Every once and a while I stumble upon a product that seems to transcend whatever you plug it into, a product that just pulls out detail and presents it with a lifelike naturalness whether your listening with a cell phone, cheapo laptop or top of the line Hi-Fi system.
An frankly the only thing I've heard recently that does exactly this is the Audeze LCD-MX4. Tuned with the LCD X drive but utilizing the double fluxor magnetic array found in the LCD-4 series I found that most times you can simply plug it into the most basic audio playback devices and 999/1000 times it'll be the best sounding headphone you've heard from that device! Even something like a old Dell Laptop from 2012, which can output around 96 mW into a 20 Ohm can make it sing beautifully!
Not to say that the LCD-MX4 doesn't respond to and present differences and improvements in quality, but rather I found that compared to everything else I've heard in the past the MX 4 has the most consistent performance among a variety of outputs.
This is, of course, by design, Audeze manufactured this product as a more efficient, easier to drive upgrade to the Studio Tuned LCD X. With the idea being that it can sound even better with even less dedicated gear behind it.
Build quality and function are as expected from a headphone not only at this price point but in line with all of Audeze's more robust modern offerings. The MX4, in particular, is lighter and more comfortable than it's brothers while having an equally substantial build quality. An I'd like to congratulate Audeze on implementing improvements to build quality and function across their product range as I feel the newest Audeze Cans are a big step above the legacy models in terms of build quality and comfort overall.
Non the less for this review I'll be focusing more on the sound quality rather than the build quality and overall function.
Specifications
- Style;
- Over the Ear Open Back
- Transducer Size
- 106 mm
- Max Power Handling
- 15W
- Max SPL
- >130dB
- THD
- <.1% @100dB
- Impedance
- 20 ohms
- Sensitivity
- 105 dB/1mW
- Minimum Power Requirement
- >100mW
Sound Signature & Amping
I found the MX4 to have a neutral tonal presentation in the lows, with a slight forwardness present in the mid-range and a slightly dark top end. An the following description of sound is more or less as is without any direct comparisons and the result of running it through my own reference desktop and portable systems in addition to a third and new top of the Line Digital Audio Player.
It was a little more difficult to describe how the MX4 sounded because I felt it was for the most part quite balanced. With only very slight changes to the overall presentation when switching between a variety of systems and topologies. Non the less I found the;
- Lows
- Were forceful and solid with excellent low end impact
- Kick drums have a nice heavy, solid, FAST POWERFUL SLAM
- Well extended and well resolved
- Both noise and harmonic content are present in fretting on both the Acoustic and Electric Bass
- With good texture
- Able to identify the resonant sound of larger instruments as they are played
- So not only hearing but feeling the weight and size of a cello as it's bow'd
- Mids
- Neutral Presentation
- Envelope is a little sweeter than dry
- More full-bodied than it is lean
- Textured with a slight minimal midrange forwardness
- Highs
- Top end has good clarity
- Though it's a bit dark
- Snappy with a nice tactility
- A bit dry without being "rough" or having any glare
- Imaging
- Fairly Intimate
- But with exceptional depth
- Spacial Clarity
- Precision
- Resolve
- Resolved both Micro Detail and Macro Detail equally well
- So ambient noise and transients were equally present
An really overall I just felt it performed well, I don't usually like to be vague but aside from being a little darker & ever so slightly more forward than perfectly neutral, I felt Audeze really hit the nail on the head! Their aim was for a full-bodied Studio like sound and I felt that was my experience exactly! The slightly darker and intimate sound lent itself to reign in many genres of music and always presented me with an deep, spacious and accurate image. I never struggled to visualize not only the musicians but also the space they were in.
While the precision was never as grand and vast as the HD 800 it felt a little more focused at the expensive of be all end all precision and transparency.
So carrying forward with the HD 800 and MX4 comparison I gave my favorite symphonic Metal track a listen from my reference systems, featuring a Project Ember II with a Classic Grade Psvane CV 181 T MK2 powering the MX4 via a full OCC Copper Cable along with a modded APPJ pa1502a SET Tube Amp featuring Soviet Power Tubes and a 1940 Sylvania White Label 12SL7GT Pre-Tube powering my HD 800 with a full silver recable.
