used in in this paper on Listener Preferences for Different Headphone Target Response Curves by Sean Olive et al. We also used a Sennheiser HD800 as a control to verify that they measured similarly in this setup to those shown in Seal Olive et al paper.

d. Off-site by a third party: To validate our measurements, we had the headphones measured at a 3rd party facility, THX. Their measurements were done using 45CA, the ear simulator was a 43BB IEC 60318-4, (low-noise version using a large pinna).

e. In ear probes on real people: Etymotic Research ER-7C Probe Mic System, series B and customized plugged ear probes.

Comparative Measurements
An average of 10 measurements were used and a 12th-octave smoothing was applied. All measurements are raw and no compensation curve was applied. Measurements were at DRP (Drum Reference Point).

160413_Blog_AudezeMeasurementsExplaination_Photo_Img2

Graph of LCD-4 on various setups at Audeze vs Tyll's HATS

As you can see from the different graphs, there is significant variation in measurements after 2kHz. You can also see around 6kHz, there is almost a 5dB difference. After 6kHz, you can see the response slanting downwards.

The characteristic dip between in the 4kHz-5kHz region is due to the earpad shape and prevents our LCD series from appearing bright.

Below we have plotted a graph of LCD-4 vs HD 800 on a GRAS 45CA (control measurement). We did this to make sure our measurement setup yielded similar results to what was published in the paper by Sean Olive et al.

160413_Blog_AudezeMeasurementsExplaination_Photo_Img3

As another comparison, we have measured LCD-4 using in-ear probes at DRP and also measured HD800 at DRP (as control, red dotted line) and we have plotted the average of 5 measurements each made on the left ear. Note that we have included only the range 250Hz to 10kHz as per the probe specification.

160413_Blog_AudezeMeasurementsExplaination_Photo_Img4

Sometimes removing the ear canal resonance gives a different perspective on the measurements. Below we have plotted the in-ear measurements we made at the ear canal entrance of one of our engineers for the LCD-4 and another planar headphone. Compared to the other headphone we do not see significant deficiencies in the treble region here either.

The Audeze Sound

  • Unparalleled low-frequency extension due to our large planar drivers and the good seal established by our headband and earpads.
  • Smooth through the midrange due to excellent control we have on our diaphragm.
  • Close to ideal mid and upper-treble extension starting at 6kHz, slanting downwards from there to 40kHz.

The LCD-4 fits the above sound signature. As we mentioned earlier, our goal is to design headphones that emulate a good sounding speaker in a well treated room. For this reason we've not included any diffused field or free field compensation curves and have stuck with averaged raw responses in this article.

Conclusion
Measurements across multiple systems are significantly different due to the differences in the pinna, concha geometry, inner ear model and how the earpads and headphone interact.

Measurements are valuable tools to get a rough idea of how a headphone may sound, but they are not a substitute for listening. We see significant differences in measurements made on similar systems and also in our in-ear measurements (especially in the treble region). We encourage Innerfidelity readers to audition the headphones for the best possible results.

Thank You

Audeze thanks Tyll and Innerfidelity for being gracious enough to allow us to post this response and share our thoughts with you. We have offered Tyll access to all our measurement systems, labs and resources if he choses to visit Audeze and compare his measurement system to ours. Our goal is encourage more conversation around this topic and contribute back to the community.

Editor's Note: This subject is of great concern to me. My recent survey with a series of polls was intended to get a coarse read on InnerFidelity reader's ability to utilize plots. My take on the polls and reader comments is that the measurements from my system does provide utility, which is reassuring.

However, the above article does show that measurements from one system to the next will yield differing results, and that doesn't make me very happy. I've contacted G.R.A.S. and B&K and have requested a short loan of their head and torso simulators to take measurements here with my rig.

I intend to measure about five headphones on each head, and will look for general differences between the heads. I will also look at how the various heads measure the differences between the headphones to see if the interaction between headphones and the head is consistant. I've got a couple of other ideas, but need to make arrangements before I can tell you about them.

I will continue to use my measurement head for headphone measurements—switching to another head would invalidate comparisons to previous measurements, and....well...I don't have a spare $25,000 to pop for a new one. But it's possible experience with other heads may lead to valuable observations for future compensation curves.

I continue to feel the LCD-4 is too elevated in the top octave and stand by the subjective opinion expressed in my review, but I am deeply thankful to Audeze for taking the time to write their opinion and comparative measurement results. It will lead me, and InnerFidelity readers, to an interesting learning opportunity. Thank you.

