Very well down. i enjoyed the read
Headphone Reviews and Discussion - Head-Fi.org
Frank I
branislav
I agree, great job on the review.
goldendarko
Great review Manko. So do you feel like there is any need to own the LCD-2's at this point or are their strengths carried over to the LCD-X's?
TheManko
Thanks everyone!
To answer Goldendarko, no I don't think there's a point in owning both the LCD-X and LCD-2. Unlike other headphones manufacturers Audeze aims for the same kind of sound every time with their headphones. The Sennheiser HD 650 and HD 800 sound drastically different, same with the Beyerdynamic T1 compared to the DT 990. With the Audeze lineup it's not at all like that. If you look at the frequency response of all the LCD headphones they all look almost exactly the same. The difference in sound between them isn't subtle though.
I had both the rev1 and rev2 versions of the LCD-2, and despite nearly identical frequency responses the rev2 version sounded much better. It had a lighter diaphragm, which resulted in a significantly improved sound stage over the rev1 version, and improved sound across the entire spectrum as it was simply technically superior at producing sound than the rev1 version. With the LCD-X the diaphragm is lighter than the LCD-2, which makes the resolution in the bass and midrange is noticeably better, while the new fazor transducer completely transforms the treble response. The balance in the bass and midrange is the same Audeze style as always, and the new treble is simply better. There's nothing I miss from the LCD-2.
I've seen comments where some prefer the LCD-2 style, but I don't agree at all with them. Maybe having owned the HD 800 for so long has made me able to appreciate when a headphone is technically competent.
To answer Goldendarko, no I don't think there's a point in owning both the LCD-X and LCD-2. Unlike other headphones manufacturers Audeze aims for the same kind of sound every time with their headphones. The Sennheiser HD 650 and HD 800 sound drastically different, same with the Beyerdynamic T1 compared to the DT 990. With the Audeze lineup it's not at all like that. If you look at the frequency response of all the LCD headphones they all look almost exactly the same. The difference in sound between them isn't subtle though.
I had both the rev1 and rev2 versions of the LCD-2, and despite nearly identical frequency responses the rev2 version sounded much better. It had a lighter diaphragm, which resulted in a significantly improved sound stage over the rev1 version, and improved sound across the entire spectrum as it was simply technically superior at producing sound than the rev1 version. With the LCD-X the diaphragm is lighter than the LCD-2, which makes the resolution in the bass and midrange is noticeably better, while the new fazor transducer completely transforms the treble response. The balance in the bass and midrange is the same Audeze style as always, and the new treble is simply better. There's nothing I miss from the LCD-2.
I've seen comments where some prefer the LCD-2 style, but I don't agree at all with them. Maybe having owned the HD 800 for so long has made me able to appreciate when a headphone is technically competent.
inter voice
I have both HD800 and LCD-X and I generally agreed with the comparison. Personally I like HD800 more.
RCBinTN
Thanks, very informative review. I have the LCD-X and love the sound on jazz, blues & rock. I'm considering the HD800 for classical.
SnowReborn
To be honest I heard more recessed treble on my LCD-X, which also shown on headphone.com's frequency response graph. I appreciated it's mids but bass was little bit less than my liking and treble is completely gone too low for me.
SnowReborn
I really believe what made you think LCD-X had more treble is because it's new fazor design and more opened back that makes you think you got more treble, but in fact it's just more air coming in and out and sounded opened.
TheManko
Sure, the frequency response of the LCD-2 vs LCD-X is largely similar, so the LCD-X doesn’t have ”more” treble per se than the LCD-2. I stared at the graphs and counted ~3db difference in volume between the midrange and treble between the LCD-2 and X, though the LCD-2 falls off sooner than the LCD-X in the upper mids, which can account for some difference in how in your face certain instruments will be. I can’t say if the LCD-X is letting in more “air” than the LCD-2 since I don’t have it around anymore. From memory the difference isn’t significant, and in comparison to the HD 800 the LCD-X almost seems semi-open. Though any headphone will appear that way compared to the wide open HD 800.
The significant difference in the treble is in how it’s presented. With the LCD-2 the treble was there, but at the same time it kind of wasn’t. With the LCD-X the treble is crisp, sharp and highly resolving in a way the LCD-2 never was.
There have been so many revisions to the LCD-2 that I want to throw in a caveat about comparisons against it. The LCD-3 had variation in its frequency response on release, and I bet the LCD-2 had as well, not counting the change between revisions. I was never able to relate to the bass impact people were talking about when describing the LCD-2 for example. With the LCD-X I’m finally getting some physical feel to the deep bass, which is very nice in games for example. Never had that sensation from the LCD-2. The bass was there, and I could clearly hear it, but it wasn’t like I’d seen it described. Today Audeze’s production is more stable and reliable. Does an LCD-2 of today sound like my July 2011 Rev2 did? I don’t know. Just a thing to keep in mind.
The significant difference in the treble is in how it’s presented. With the LCD-2 the treble was there, but at the same time it kind of wasn’t. With the LCD-X the treble is crisp, sharp and highly resolving in a way the LCD-2 never was.
There have been so many revisions to the LCD-2 that I want to throw in a caveat about comparisons against it. The LCD-3 had variation in its frequency response on release, and I bet the LCD-2 had as well, not counting the change between revisions. I was never able to relate to the bass impact people were talking about when describing the LCD-2 for example. With the LCD-X I’m finally getting some physical feel to the deep bass, which is very nice in games for example. Never had that sensation from the LCD-2. The bass was there, and I could clearly hear it, but it wasn’t like I’d seen it described. Today Audeze’s production is more stable and reliable. Does an LCD-2 of today sound like my July 2011 Rev2 did? I don’t know. Just a thing to keep in mind.
GoldfishX
Shame that Audeze headphones all have the same achilles heel, that is their comfort. HD800 murders it in that regard.
I'm skeptical if this one is $700 better than the LCD2. Would have made more sense to price it closer to the LCD2 or midway between LCD2 and LCD3 ($1500). At this price level, might as well just choke down an extra $300 and go LCD3.
I'm skeptical if this one is $700 better than the LCD2. Would have made more sense to price it closer to the LCD2 or midway between LCD2 and LCD3 ($1500). At this price level, might as well just choke down an extra $300 and go LCD3.