An in my experience from these systems, each featuring an Audio GD NFB10ES2 as the Dac fed via Coaxial from my Schiit Etir, I found the following to be the differences;
- Lows
- I found HD 800 to portray textures better so;
- Big drums featured in the background had a bit less weight and force but a hollower sound the better portrayed their composition & construction
- Electric Bass riffs had a bit less slam and force overall but I was better able to perceive some of the transients relating to the bassist fretting about the neck of his instrument
- Ultimately the MX4 had a slight focus on the fundamentals or rather a faster decay/release whereas the HD 800 did not, henceforth harmonic content was more apparent
- Mids
- Now in the mid-range, the MX4 presented itself as having a little more harmonic content and a slight forwardness that was most evident with Horns & WoodWinds
- So not so much an emphasis on the decay/release/sustain but just a slightly fuller sound with the same quickness
- Simone's voice had a bit more body and wasn't as "airy"
- The fullness of notes from her chest was more apparent than the slightly airy quality that she adds with her mouth/lips
- Both the Guitars and Stringed instruments were a bit sweeter
- Again just a touch more harmonic content and fullness
- Guitars sit ever so slightly behind horns when they're both mastered, mixed or mic'd in a relatively close position
- Whereas the HD 800 was ever so slightly drier
- Both the texture of the stringed instruments and guitars were more vivid, in exchange for vocals that had a slightly more pronounced airiness, or some slight emphasis on those from the lips/mouth notes
- Though it should be noted I always felt the HD 800 was too wet so I choose a Silver Cable as I felt it added in a little more texture and tilted the HD 800's presentation towards the drier side
- Highs
- Even with the SDR Mod I still felt the HD 800 was "brighter" with both better definition and clarity up top, it's not to say the MX4 was "forgiving" rather;
- Flaws are apparent in the top end with the MX4 but the HD 800 seems to exacerbate them that much more so
- By the same token in some cases depending on how a track is produced, the HD 800 had a slightly more precise placement of percussion and ambient noise.
- Resolve & Imaging
- Ultimately;
- Out of the right system, the HD 800 is more resolving and tonally balanced
- Out of the Wrong System for an HD 800 the MX4 will ALWAYS present a more accurate and precise imaging
- With better resolve and a more balanced tonal presentation
An therein lies the strength of the MX4 in my opinion, it's ability to MAXIMIZE. Drop it into any un-optimized or bare bones audio play back systems and it'll likely perform better than most other headphones in that given system. The exception to this are systems that are tuned, built or optimized for and around a specific headphone or sound signature.
To bring this point home I listened to the MX4 and HD 800 with just my little Shanling M2S
An not only was the HD 800 just too quiet from the M2S for me to listen to tracks with a larger dynamic range. When I had music that was mastered a little louder the overall presentation was too warm and just kinda underwhelming. With the HD 800 from the M2S, I felt;
- the lows lacked power,
- the mid-range was a bit TOO forward and had too much decay,
- plus the top end was some how kinda forward but also a little diffuse
Switching into the MX4 with the M2S I found the;
- Bass
- While not as taut and textured as with "proper systems" still maintained excellent power, texture and impact
- It was just a tad slower or more "full" from the M2S. Some very low level transients and micro detail were a bit subdued
- Mids
- Had quite a lot of body but
- Maintained excellent texture
- Simone's vocals still had that touch of her lips/mouth
- No excessive from the chest heaviness or fullness
- Guitars still maintained their grit, crunch and aggression
- Though there was a slight smearing of some of the percussive sounds resulting from fretwork
- Had a nice Sweetness without being syrupy
- Maintained just a slight mid-range forwardness
- So the brass horns in Monty Alexander's - Sweet Georgia Brown were VIVID
- With exceptional dynamics and a slight twinge of metallic bite without being too in your face
- Highs
- Still vivid, snappy and precise
- Percussion in particular had a nice snap and vibrancy to it
Whereas the HD 800 took on a lot of the character of the M2S which is itself a bit mid-centric and slightly warm, the MX4 retained it's characteristic sound and focus with only a slight smidgen of mid-range forwardness. I was again supremely impressed with how well the MX4 does with so little!
I found my self really enjoy the MX4 mostly with portables more so than my own desktop systems, simply because the improvements on my desktop system were not substantial enough to compensate for the loss of convenience flexibility.
It's focused imaging and fairly neutral tonal balance really help bring maximize the technical performance of whatever gear your listening with, and with a Top of the Line Portable, I was able to more or less replicate the desktop experience on the go!
An really without repeating my self, I found all of the same detail I had with my reference system present with the Questyle QP2R, and in some cases, the QP2R was able to more cleanly resolve some transients over even my own desktop rig!
The biggest difference though was in precision and overall power, Audeze themselves recommend 1-4W of power into the MX4 and with upwards of 2W I did find the low end to have the cleanest and most visceral impact and the imaging to be ever so slightly more expansive than with less powerful but equally resolving systems. Though these improvements were again quite minimal, often times listening with only the QP2R in more comfortable or often times louder settings than my office was in fact quite equivalent to being in said office! So with just a single box I was able to bring the full might of my reference desktop system, with all of it's many power conditioners, Digital Signal re-clockers, and isolators, with me!
Which I have to say was really quite eye-opening, to have listened to a headphone that's able to do so much without having such a heavily optimized system behind it!
But how about running the MX4 with a portable system that CAN deliver upwards of yet again 2W of power?