COMPANY INFO
Audeze LLC.
1559 Sunland Lane
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
support@audeze.com
(714) 581-8010
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
ADU's picture

Thanks for yet another great review, Tyll. Couple questions...

Could the imbalances in the LCD-4's treble be corected with some EQ-ing? And is the laid-back response in the mid-treble more of an aesthetic choice, or a technical limitation of the Audeze designs in your opinion?

The technology in these headphones is (to borrow a phrase from Mr. Spock) fascinating! Lookin forward to the SINE review as well.

Tyll Hertsens's picture
...in my rush to meet my personal deadline, I forgot to include my EQ profile. I shall fix this and update the article tomorrow.
ADU's picture

Seeing the EQ adjustments is very helpful.

Can you measure a headphone's FR after an EQ function has been applied to see how it effects the response curve?

tony's picture

Geez, we used to say things like this about the Magnaplaners that we loved so much. Magnapan even went to ribbon technology to solve things.

I liked all the Audeze I tried ( except the 8 Open that I impulse bought ) but they are wayyy too heavy for me. These 4 versions only need 1 milliwatt so no problem driving them.

Planers can be Devine and Wonderful as long as a person isn't too fussy yet Bob Katz seems to be enamored with the OPPO type.

Your elaborate description of these 4 transducers is very similar to what Dave Wilson says in describing all Planers.

I've owned and sold every type of Transducer device, I'm a Dynamic driver believer as a result. Nothing is perfect but dynamic's 'end-cost' is usually about one third.

I have to say that Planers have tons more "Sales-Sizzle" than most other types making them easier to sell to the "Ultimate" type of Audiophile.

Recorded Music moves the needle more than subtly improved headphone performance, ( from my point of view ). I just got in some Mercury Living Presence recordings from the 1950s and 1960s which are superb. Simon Trpceski just performed the Lizst Piano Concerto 2 with the Detroit Symphony, a recorded performance, it is also superb.

I'm chasing well done Recordings now.

Great Reviewing from Montana, again.

Tony in Michigan

ps. Audeze owners will like that fancy hard Case when they show-off their stuff at the Meets.

Jazz Casual's picture

Interesting read as usual thanks Tyll. I've auditioned the LCD-4 and liked what I heard very much overall. However, I did think that the treble sounded "hi fi" in the sense that it seemed accentuated in a way that made it sound a bit artificial. That's just a minor criticism of the first Audeze headphone that didn't sound veiled and closed-in to me. It combined saturation with clarity if that makes sense, and I preferred it to the HD800S which like the HD800, remains an uninvolving listen for me.

dan.gheorghe's picture

Indeed. Actually I think they are very clean, transparent sounding offering excellent clarity. Also I do find them often more involving and tactile than HD800.

dan.gheorghe's picture

Very informative and thorough review. Thank you for your time.

I have a review unit for almost 3 weeks already. While they might not be the most linear and detailed in the treble and upper midrange, I found them extremely potent in the rest.

For me, they offer the most real life like experience I've heard in a headphone. The bass and midrange section is the best I've ever heard.

Beside that, the transients are explosive, fast and natural to my ears. The LCD-4 hit hard on every note and have a very tactile presentation.

I cannot use dull near LCD-4 because of that, especially when compared to the soft HEK which I personally consider dull because of that very reason.

I would use another term instead of "dull" for LCD-4 which is often heard under amped and thought to be dull (soft sounding) because of that reason.

Beagle's picture

Tyll, is it possible that the excess energy above 10kHz is helping to provide the clarity and articulation in the bass and midrange? And if it were to be eliminated, might the bass and mids revert back to 'LCD-X/3 territory'?

I mention this because it is quite common for mixing engineers to boost the upper treble (10k to 14k) to eliminate murk and "clean things up" in the lower ranges of recordings.

Again, I mention this only because, like EQ itself, there always seems to be trade-offs in headphone voicing.

Tyll Hertsens's picture
I think it doesn't work quite that way on this headphone because there's so much clarity despite the uneven treble response. I think the LCD-X works kind of as you said, but because the frequency response anomaly is somewhat masked by low level distortion from diaphragm resonances so the elevated top octave can act as a proxy for the missing 4-8kHz. With the LCD-4 there's so much right going on, the the treble anomaly sticks out as a problem more clearly.
ericg's picture

Hi Tyll, i really enjoyed your article but one thing struck me as an understandable mistake here. The use of the word -symbol- where you must have meant -cymbal-. Otherwise excellent piece!

