Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Network & Industry News › CanJam at RMAF 2013 Preview (And Exclusive Early Reveals!) - Head-Fi TV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CanJam at RMAF 2013 Preview (And Exclusive Early Reveals!) - Head-Fi TV - Page 9  

post #121 of 361

any specks on it yet#/?

post #122 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noobmachine View Post
 

Can't wait to hear impressions on the new LCD-XC and X, I have a feeling that either of those 2 is going to be my next big purchase, if they improved upon the LCD-2/3's darkish voicing and balanced out the sound, I may just have to buy them ;) Plus the XC, ABSOLUTELY STUNNING.

 

I wish I was able to live with the LCD-X for a longer period of time (VERY soon) but, as I've said before here in this thread -backing up my friend @warrenpchi's commentary-

The LCD-X was, to this music addicts ears, a revelation.  Much like the LCD3 (my favorite headphone of all-time thus far) I was completely engrossed in the music while listening, much like the picture below (but I couldn't have a pic at the time w/ the upcoming LCD-X):

And for those of you who missed it: The picture of @Shane55 wearing the LCD-XC prototype at the WAS Meet says it ALL!

His smile from ear-to-ear while hearing it for the very first time is worth a thousand words.

 

I can wholly appreciate somebody wanting Tyll to sit down with all the Audeze's, and provide measurements.  I have great respect

for Tyll (and he's a good man and a friend) - but I can't offer up the same measurement-based approach.  I come from a completely

different school of thought in the audio world: The Harry Pearson methodology if you will, or, more accurately, the J. Gordon Holt philosophy:

That is describing the music as experienced via the component (or components) - describing the gear's musicality, tonality, and of course, ability

to grab you emotionally and keep you engaged.  Because at the end of the day (and objectivists please save the venom for another time - many

of you know the school I come from) it's all about what the music does to you while being reproduced through whatever system you're listening to.

And no bench result can tell you what the music actually sounds like through the gear without experiencing it; or describe the soul of the music.

 

It's the music that moves me.  The gear, while cool and fun (I'd be lying if I said I wasn't into the gear) is merely the vehicle.  I don't care about

price, whether 200 bucks or 2000, if it connects me to the music to a degree where I forget that I'm listening to machinery, to an actual reproduction caught in time, then it's truly transcendent for me, and that's what I'm after.  The LCD-X continues in the great tradition of Audeze's ability to connect me to the music, and make me forget that I have these huge cans on and I look like Deadmau5 while listening!

 

Words like "transparency" get abused in audio journalism.  I remember when I was strictly living in the high end two-channel in-room world, I usually only applied that term to my experience with Magnepans, or even Quads.  But their window-like "transparency", when executed properly with great accompanying gear, can feel like an audible looking glass onto the music!  Now am I saying it's perfect and prestine, completely uncolored, sh__ like that" No.  But I am saying when those types of loudspeakers achieve that window-like transparency, I forget about all this audio babble in my head and just get utterly lost in the music.  It's no cliche to me: The music washes over me, and that's the secret sauce in this Hi-fi drug (whether personal or in-room).  However, like all drugs, different people like different highs.

 

I get high off the music, and next to my LCD3's and HD800's, the LCD-X and XC delivers a sonic experience that's kindred to, when paired w/ the right system, listening to a pair of Nola Grand Reference Loudspeakers (around 200k) in Harry Pearson's largest listening room for me!  Or the Genesis 1 Loudspeaker system (250k) in that same room.  Those systems brought me deeper into the music than I've ever been.  It was truly a holographic image when I closed my eyes, OR kept them open (I usually listen w/ em closed) and so

the technology factor disappears for a fleeting moment.  These are the cans that do the same in the headphone world for me - next to the AKG-1000's, and Stax 009s.

 

That's really what it boils down to.  I wish at the moment I could more eloquently summarize their sonic character to you like my brotha @warrenpchi has done so here earlier in the thread - who, coincidentally, was never a big fan of my LCD3's!  During our collective E.A.R & Studio Six listening sessions at my crib he'd always opt for my HD-800s.  He preferred the LCD-2 - and I also didn't know how he'd feel about the LCD-X (I heard it for the first time early in the morning - knowing he was gonna get to hear it that same evening) but I loved em!