Well, in this case, I tested both the HD 800 and the MX4 from my HM901/iBassoPB2 portable system. You'll likely notice that third black box at the bottom, that happens to be the dedicated battery power supply for the PB2, which has an inline filter to deliver a clean and constant 16V input.
So with my portable reference system the MX4 and HD 800, I ultimately found more differences than anything. Going back to Epica's The Divine Conspiracy, a track that blends together both elements of Heavy Metal and Classical music I found with this particular System the MX4 excelled;
- With the heavier sections featuring anything from;
- kick drums,
- dropped guitars
- or an electric bass.
- A sense of aggression, power, and purposeful distortion translated better with the MX4 without overshadowing or swallowing the softer more natural beauty of the wooded stringed instruments.
Whereas the HD 800 was;
- Maybe a bit too dry,
- having a touch too much texture or detail and detracting from just the heaviness of the riffs at times.
However, with the more classically influenced sections, the HD 800;
- More vividly distinguished the unique timbre of those instruments even with the heavier metal riffs atop.
So it's hard to say if the mastering goal was to present beautiful brutality or brutal beauty... as each headphones presentation felt equally balanced and "correct" albeit slightly different.
Moving onto some more comparisons, next we have the MX4 up again'st it's older brother the LCD X. This comparison was done with my Geek Out v2+ fusing a fully balanced OCC Copper Cable on both headphones and Rebecca Pidgeon's Spanish Harlem.
Ultimately the biggest difference I found between the two was;
- Clarity in resolving;
- Rebecca's Vocals
- Texture in the double bass
- Definition for each of the physical movements of the shaker in the background
- The trailing edge of the guitars
- In each of these cases and a few others the MX4 was just more vivid, details popped out a little more easily and the overall presentation was just improved
- Efficiency
- The MX4 was able to reach the same SPL Levels with even less output from my Dac/Amp
While rach had a similar tonal balance given that they share the same driver but the MX4 was both easier to drive and simply offered more detail and clarity all around. So certainly the MX4 is a clear upgrade from the LCD X with NO drawbacks that I could find.
What about those of you who own something like the LCD 2C, 2F or Pre Fazor LCD2?
Well as covered in my previous LCD 2 Shoot Out I felt the MX 4 really bested each of the 2 Series models. Simply put even with the stock cable the MX4 clearly shows it's self as being a step above even the best LCD 2 I've heard! Quite literally everything is improved over the previous model so the MX4 offers;
- Better resolve of both transients and spacial information
- so the position of the strike of that big drum moves around a little more
- Texture in the spectrum as a whole
- So an even more defined tactile edge on each of the guitars individual strings
- giving you an even deeper appreciation for the beauty of a 12 string guitar
- Even more precise imaging
- Marginally less bass power,
- But... while the bass is a little drier and not quite as powerful it does have a similar sense of heft and impact
- Overall I feel that maybe the MX4s bass is still a step above all the LCD 2s I've heard
- Even more efficient and easier to drive
- Even lighter and more comfortable
Though I will mention that the MX4 is a slight departure from the more traditional Audeze Sound, it kinda sounds like some one took my LCD 2 and my HD 800 and merged them together! Which if I had down size and only own a single headphone... I'd certainly get an MX4 for that very reason!
So moving upward and back towards a more classic Audeze sound, how does the MX4 compare to the LCD 4Z another Super efficient design, but one that's built entirely around the Driver of the LCD 4? This time around it's the same DAC/Amp my Geek Out v2+ with yet another balanced Cable but I listened to the Eagles performing Hotel California Live;
What I found was that the LCD 4Z had more of a classic Audeze House Sound, so;
- Even thicker more full-bodied mids,
- Slightly better resolve as well but also a bit more forward
- Bass is even heavier
- Slightly more resolving of harmonic content
- So there's the same level of power and control but slightly more resolve, resulting in not only a more natural sounding low end but more body as well
- Even Darker Up top
- Slightly sweeter and a bit smoother with slightly less top end energy
- But no loss of sparkle, snap or tactility
Certainly, the LCD 4Z is more of everything that makes Audeze unique and while it's just as easy to drive and more resolving than the MX4 I think overall it's dark beautiful super-resolved but marginally romantic sound wouldn't be the best tool for studio musicians and engineers. The more linear tonal balance of the MX4 still seems better suited for Studio Environments.
In conclusion I felt that at the end of the day, regardless of the system that you own. Whether it's a tower of portable gear, a single Digital Audio Player or Laptop, or even a full fledged desktop system Audeze MX4 offers not only some of the best comfort and any full sized Audeze can I've tried but also a fairly neutral and well resolved headphone presentation. It in my experience consistently outperformed HD 800 on a variety of what I'd consider less than ideal play back devices and set ups! Proving it self to be one of the very best sounding headphone systems to own without the hassle of researching and pairing together a complimentary sounding components.
