I’ve reached a new level apparently where Resolve makes my official EQ profiles for me and they’re already correct
7 Likes
hahah we’ll see if they are correct. I mostly made that one as a joke, but then a few folks asked for it.
2 Likes
I for one am all for this approach
2 Likes
there certainly is no such thing as a correct EQ setting given that it is completely subjective
3 Likes
So I’ve spent some time now comparing the LCD-5 with the LCD-4 and I’ve come to the following conclusions. Keep in mind that these are my subjective findings, and are merely anchored to how I hear the differences. For this comparison I EQ’d both headphones to the same target, since I’d EQ them both anyway, and I think if you don’t EQ then you’ll end up with a whole host of other differences conferred by the tonal balance - I tried to go for an apples to apples situation as best I could. Also, this was volume matched using REW and the measurement rig.
Detail:
Clarity for trailing ends of tones is on par between the two - both absolutely top tier in this regard. For the sense of tightness and immediacy of the initial leading edge (I’ve called this speed in the past), the LCD-5 does sound slightly more nimble. This also seems to give it a bit better sense of instrument separation and incisiveness, but they’re very close for that quality.
Macro Contrast (dynamics):
I think LCD-4 still takes the edge here. They’re both somewhat more reminiscent of that older more intense kind of planar sound with a more aggressive and engaging sense of punch, but the LCD-4 has a ‘rounder’ punch to it… whatever that means - I’m reminded more of a punchy Focal with the 4 than the 5. With that said, the LCD-5 is no slouch here at all, and also has excellent tactility across the board.
Soundstage:
The LCD-5 also seems to do slightly better here - or I guess ‘better’ is a matter of preference with this, but at the very least the LCD-5 sounds slightly more spaced out in front of me and less up front and personal. It’s as if I’m a few rows farther back compared to the LCD-4. But, it’s not a dramatic difference either, just a slightly more spacious presentation. I like it.
Timbre:
The LCD-5 is noticeably more ‘planar’ in its character, and maybe that’s to do with the extra sense of immediacy on the initial leading edges of tones. It has that recognizable ‘plucked’ quality to everything, and those who are put off by this may notice it as well. Personally I don’t mind at all. The LCD-4 seems to have less of this quality.
Comfort:
The LCD-4 is more comfortable initially due to the lower clamp pressure and comfier pads, but I don’t get tired at all with the LCD-5 because it’s so much lighter. One thing to note is that when wearing glasses, I have a harder time with comfort on the LCD-5, I think because the clamp pushes the arms into the side of my head a bit strongly. Without glasses, even though I’ve got a big head, it’s totally fine. Time for Lasik… Anyways, I’d love to try one with the bigboi headband because the LCD-5 could legitimately be my endgame. Famous last words I know.
Overall, I prefer the LCD-5. It’s also easier to EQ.
19 Likes
Sounds pretty close IMO… The used market for the LCD4 is looking quite attractive for me to dip my toes in. Just need to decide If I’m selling the LCDX or LCD3F first.
2 Likes
What amps do you prefer to use with the LCD-5?
@Resolve’s video is up:
@Resolve, OOI, do you have any measurements of the LCD-4 anywhere (talking about with your rig)? I’m failing to find it to compare with the LCD-5.
12 Likes
Thanks for the EQ, Roon only allows me to go to 20Hz as my lowest of the lows. Should I start Band 1 at 20Hz and work up to Band 12 from there or is there a way to get to 10Hz?
Thanks again!
1 Like
Human hearing ends at 20hz. No point in going lower.
1 Like
I’ll post the new one when I get a moment. Mainly it measures closer to the pre memory foam versions.
3 Likes
Your settings put the mids/vocals on these so close to the Susvara to my ears it’s hard to discern the difference now. Thanks.
2 Likes
Interesting that @Resolve mentioned he tried these with tubes - I thought the general consensus was that planars don’t do well with those types of amps. What makes the LCD-5s special?
Planars do fine on tube amps that have opt’s. They don’t do well on OTL due to impedance mismatch and being current capped.
Most planars unless you start talking Susvara (and even this can work on some amps), work fine of SET/PP tube amps. Would probably have more difficulty on the OTLs
7 Likes
That sounds good theoretically, but I have not found it to always be the case. I use a Feliks Audio Euforia 20th Anniversary Edition OTL amp with my Meze Empyrean headphones and it is magical. The synergy is incredible. My son uses the Feliks Audio Echo with his Audeze LCD-2 headphones and it also sounds superb. So while I would agree a priori that an OTL amp shouldn’t match well with planar magnetics, it doesn’t really hold up with the actual experience.
2 Likes
To be clear here because it hasn’t been stated as such:
For high impedance headphones (HD800 for instance) you want OTL Tube Amp Output Transformer-less .
For low impedance headphones (many planar magnetic and many dynamic drivers) you want Tube amplification with coupled Output transformers.
Some of the coupled output transformer amps can be used with hi or low impedance headphones and will have a switch as such but it’s more common to hear that OTL are best with high impedance headphones.
Planars take to Tubes like a bird dog to water you just have to follow this above rule in MOST cases.
Woo Audio explains this on their site and their tube amplifiers are incredible with Most Planars I’ve tried on them which is the majority of the TOTL planars available today.
Edited because I had it reversed. Need coffee.
5 Likes
That’s precisely the opposite of the standard guidance for the Bottlehead Crack OTL:
https://forum.bottlehead.com/index.php?topic=12729.0
My crack performs well with 300 or 600 ohm headphones, but is useless with 150 ohms.
3 Likes