 

They felt lighter than my LCD3's, I loved the gun-metal look (don't know if its changed since I heard it a month ago), and the clamping force was also much less.  Again, all in agreement w/ @warrenpchi's assessment earlier in the thread.

 

When I listened to one of our tracks (one of my sonic acid tests - a minimal tech house number, a lil tribal/proggy, that was released back in 04 on Listen to Reason Records under our Seamless Satori moniker) through my reference tube tube rig the X's took me back to the studio - where we wrote, recorded, mixed, and mastered the damn thing!  It was done using all analog synth sounds (that we sampled from the analog machines) sequenced in Cubase.  It felt like listening to the LCD3, but I need more time, because I do think they MAY HAVE achieved what they seemingly set out to do: Which was create a headphone that sat comfortably between the 2 and 3, with the sonic attributes that make them great, but offer a taste somewhere in the middle.  Because I may prefer it to my LCD3, but I can't say that for sure yet.  

 

I didn't listen to it for nearly long enough.  But I can say that experiencing everything from the new Four Tet album to the Nine Inch Nails, Alix Perez, and the new Holden album (The Inheritors) through the X was like hearing them anew - and I've been addicted to that music for months now for some reason.  The bass was controlled, but rippled wonderfully - as fluid as fluid gets.  The mids hit with velocity and had a wonderful texture.  They were colorful (NOT colored).  The highs were extended and things dissipated naturally; the sounds of things trailing off...  I hate to say it, especially after my rant, but yeah, they were F'ing transparent - as much as the 3, if perhaps not as tonally rich as I find my LCD3 - but I gotta get more time on it!!!  And I WILL SOON!!

 

Sorry for the maddening cyber-babble!  I figured since a few of us were lucky enough to actually hear the LCD-X and XC should share something about it.  I can't WAIT to own one, write about it, live with it, and hear it with my E.A.R HP4 and ALO Studio Six amplifiers!!!!!

 

I know they're a couple of cans that I feel I NEED!!    I'll post some impressions of the XC ASAP.  Hell soon we can follow up after hearing them again in Denver!!!! Whew hooh!  I'm also DYING for my Alpha Dogs to arrive!!

 

 :o2smile:

 

Re: The LCD-XC - Dan's Alpha Dog does get closer than it should IMO - so lets see if Audeze has more tricks up their sleeve before FINAL production!!

tricks up their sleeve) 

 

SORRY - MY ODD SPACING MADE IT LOOK SO MUCH LONGER!!  Fixed now


Edited by mikemercer - 10/5/13 at 1:51pm
post #123 of 361

Ok, so are the LCD-X technically more accurate, providing more developed soundstage and imaging, significantly higher microdetail etc. than HD800? I am not really interested in all that "grab you emotionally and keep you engaged" stuff :-)

 

(sorry, analytical listener here)

Thank you very much in advance for your answer, I am honestly curious, nothing more or less :beerchug: 

post #124 of 361

I was just thinking that was a very long post with a great intro, but I didn't come away with much at all at the end of it.

 

Are the LCD-X more transparent than the LCD-3s? Transparency usually translates into musical engagement. Or are they better or worse technically? I guess it's too soon to know.


Edited by negura - 10/5/13 at 12:43pm
post #125 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by negura View Post
 

I was just thinking that was a very long post with a great intro, but I didn't come away with much at all at the end of it.

 

+1

 

How do they compare to LCD-3? Your first thoughts :)


Edited by dan.gheorghe - 10/5/13 at 1:31pm
post #126 of 361

Transparency is a pretty ambiguous word, everybody's gonna have a different definition of it.  You should just find a reviewer who has similar taste to your own and wait and see if they're going to do a full-fledged lcd-x review.


Edited by TMRaven - 10/5/13 at 1:25pm
post #127 of 361

For me transparency = transient response (driver speed). So if it's thinner, lighter and has more powerful magnets (magnetic flux) then it will sound more transparent to me as it conveys more music information in a given space of time. Kind of like the refresh rate of a TV.

post #128 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by negura View Post
 

I was just thinking that was a very long post with a great intro, but I didn't come away with much at all at the end of it.

