Audeze LCD-X Over Ear Open Back Headphone Review

[solderdude]

Taste and preference is part of the story too.
Seal is part of the story.
I have heard a few LCD-2 and some sounded great and others were 'grainy' in the treble.

 

[DualTriode]

Hello All,

Just sitting here thinking to myself. I thought that I would share it.

We have the ability to measure a headphone Frequency Response and phase performance. We have computers that can convolve the headphone measurements plus the Harmon Curve to produce an equalization curve that can make a reasonable quality headphone sound any way that we want it to sound. While you are at it measure your own transfer function.

What is to stop us from taking that convolution (equalization) curve and putting that curve into a micro-processor or into the next generation headphone amplifier tested here at ASR? It would be like getting fitted for a pair of glasses and having your very own prescription programmed into your own MINI DSP processor chip plugged into your portable headphone amplifier.

Just musing.

DT

 

[solderdude]

We already have this.
It is in your mobile phone.

 

[DualTriode]

We already have this.
It is in your mobile phone.

So tell us about rolling up the headphone measurements, Harmon Curve and your own personal transfer function and putting the equalization curve on your phone.

 

[solderdude]

You just download the ones for your headphone and use an app that can work with it.
There is plenty of that going around and has been the case for many many years already.

Myself I don't need, nor have one, a smartphone. I do have a phone but prefer to be the smart part myself
I do things in a different way though and actually have an (all analog) amp that corrects the FR for the headphones I own, and need it, just not acc. to Harman. No HRTF, no convolving, no 'official' measurements.

 

[bobbooo]

This is interesting to me because, despite liking to EQ my headphones to Harman target and owning multiple from the list, it is almost completely unaligned with my subjective experiences. At which point I'm either wrong, or frequency response isn't the whole story, and honestly it would be a lot easier if we could just all buy PSB M4U 8 and be done with it.

Which headphones from the list do you own, and how would you rank them differently?

 

[amirm]

What is to stop us from taking that convolution (equalization) curve and putting that curve into a micro-processor or into the next generation headphone amplifier tested here at ASR?

Headphones amps are all analog. To do what you say they have to digitize the input, perform the convolution and then convert back to analog. Best to do that in the host computer with no cost hit, and ability to store unlimited number of convolvers.

 

[Chocomel]

Measuring your own transfer function is a bit easier said than done, but you could do it. And then there's still your own preferences. In any case the biggest issue is figuring out your own "best" target curve.

I recall USB audio player pro has some features where there are EQs for specific headphones. I don't recall exactly what Measurements/target they use though.

 

[Jimbob54]

Measuring your own transfer function is a bit easier said than done, but you could do it. And then there's still your own preferences. In any case the biggest issue is figuring out your own "best" target curve.

I recall USB audio player pro has some features where there are EQs for specific headphones. I don't recall exactly what Measurements/target they use though.

I havent seen (but havent looked) for that feature in UAPP. Though I have just started looking at its EQ so maybe its lurking there

 

[Jimbob54]

Hello All,

Just sitting here thinking to myself. I thought that I would share it.

We have the ability to measure a headphone Frequency Response and phase performance. We have computers that can convolve the headphone measurements plus the Harmon Curve to produce an equalization curve that can make a reasonable quality headphone sound any way that we want it to sound. While you are at it measure your own transfer function.

What is to stop us from taking that convolution (equalization) curve and putting that curve into a micro-processor or into the next generation headphone amplifier tested here at ASR? It would be like getting fitted for a pair of glasses and having your very own prescription programmed into your own MINI DSP processor chip plugged into your portable headphone amplifier.

Just musing.

DT

You may have hit upon the next way the DAP manufacturers can convince you to pay even more for their products ;-)
I agree with others though- best to do EQ at the front (or is it back) end of the chain- where all the digital wizardry already sits. A stored reference of ones own HRTF might have some mileage though- but more effort than I am personally prepared to go to for HP listening

 

[solderdude]

Maybe someone knows this...
Is a HRTF always the same for an individual when considering driver size and position (distance, angle and position on the baffle) and type of coupling (free air, foam pad, on-ear, over-ear) when it concerns pinna effects ? (the ear canal will be the same unless IEM)

I can understand the HRTF is the same for an individual when sounds are coming from certain positions, I doubt it is universal for various headphones.
Perhaps one needs to calibrate each headphone so it includes correction, target and HRTF for that specific headphone.

