Audez'e LCD-4 -- again -- anyone...?

Having zero quality control with driver and cup manufacturing, claiming to have fixed their inconsistencies by using inferior drivers that don't sound as good, not fixing them, failed products for iPhones (You mean people don't want to walk down the street wearing a five pound headset? What?), and finally exponential price-raising on new products to make up for the lost revenue caused by their own fuckups. Audeze is following the Beyerdynamic playbook of horrific quality control on every product released since the late 80s, the bullshit sprouted about Tesla drivers, and the price raises to make up for lost revenue.

Both could easily go the way of AKG but AKG was sunk in the early nineties as they went public in the mid 80s, became an audio conglomerate, all their non-core businesses were in the red, and when the Austrian schilling fell, they couldn't continue operating. They didn't fail due to product failure.

 

I was actually just in the process of trying to write a similar post albeit with more adolescent dickishness, I must say I couldn't have said it better myself. Touche' Touche'

 

Looks an awful lot like this thread is supposed to be for those who own/have heard one of these.

Well, that didn't last very long.

 

Hey, at least I haven't derailed this thread and as a result locked it...yet.


On topic: Bob Katz seemed to like this can according to something he wrote in the innerfidelity comment section.

It went something like this:

*Things irrelevant to LCD 4*
"I heard the LCD-4's at the AES Convention the other day. Sweet, extended, excellent. Maybe a little bass light, which is unusual for an Audeze. So, adding bass, was it a problem? Not at all. It made up for that little deficiency and produced a headphone that to my ears may surpass my equalized LCD-X, even when I equalized them using Tyll's scientifically-derived measurements."
*Things irrelevant to LCD4*

 

I'll probably be able to get ears on them in December at my local dealer. A bass light Audeze is going to be something new if nothing else.

 

Lots of authoritative-sounding posts here from people who haven't heard the headphone but have read the head-fi thread. The buzz is a non-issue unless you're destroying your hearing AND doing it with specific tracks. I only made note of it because I've spent a lot of time with the headphone doing different tests, and it happens to occur at lower volumes than with other planars I own. That said, these "lower volumes" are still quite loud and even then, only with specific parts on specific tracks (or with a tone generator). Some people do listen at very loud volumes, though, so I felt it was worth noting.

To my ear and on my gear, the LCD-4 is not "bass light" -- the bass is not distorted, not blurry, not too thick, and not lacking. Extension is subterranean. I don't find the Audeze "slam" to be missing at all. In my opinion from extensive listening on both with my own gear, the LCD-4's bass is significantly better across the board than the bass on the LCD-3F. Bass on the LCD-X seems to hit a little harder. My ear tells me, though, that this is not a case of the LCD-X bass being "better" in any way, but rather an illusion caused by how the bass is tuned relative to the rest of the spectrum (particularly the treble).

Now, this is only my opinion; I'm biased, like everyone else, and I haven't heard everything in the world. That said, I have no particular fanboyism for Audeze headphones (though I do like the company as people there have treated me courteously over the years). I own many headphones from various manufacturers. Further, I don't feel that I am trying to justify my expensive purchase as the cost has already been offset by selling headphones/gear I wasn't using, and I could simply return it if I wanted. I believe in the LCD-4, and I do think that once you spend time with it, it's difficult to go back to most headphones. My ears tell me the distortion is extremely low, the resolution is extremely good, and it sounds less like "listening through transducers" to me than any headphone I've heard thus far.

Of course, people will argue until the end of time about the price, and whether it's worth it to you is a personal judgment based on your music and sound signature preferences, your budget, how you value the particular ways that the LCD-4 presentation excels over other headphones, etc. I've been the first person to tell people both in PMs and in the thread on the other forum that it may not be worth the price to upgrade with particular music or even particular tracks I've done comparisons with for people. But there's no reason to summarily dismiss any headphone, its price, or the people who purchase it until you've heard it under good listening conditions on gear with which you're familiar.

 

This is almost too real. To be fair, I think you could pull some examples from many company sites that would be *very* hard to distinguish from this parody.

 

Well that's that. A LCD4 driver failure already reported on HF.

 

Wow, ..... this is an interestingly negative thread about a stellar HP. $4k and poor comfort, WTF.... but exotic SQ, wow! Can this be a "feel the music" Audeze fanboy vs. "last ounce of detail" Sennheiser fanboy signature discussion, or are people actually listening to the LCD4 and not liking the SQ? The discussion is very different on Headfi (with numerous owners) where everyone recognizes that it is in an exotic-level SQ class - when they can stop talking about the 1 or 2 failed drivers out of the entire production run.

My LCD4 listen was about 30 minutes at RMAF at the very loud Audeze booth through their new King amp and it blew me away. Going in, the LCDX was my favorite headphone. Back to back, I couldn't listen to the X any more. No I would never pay $4K, but it is definitely a large step up from the X which I feel is a step up from their 3 which I feel is a very slight step up from their 2.2 that I own. In a nut shell, Audeze took the 3 and improved the mid sweetness to match the X, then sprinkled pixxy dust on it for a very magical 3D sound stage.

Head to head at RMAF, IMO this is how I heard it: LCD4 >= Abyss >= 009 > HE1000/PMx2 > LCDX/HD800 >= LCD3/2 > Ether O/C > HE560/500/HD650/PM1

While I am sure the different associated equipment stacks affected the HP SQ results - in the end, I guess we all hear it differently.

 

1) "numerous owners" commenting favorably on HF on their new $4000 toy would mean something if every impressions thread on the site did not range from overwhelmingly positive to borderline euphoric in the general assessment of a new product.

2) are you sure (do you have data) that only 1 or 2 drivers have failed? Have enough units been sold and/or have they been in use long enough to have failures?

3) have you considered the history of other Audeze product when you think they've got it right, this time?

 

The LCD 4 only ever came with fazors, is that correct? Are they removeable? The pictures make it look like they are adhered on such that they'd pop off.

I know his forum has an an anti-science lean (which as an engineer hurts my soul). I can't find much science behind the "fazors". Even Audeze's site is lite on the technicals of them.

I have a feeling that if we discover a way to measure sound production that correlates well to human hearing it will destroy the industry.

 

You think this site has an "anti-science" lean?
You think you have a soul?

WTF?

 

Well, it is in rule #6
http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/must-read-seven-simple-guidelines.3/

 

Sure, but I don't think we'd be opposed to discussing the physics behind fazors... Just any claims that the science behind them trumps the real world results.