 

Are the LCD-X more transparent than the LCD-3s? Transparency usually translates into musical engagement. Or are they better or worse technically? I guess it's too soon to know.

It is too soon to tell,

and I'm sorry you didn't come away with much at all.

 

I tried to convey my feelings on their ability to strip away my awareness of the technology, and just get swept up in the music - 

much like the sensation I get from my LCD3's + my reference desktop tube rigs and my two-channel reference system.  I'm a music

addict, listen to it every waking moment if I can (and in the shower, car) and while I sleep.  I want to know: Does this piece of gear

remind me that I'm listening to a facsimile of the real thing, or does it connect me to the music in a way that helps my mind forget

the delivery mechanism altogether.

 

We're all after different things technically, though our shared goal in the end is the be connected to the music right?

And we all seek different information/intel that can help lead us to a determination on whether or not we may enjoy a piece

of gear.  For me, bench results never tell me what I'm looking for, but I never discount anybody else's approach if that's what

helps them determine what they want.

 

What I seek in my sound systems, as I describe in my review of the CEntrance HiFi-M8 (used w/ my Audeze LCD3's, Mad Dogs,

and JH-13 Freqphase) is to get out of their own way as much as possible.  I wanna be drawn in, test results be damned, I wanna

forget about the headphone while I'm listening to it.  That's what I look for.

 

I'll give you a direct musical reference: With the LCD-X, when I was listening to the Carabou remix of Radiohead's "Little By Little" (one of the tracks I

selected to demo the LCD-X and XC - and also a track that many of us at the CAS Meet heard when hearing the LCD-XC for the 1st time btw)

the bassline was authoritative, with the same fantastic liquidity I mentioned in my post above.  It was also controlled and extended.  The midrange

was as coherent as I've heard it: Considering past experiences with everything from Maggies to Quads to Stax 009s.  The highs were crispy, detailed,

and airy.  It was a pure delight.  I thought micro and macro-dynamics were superbly executed.  There was great punch, as well as finesse in their musical

presentation.

 

Can I tell you with authority if I liked it better, or if it's better technically than my LCD3's at this point?

No.

 

I wasn't thinking about that when I was listening to the LCD-X.  

I was focused on the music.

 

When I got em all here at home - I'm psyched to dig into this further.

Sorry if that doesn't provide the intel you're looking for.

 

There will be plenty of technical reviews to come I'm sure!

 

I will say this: I told Alex (Rosson, of Audeze) that after listening to the LCD-X, when I went home after CAS, it was the first time that I fired up my LCD3

and thought: Damn, I wish I could hear this with the other LCD!!  Meaning: I never listened to my LCD3 before while thinking of another headphone experience.

It's my favorite can (the LCD3) and the X is the only other headphone I've heard that has me drooling over, well, thinking of it goin head-to-head with my LCD3 at

home!!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emertxe View Post
 

Ok, so are the LCD-X technically more accurate, providing more developed soundstage and imaging, significantly higher microdetail etc. than HD800? I am not really interested in all that "grab you emotionally and keep you engaged" stuff :-)

 

(sorry, analytical listener here)

Thank you very much in advance for your answer, I am honestly curious, nothing more or less :beerchug: 

 

far too early for me to answer that,

but no worries. I am a critical listener as well, having reviewed high end two-channel for many years - I know specs and feature sets are important intel.

I wouldn't deny that.

 

I would gladly put those two to the test (the LCD-X and my HD800s) as soon as possible and let you know my opinion

with regard to which I feel is more "accurate".  Accuracy is a tough topic itself.  Having also worked at Atlantic Records

for a producer for many years, and having been a part of many recording sessions, I know that the word accuracy can sometimes

refer to whether or not the sound is itself is accurate (like does this sound like an actual drumkit) or does the record sound as the artist

intended?  Which hardly anyone but the original studio players would know.

 

That being said: In my limited time with the LCD-X, I would trust it's accuracy enough to track and mix with in the studio. 

 

But when I have both back in hand I'll gladly try to give you my detailed feedback.


Edited by mikemercer - 10/5/13 at 1:28pm
post #129 of 361

I would say that transparency is rather a combination of several things: frequency response with enough linearity and without any significant resonances or excessive colorations, fast responsive drivers and enough detail to call the sound coming out "life-like".

post #130 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemercer View Post
 

That being said: In my limited time with the LCD-X, I would trust it's accuracy enough to track and mix with in the studio.

