In-Ear Fidelity

Audeze Euclid: Unboxing

Table of Contents


Audeze has been a bit of a love-hate brand for me.

Many would already be familiar with my opinions on the iSine/LCD-i series of open-backed planar IEMs: technically proficient, but with absolutely garbage tuning that necessitates some form of EQ. And that’s not considering the fact that an open-backed IEM is probably one of the nichest-of-the-niche products out there. After all, why buy an open-backed IEM when you can just… get an open-backed headphone?

Now in the greatest year of 2021, we finally have the solution. Here I present the Euclid, Audeze’s closed-back alternative to the iSines and LCD-i’s. Though that concept has got me understandably skeptical considering that last time a big-name brand tried to turn an open-back into a closed-back, we got the HD820.

But enough talk, here IEF answers the question you’ve all been asking once you’ve learnt of this IEM’s existence. How good is the Euclid actually?

Product page:

MSRP: $1,300

Driver configuration: Single Planar-magnetic (18mm)

This Euclid was kindly provided by Audeze.

Non-audio opinions

My unboxing posts are pretty much the only times I’ll ever talk about build quality, accessories and the like. I’m not really the person to ask about these things as I don’t really care about them that much.


  • Pelican 1020 hard case
  • Tips

Cable: 4-wire double-twist braid. Rather odd braiding style, rather rough and so not very comfortable skinfeel.

Connection: MMCX.

Build: metal build, surprisingly light given the size. No weak points from a cursory glance.

Fit: MMCX connection is a little too low for my liking, but otherwise fine for my large-ish ears. Could see the Euclid being a problem for smaller ears.

Isolation: slightly above average, wouldn’t mind bringing it outdoors but wouldn’t be my first choice either.

Initial impressions

  • Tuning is probably the Euclid’s biggest limitation, so not too dissimilar from the original iSine/LCD-i series of IEMs.
    • That said, the tonality is nowhere as bad as its predecessors. For one thing, there’s actual upper midrange and the 1.5kHz honkiness is very much eliminated.
  • Clarity-forward, but not necessarily in the right ways. Rather aggressive, almost shouty, but also lacks the required body for most baritone-bass instruments (and even in the tenor ranges too).
  • Vocals are too head-y for my liking. Again, needs more body and weight.
  • With all the bad things out of the way, here’s the good: the Euclid manages to match the resolving ability of its predecessors, that is to say, potentially top-tier material. 
  • The Euclid is clearly an IEM that priorities technical ability above all else and while it’s tonality leaves a lot to be desired, I can at least see this being usable without any EQ. 


All data has been uploaded to the Graph Comparison Tool.

Support me on Patreon to get access to tentative ranks, the exclusive “Clubhouse” Discord server and/or access to the Premium Graph Comparison Tool! My usual thanks to all my current supporters and shoutouts to my big money boys:

Man Ho

9 thoughts on “Audeze Euclid: Unboxing”

  1. Very nice and interesting to see Audeze moving towards high fidelity (neutrality).

    I own both the LCD-i4 and LCD-i3, and their tuning is very deficient, definitely not hifi, still much better than the unacceptable (from a hifi perspective), catastrophic tuning of the very expensive LCD-4(z) headphones. I also own the LCD-X = completely wrong, awful tuning (but not as expensive as the LCD-4), and its closed-back sibling, the LCD-XC, whose tuning is OK.

    So I wonder why Audeze fails at tuning open transducers like the LCD-X headphones and the LCD-i4 and i3 in-ears, but do a much better job with their closed back siblings, I mean the LCD-XC vs the X, and now apparently the Euclid vs the LCD-i3,4 (usually it is the opposite, companies having more trouble tuning closed-back vs open transducers).

    In any case, this is good news, I might purchase the Euclid, I am waiting for your review… You are the best, even better than Tyll…

    1. i have the XCs the tunning is actually on point compared to that of my hd800s and technicality is even better ,probably one of the best in closed-back cans. but the problem is its a little heavy, feels like neck excercise each listening session.

    2. I’ve always been curious about Audeze’s tuning. They produce such technically-able gear, it blows my mind that they can’t seem to tune it well.

      1. Because full range drivers plannar is very hard to tune there no crossover or separate components to be tuned for specific frequency range .what the whole raw diaphragms sound like when they were made was what the headphones actually sound like so they have to put active electric eq in the signals circutry wires ,again plannar hps have no domes or voice coil wire or suspension like dynamic hps have to manipulate the sound physically ,there’re only the diaphragms and the magnets so only things they can do to tune the hps is to manipulate the signals path that lead from the connectors to the diaphragms.

        1. Very interesting, Minh: this may answer my question about why Audeze does a much better tuning for the closed back version than for the open back one, as with closed backs, they could have more parameters (due to reflections…) to shape and correct the frequency response.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

First impressions

oBravo Cupid: Unboxing

INTRODUCTION From what I can see, the audiophile community remains pretty split on oBravo as a company. As far as

Read More »

In-Ear Fidelity Year Two: In Review

After a tumultuous year, In-Ear Fidelity celebrates its second anniversary on February 1st, 2021. A reflection on the year’s happenings, and what to look for in the future.

Read More »