Something about the 5 seems to really pair well with lower power. I think the new trace structure is more efficient, rather than previous iterations that traded headroom away for efficiency. It doesn’t seem so power hungry, and does great with high-end DAC/Amp combos which sometimes left older, hungrier planars wanting more.
2 Likes
The 5s love my Chord Hugo TT2/HMS combo. Very comparable to my tube amp option.
1 Like
Which tube amp? I have the same HMS/TT2 combo and its pretty magical, but Audeze got me so hooked on their LCD-4/i4 tuning, I’m considering adding a tube amp for some more liquid goodness, especially since I got so used to the LCD-4 sound and the LCD-5, at least on the first two days, doesn’t have quite the same velvety texture.
Ampsandsound Kenzie Ovation. I wouldn’t call it gooey - more warm and rich. It not hugely different from the Chord solid state setup. Maybe slightly less separation - maybe - with Chord but comparable detail.
3 Likes
I know a few people who have heard it at C.A.F. who came away very surprised and pleased with the device. A couple people I know purchased one just from that word of mouth recommendation. Sure no written reviews yet but I wouldn’t say it’s an absolute unknown. The fact that it comes from the same company that makes the HSA-1b should be worth at least something. I was asking a guy who is basically taking shots in the dark anyway so PDA-1a seemed just as reasonable as a HSA-1b that he would use 1/3 of it’s functionality.
You running any EQ?
I’m finding it straight out of the TT2 to be exceptional.
4 Likes
What output impedance tap are you finding to play well with the LCD-5?
1 Like
I agree,the dave is literally perfect with the lcd-5…I too like the hsa-1b with it but not as much as the dave
1 Like
Only tried the 8ohm with LCD-5.
Not sure the other impedances will work as well.
Would like to know other peoples thoughts on this to?
2 Likes
Low and 16 work great on my Kenzie Ovation.
1 Like
I’m not.
Mostly because I don’t feel its needed.
I have tried a couple of profiles posted here, and elsewhere, out of interest, but they are not for me. One tries to get to the Harman Curve, which is just unnatural sounding to me with acoustic and orchestral pieces, and the other resulted in a zingy treble and an overcooked bottom end.
Not to say I won’t wind up using EQ with them (and it’ll be one I build myself in that case, via my goal-seeking convolution-filter generating tool), but unlike, say, the LCD-4 … it’s not something I consider necessary or even necessarily beneficial (for me) at this point.
6 Likes
That’s crazy! For me its night and day.
If I couldn’t EQ the LCD-5 I would sell them and buy something else that didn’t need EQ.
Fair play to you though. I suppose we all have different preferences.
2 Likes
Oh, there’s no question that there’s an easily audible difference between no EQ and the profiles posted in this thread.
I wouldn’t buy, much less keep, any headphone that needed EQ.
6 Likes
Fair enough.
I EQ everything as I always think it can be improved.
Also I love tinkering 
1 Like
Horses for courses.
EQ is not a panacea. I do it where I feel it’s beneficial … IF the unavoidable disadvantages (reduced dynamic range and dynamic compression) in a given case don’t result in a net-worse result.
There are no free lunches.
2 Likes
To me EQ is always beneficial if your preferences ask for it.
A/Bing it and never found any disadvantages in doing so once I learn what I was doing.
LCD-5 Sounds flat in the bass and treble so not exciting enough to me and quite mid forward with no EQ.
Wont be able to sleep tonight thinking about the fact that you don’t EQ the LCD-5.
All that information in bass and highs you are missing. 
Makes me sad 
(joke)
3 Likes
I’m not missing any information, anywhere.
If you can’t hear the differences in an A/B test with/without EQ (other than the tonal response), that’s great. It doesn’t mean no one else can.
And if, for whatever reason, you prefer EQ with the LCD-5 (or any other headphone) that’s great.
But unless you’re taking into account differences in hearing profiles (which are not preferences, and unless you’ve had a recent audiogram you almost certainly don’t even know what yours is, let alone anyone else), equal loudness contours (essentially listening level) and the overall chain, then EQ is, at best, ONE piece of the puzzle. And passing judgement on how other people do things is just missing the forest for the trees.
I use my own piano recordings as the primary baseline for EQ’ing, along with comparisons to an extremely neutral speaker setup. And then that’s all compared by ear and using state of the art instrumentation. There may be some very minor tweaks needed to get the LCD-5 to reproduce that tonality accurately, but they are so minor that, at the moment, they’re just not worth the trade-offs to me.
YMMV … but I don’t go calling you crazy for wanting to EQ everything without regards to the bigger picture.
6 Likes
I disagree
Life is one big puzzle 
Sounds like we are never going to agree no matter what so pointless having this conversation.
Lets carry on with our day.
You are, by definition, throwing away information by using any digital EQ. 100% of the time. There is no avoiding it, it’s basic information theory and math.
EQ, at best, might remove a masking effect in adjacent frequencies, but you’re unlikely to be making sufficiently extreme changes, with a sufficiently narrow bandwidth, for that to be the case. I don’t see any EQ profiles given the for the LCD-5 that are making such extreme, and narrow, changes.
4 Likes
Ah yes.
Let me go get the popcorn.
2 Likes