Tyll Hertsens's picture
Damn rogue lysdexic brain cells. Thanks for pointing it out. Fxt.
mithrandir39's picture

I know you like and respect Audeze, so writing a mixed review like that can't be too much fun. But I really respect your integrity in telling it like it is. I spoke to Sankar at Canjam last weekend, and he said these are selling like hotcakes-and I told him I still preferred the 2 and 3 overall. On a side-note, I love the headbands! Very comfortable and they distribute the weight much better. They should come standard on all the LCD models.

Tyll Hertsens's picture
....and your right, it's not any fun at all.
moopster's picture

Tyll, thanks for your review, I like how you can turn a phrase, "You can knock a tooth out with this headphone." My perception of the strengths of this headphone mirrors yours quite closely. One of the things I found most interesting in your review is that your perception of cymbals on this headphone is the polar opposite of mine. I find cymbals to sound particularly engaging, natural and lively, so much so that I seek out music with lots of cymbal work. As the drumstick impacts the cymbal I hear a nearly instant attack, the bell-like ting of the metal simultaneous with the wooden click of the stick, followed closely by a shimmering sizzle that fades with even, linear decay. I have one of the early, 100-Ohm versions of the LCD-4, I wonder if that's where the difference is. Could be personal preference, too, as in Bob Katz saying the LCD-4 "sound just about right without any EQ at all" and not liking the HE-1000. At any rate, I enjoy the LCD-4 immensely, the fast response makes other phones sound dull and artificial.

ar's picture

I was gonna mention that too...

I heard the early version of the LCD-4 and the thing that struck me was that it didn't have the mids missing, like LCD3, and how much of an improvement 4 was.

I suspect it's the difference between the 100 and 200 Ohm version as well.

May be worth to check it out, Tyll.

Laurence Wayne's picture

Hey Tyll- Just a comment and a heresy or two. Having met Sankar and after several conversations with him and Dr. C, I just want to add "true gentlemen" to the their scholar description. They were both cordial and responsive at all times. There is no doubt that they desire to create the finest headphone experience possible. And now the heresies-even though I know your predilections on both issues:
After 70 hours of break-in on my LCD-4 I noticed a definitive smoothing out in the frequency range you mentioned-and I agree with your assessment until that time.
And, although the stock cable was fine, switching to Cardas Clear definitely widened the sound stage and added a bit of detail overall as well.
I am thoroughly enjoying the superb musical experience (and the comfort of the new headband) provided by Audeze LCD-4.
Judge Laurence Wayne

logscool's picture

I know in the past you have said that you have all of the data in your current measurements to create CSD's and now I hear you saying that you think the visual readability is drool worthy. Does this mean we will soon be seeing innerfidelity CSD's?

Tyll Hertsens's picture
..but someday.
tony's picture

Do you suggest Customer Service Desk

or

Cat Scratching Disorder ?

Google has 138 meanings for CSD

Tony in Michigan

Tyll Hertsens's picture
Cumulative spectral decay plot.
tony's picture

Hmm, sounds like something I've got, I'll ask my Cardiologist next time around.

Thanks for explaining!

Funny how Audio stuff can have this, spectrum seems like a Visual description as in degrees Kelvin or wavelength.

By the way, I met a drummer that claims that it's been impossible to properly record cymbals ( and maybe even symbols ) because the microphones and electronics can't handle the intense dynamic range. I wonder what the "K"-Man has to say about it? Anyway, drums are recording engineering problems, maybe we shouldn't expect too much .

Thanks for responding,

Tony in Michigan

zobel's picture

Some hearing loss is normal for those of us with some years on our ears. You could call it cumulative loss, but we're not decaying yet (I hope).
Yep, recording the full dynamic range of most percussion instruments is problematic, since the average overall recorded level has to be so low to keep the peaks clean. Lots of dynamic compression is often used on cymbals and drums, along with physical damping of the instruments in the studio. I'm a drummer with a recording studio in home, so I always run into this issue.

I think you are wise, with the gear you already have, to looking for recordings now, and new tunes, with your audio bucks. After all, that's what its all about to begin with, right?

Be well,
zobel

tony's picture

Hello Mr.Zobel,

Again, it's nice hearing from y'all.

Music is my important pursuit but I suspect that quite a few have gear as their "most important", god bless em, plenty of outfits are eager to build $5,000 solutions to what seems to me to be a $500 problem ( they manage to sell their stuff to their loyal following ).