 

[Chocomel]

I havent seen (but havent looked) for that feature in UAPP. Though I have just started looking at its EQ so maybe its lurking there

I think it's called morphit, it's a plug-in that costs a couple of bucks.

 

[MRC01]

The LCD-2 Fazor (2016 drivers) are my favorite headphones. I do EQ them, but only a gentle lift centered around 4k to partially correct the dip. The bass levels sound right to me. I seem to prefer bass in headphones a little lower in level than most other people. I can still hear below 20 Hz with them, so the bass is all there super clean even if you don't boost it.

A few years ago (before 2016, when my LCD-2F had the 2014 drivers) I tried the LCD-X to see if it would be an upgrade. The bass response was better, which was surprising because the LCD-2F bass was already excellent. But the LCD-X transition from bass into mids into treble sounded weird or "off" to me, not as linear and natural as the LCD-2F, so I returned the LCD-X. Later, in 2016, Audeze revised the LCD-2F drivers so I sent mine in to get replaced. I owned a second pair of LCD-2F that already had the 2016 drivers, so I could fast-switch and compare them. The 2016 drivers had the cleaner bass that the LCD-X had, yet retained the smoother more natural midrange voicing of the LCD-2F. Best of both worlds, made me happy.

 

[DualTriode]

Headphones amps are all analog. To do what you say they have to digitize the input, perform the convolution and then convert back to analog. Best to do that in the host computer with no cost hit, and ability to store unlimited number of convolvers.

Hello,

This individually programmed convolution wants to go on the hiking trail; it does not want to be tethered to the desktop.

The individually programmed convolution could also be included in the digital player in your pocket.

To be marketable at high dollars it would need to be custom fitted to the buyer like a custom pair of shoes.

Still just musing!

Thanks DT

Before there was a Harmon Curve I ripped CD's with AudioGrabber, did the convolution in the computer then burned new digital tracks to CD to play in my Sony Walkman on the bicycle path along the river.

 

[Robbo99999]

Maybe someone knows this...
Is a HRTF always the same for an individual when considering driver size and position (distance, angle and position on the baffle) and type of coupling (free air, foam pad, on-ear, over-ear) when it concerns pinna effects ? (the ear canal will be the same unless IEM)

I can understand the HRTF is the same for an individual when sounds are coming from certain positions, I doubt it is universal for various headphones.
Perhaps one needs to calibrate each headphone so it includes correction, target and HRTF for that specific headphone.

When I was talking about this with Mad_Economist he gave me the understanding that there is HpTF (Headphone Transfer Function) and HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function), they're not the same thing but are related in some ways. I think you're referring to the HpTF, which is basically how a headphone interacts with your specific anatomy of your ear & ear canal.....my understanding is that different headphones can produce different HpTF's depending on how they interact with your specific anatomy, so for example two different models of headphones that have been measured on GRAS and EQ'd to the exact same target curve can't be guaranteed to sound exactly the same to each other when placed on your head because the two headphones might react in different ways to each other in relation to your total ear anatomy. That's how I understand it. HRTF comes into this too in terms of the validity of the target curve, because the KEMAR mannequin is an average approximation of anatomy in terms of your whole head as well as your ears & ear canal, so there's no guarantee that will match exactly either - so there's the HRTF variable & the HpTF variable. After speaking with @Mad_Economist I think he mentioned that one of the gaps in the testing/knowledge/research is the variability of HpTF, so in terms of how different headphone designs react on different peoples ears, so he thought there was a gap in the research there. I'm sure he could answer better, but not seen him around recently, but that's how I remember it.