Our Nation is on a Technological tear, just now. I'm seeing Furnace Manufacturers making 98% efficient furnaces for the typical home ( the darn things also heat the water ), LED lighting for residential applications is now a reality ( great efficiencies easily within reach ), self-driving 50mpg Cars are about one decade away ( expect a 30 year service life on these ), politically we have a "Socialist" tearing up the "Field" and a Woman running for President, Phew! ( and that's after we had a Black President for 8 Years ).

It all started with Ben Franklin and the Lightning Rod, about 250 years ago.

Our headphone success began with the iPod and iTunes ( I think ), was that only 10 years ago? Back then I owned the Stax Earspeakers for headphones ( which were too fussy for me ).
My headphones haven't gotten better but the Amps have, ( I love my Asgard 2 ).

If my Bernie does well at the Convention I'll finally get to see Montana ( once or twice ) I hope to get out and about for a bit of bicycle riding in Billings and that other town ( are there more than 2 ? ), maybe I'll get to stop in and see TTVJ & his $10,000 record player ( betcha he makes me buy one of his Amps ).

Tony on the Road again

zobel's picture

Tony, King of the the Road;

Didn't headphone success start with Sennheiser HD 414? I still have mine. First open headphones, not much bass, smooth mids and soft treble. Still the best selling headphone to date, with over 10 million sold. 1968. >>FF 2016. Now...HD414 don't hold a candle to anything. 48 years has seen great improvements in headphones, but like you said, so much more in recordings.

You're better off riding your bike in three forks, home of TTVJ, than in Billings, IMO. I don't know about that other town you almost mentioned.

If you visit Montana, it is good to know the two things important to us here:

1) Don't sweat the petty things
2) Don't pet the sweaty things

That is all you will need to get by here.

Be Happy
zobel

johnjen's picture

Dam fine write up…
I can read the disappointment between the lines…
And so close, yet, not quite there, just yet.

At least for 4K$ it has moved the SotA up a notch, which is always a good thing.

I wonder if EQ could 'compensate' for the top end's misdeeds.

JJ

ADU's picture
Quote:

I wonder if EQ could 'compensate' for the top end's misdeeds.

I wondered the same thing. The revisions on page 2 pretty much answer this question...

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/technologically-impressive-lcd-4-pl...

wbh's picture

Wow!
A year ago, there was that $$ burglary at the Audeze Calif HQ. Huge set back #1.
And now, almost a year later, the same pathetic company gets it's top-end model shot down by none less than Tyll the Mack-daddy of IF.
Methinks the SINE will get a better review with WoF status. That's the way the review-journalism engine works for main-streamers like Stereophile/TEN.
Not sure what the political/marketing strategy is for these smaller niche headphone manufs.
Maybe v2 of the LCD-4 will remedy Tyll's gripes. But it took even Sennheiser almost 9yrs to officially fix the 800.
C'mon Audeze ... you can do it 9 weeks!

ADU's picture

I haven't heard any of the Audeze headphones, so can't really comment on the pros/cons of their treble response. But all of the LCDs seem to be a little laid back in the mid-treble on the FR graphs (and perhaps also a little aggressive in the upper treble).

I wonder if that's how Audeze wants them to sound though. Or if the treble will "even out" with time/usage as someone else suggested.

Jim Tavegia's picture

I have a number of cans and even the Focal Spirit Pros from your review pushed me that way. But I thought they were pretty dull sounding, but that is MY problem with hearing loss over 6K due to my age a Mary firing range damage.

I believe that bob Katz has been right on about find a great set of cans you like, but be prepared to EQ based on what EACH OF US HEARS AND OUR HEARING PARAMETERS and stop thinking that if you have to EQ it is a bad thing as it is not.

I continued to work on EQing my Focals and now really like them. It amy take some time or not much at all depending up one's taste, but doing this really softened the blow from spending $350 on a pair of cans I was not going to use as much, but now I do.

In my home studio I don't use them for tracking, but for mix downs and general listening I use them as much and now use my AKG K701s for my high res usb computer dac listening.

You site has been a great read and those of us who listen in cans a lot have learned so much from you. I also agree that your assessment of buy the right headphones first, agonize over your source components, and then the amp. You have to start at the front and work back to get the most out of your listening experience, just like, to me, speakers are the most important part.

sunnydaler's picture

I'm waiting for your review of Audeze SINE. I like their smooth and resolving nature but think they take some edge off distortion guitars in rock music and tame the atmosphere a bit.

Jim Tavegia's picture

The problem with the files we listen to is that we often don't know what the source bit depth and sample rates were, what mics, mic pres, did who ever do the tracking really agonize of this stuff; and finally did the musicians care?

I can tell you that in my own recordings tracking at no less than 2496 has made a huge difference in the final product. I also don't use my computer to do any conversions as I do that from my tracking into my mix down mixer into a second recorder into the format I or my client wants; either 2496 or rebook. To me this process and keeping it out of the computer until burning has made the best sound and files for me. I will not go back. Both Sony Sound Sound Forge and CD Architect have been excellent and my next step will be to hope that the next version of Tascam's DR-680 (Mark 3) will have 6 tracks at 24/192 for tracking. You can link two of them up for more tracks (12 total). Anyone doing needle drops should give this unit a try. I love it and so do my clients due to the sound quality. It will also do 2 tracks of 24/192 and they are excellent to me for simpler recordings. I use Cirlinca for burning my 2496 files to DVD-A or DVD-V.

Many love the 2-track Tascam DA-3000 which adds DSD, but since I can't deal with those files, 24/192 PCM is still almost as good to me as DSD and a huge improvement over redbook. I feel bad for those who still claim that there is no sonic difference between high rez or rebook, but as a math teacher I understand it, and even at my age can hear it. It is not a small difference. To buy cans of this quality and not listen to high res is really missing something IMHO. Maybe their gear can resolve it, but my gear is not that great and it is obvious to me.

I think what a nightmare to lug around a Teac 3340 back in the day, not counting the tape issues of drop outs were. This little DR-680 MK2 is one of the most amazing audio buys I have ever made. Now I can put my Focal Spirit Professionals into that group with just some EQ.

xp9433's picture

Tyll

Enjoyed your honest review as it has made me more cautious about which "ultimate" headphone might suit. I hope Audeze can sort out the treble anomaly quickly. No chance it was unit variation?

However, I am also interested in which amps were used in the review, and which one you feel was a best match for the LCD-4.
Comment possible?

Cheers
Frank

maelob's picture

Tyll you were into something, just read on audio-head.com today that AUDEZE is planning to revise the drivers on the LCD line including LCD 4.

"The biggest news to my ears however, was a subtle update of the LCD line which nearly flew under my radar at the show. According to Mark, every driver from the LCD collection is receiving an update, including the recently-released LCD-4 ($4k) we reviewed [here]. The overall augmentation is a thinner, more responsive film sandwiched between the magnetic planes. Mark also shared that the biggest shift in voicing will likely belong to the closed-back LCD-XC ($1,799) which now promises a slightly more linear feel via a small adjustment in the frequency response. The rest of the LCD sound signatures should remain relatively close to their respective origins."

Torq's picture

I wonder if the referenced update to the LCD-4 is the driver change that it just got ... or if this will be the 2nd change to that model's driver since it launched (not so long ago).

I'm all for continuous improvement, but I would like to know that the headphone I buy today isn't going to wind up sounding meaningfully different a few months down the road if a repair is required ...

maelob's picture

Totally agree, they should give more info and clarification on what is the update, and probably offer the upgrade to existing customers.

Torq's picture

Audeze had made a statement, I think surfaced on Head-Fi, that for the LCD-4 any future improvements would be offered, at no cost, to existing customers. Assuming that's true, it's a laudable position.

My bigger concern is, the first driver update changed the signature (opinions are mixed as to which version is better) and also resulted in the new driver requiring 2.3x the power to reach the same SPL. The power change wasn't a problem for me (Ragnarok and WA5 LE as my primary amps), but I still don't want to buy into a $4K headphone that suddenly changes its signature, even slightly, when the gamble is that I won't like the new signature as much as what I originally had.

holynebula's picture

i'm not much a audiophile who measure sound graphic ect ...
just want a good headphone ...
as much as i like to hear music , i like to see movie

and for quite an expensive headphone, let's not be polite anymore : LCD-4 SUCK
it is what mr.tyll describe it, everything like there is a piece of cloth between ur ear

better go with hd800 + hdvd 800 , what a nice pair ... it was doing what it supposed to do
soundstage , imaging & micro detail .. gladiator ''u can hear russel crowe chopping head with bone cracking sound '

seems a drag that i have to return LCD-4, looks very beautiful , but not as expected

http://s31.postimg.org/hyo24jg63/L1000305.jpg

X