EDIT: Also to add & help summarise, HRTF is about Target Curve Creation (head & ear effects in relation to "speakers in room"), whereas HpTF is about implementation in terms of how a specific model of headphone "has it's frequency response changed" by your specific ear anatomy ("ear/headphone interaction effects") if you wore the headphone and could put a mic at your eardrum and measure the response of that specific headphone.

 

[bobbooo]

Hello,

This individually programmed convolution wants to go on the hiking trail; it does not want to be tethered to the desktop.

The individually programmed convolution could also be included in the digital player in your pocket.

To be marketable at high dollars it would need to be custom fitted to the buyer like a custom pair of shoes.

Still just musing!

Thanks DT

Before there was a Harmon Curve I ripped CD's with AudioGrabber, did the convolution in the computer then burned new digital tracks to CD to play in my Sony Walkman on the bicycle path along the river.

Well smartphone apps like Neutron Player allow for a high quality, fully configurable (and max 60-band!) software parametric equalizer with near unlimited saveable presets in your pocket wherever you go, and there's also the tiny Qudelix 5K DAC/amp, which includes a 10-band (enough for most purposes) hardware PEQ for system-wide parametric EQing of any source, not just offline tracks e.g. streamed music through Spotify, all in the palm of your hand. I believe Amir ordered the Qudelix 5K a while ago actually so it should be in the queue to be tested on here.

 

[MRC01]

Also, USB Audio Player Pro has a built in parametric EQ, with multiple save-able name-able settings.

 

[solderdude]

When I was talking about this with Mad_Economist he gave me the understanding that there is HpTF (Headphone Transfer Function) and HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function), they're not the same thing but are related in some ways. I think you're referring to the HpTF, which is basically how a headphone interacts with your specific anatomy of your ear & ear canal.....my understanding is that different headphones can produce different HpTF's depending on how they interact with your specific anatomy, so for example two different models of headphones that have been measured on GRAS and EQ'd to the exact same target curve can't be guaranteed to sound exactly the same to each other when placed on your head because the two headphones might react in different ways to each other in relation to your total ear anatomy. That's how I understand it. HRTF comes into this too in terms of the validity of the target curve, because the KEMAR mannequin is an average approximation of anatomy in terms of your whole head as well as your ears & ear canal, so there's no guarantee that will match exactly either - so there's the HRTF variable & the HpTF variable. After speaking with @Mad_Economist I think he mentioned that one of the gaps in the testing/knowledge/research is the variability of HpTF, so in terms of how different headphone designs react on different peoples ears, so he thought there was a gap in the research there. I'm sure he could answer better, but not seen him around recently, but that's how I remember it.

EDIT: Also to add & help summarise, HRTF is about Target Curve Creation (head & ear effects in relation to "speakers in room"), whereas HpTF is about implementation in terms of how a specific model of headphone "has it's frequency response changed" by your specific ear anatomy ("ear/headphone interaction effects") if you wore the headphone and could put a mic at your eardrum and measure the response of that specific headphone.

Yes, figured as much. Didn't know HpTF was an official term.
Here is some research done on this. Too nerdy for me.
For practical applications this can only be done using subjective methods. I believe @jaakkopasanen has some software for this.
It is practically impossible for us mortals to measure eardrum power and on top of that there is also hearing loss which it does not take into account.
Self measuring the ear does this.

 

[Robbo99999]

Yes, figured as much. Didn't know HpTF was an official term.
Here is some research done on this. Too nerdy for me.
For practical applications this can only be done using subjective methods. I believe @jaakkopasanen has some software for this.
It is practically impossible for us mortals to measure eardrum power and on top of that there is also hearing loss which it does not take into account.
Self measuring the ear does this.

Yes, different ways to crack an egg. I'm not sure if HpTF is an official term either, but it was what Mad_Economist used when talking with me on the subject. I guess if there's not an official term for that variable that it describes, then you may as well create one that's sensible (HpTF). The phenomenon does make logical sense to me though.

 

[DualTriode]

For testing I think we need to see impedance and phase. We also need to see harmonic distortion measured across the BW plus IM. I know not too straight forward with a non flat frequency response curve.