 

That's actually great to hear, really! I am glad these LCD-X are going the right way...

 

Thank you again for your asnwer :-)

post #131 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by emertxe View Post
 

 

That's actually great to hear, really! I am glad these LCD-X are going the right way...

 

Thank you again for your asnwer :-)

ANYTIME!

So glad I was able to touch on something you could relate to!!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emertxe View Post
 

I would say that transparency is rather a combination of several things: frequency response with enough linearity and without any significant resonances or excessive colorations, fast responsive drivers and enough detail to call the sound coming out "life-like".

 

WELL SAID sir!

post #132 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by magiccabbage View Post
 

 

you guys think the new schiit dac will compete with others in its price range like the WFS DAC 2?

 

Seriously, it's too soon to tell, but Jason and Company must think it will be highly competitive or then why bother build it?  And with Mike being the Magic DAC Man, it's got a great shot...

 

Just my two pence...

 

Cheers!:beerchug:

-HK sends

post #133 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemercer View Post
  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

It is too soon to tell,

and I'm sorry you didn't come away with much at all.

 

I tried to convey my feelings on their ability to strip away my awareness of the technology, and just get swept up in the music - 

much like the sensation I get from my LCD3's + my reference desktop tube rigs and my two-channel reference system.  I'm a music

addict, listen to it every waking moment if I can (and in the shower, car) and while I sleep.  I want to know: Does this piece of gear

remind me that I'm listening to a facsimile of the real thing, or does it connect me to the music in a way that helps my mind forget

the delivery mechanism altogether.

 

We're all after different things technically, though our shared goal in the end is the be connected to the music right?

And we all seek different information/intel that can help lead us to a determination on whether or not we may enjoy a piece

of gear.  For me, bench results never tell me what I'm looking for, but I never discount anybody else's approach if that's what

helps them determine what they want.

 

What I seek in my sound systems, as I describe in my review of the CEntrance HiFi-M8 (used w/ my Audeze LCD3's, Mad Dogs,

and JH-13 Freqphase) is to get out of their own way as much as possible.  I wanna be drawn in, test results be damned, I wanna

forget about the headphone while I'm listening to it.  That's what I look for.

 

I'll give you a direct musical reference: With the LCD-X, when I was listening to the Carabou remix of Radiohead's "Little By Little" (one of the tracks I

selected to demo the LCD-X and XC - and also a track that many of us at the CAS Meet heard when hearing the LCD-XC for the 1st time btw)

the bassline was authoritative, with the same fantastic liquidity I mentioned in my post above.  It was also controlled and extended.  The midrange

was as coherent as I've heard it: Considering past experiences with everything from Maggies to Quads to Stax 009s.  The highs were crispy, detailed,

and airy.  It was a pure delight.  I thought micro and macro-dynamics were superbly executed.  There was great punch, as well as finesse in their musical

presentation.

 

Can I tell you with authority if I liked it better, or if it's better technically than my LCD3's at this point?

No.

 

I wasn't thinking about that when I was listening to the LCD-X.  

I was focused on the music.

 

When I got em all here at home - I'm psyched to dig into this further.

Sorry if that doesn't provide the intel you're looking for.

 

There will be plenty of technical reviews to come I'm sure!

 

I will say this: I told Alex (Rosson, of Audeze) that after listening to the LCD-X, when I went home after CAS, it was the first time that I fired up my LCD3

and thought: Damn, I wish I could hear this with the other LCD!!  Meaning: I never listened to my LCD3 before while thinking of another headphone experience.

It's my favorite can (the LCD3) and the X is the only other headphone I've heard that has me drooling over, well, thinking of it goin head-to-head with my LCD3 at

home!!

 

 

far too early for me to answer that,

but no worries. I am a critical listener as well, having reviewed high end two-channel for many years - I know specs and feature sets are important intel.

I wouldn't deny that.

 

I would gladly put those two to the test (the LCD-X and my HD800s) as soon as possible and let you know my opinion

with regard to which I feel is more "accurate".  Accuracy is a tough topic itself.  Having also worked at Atlantic Records

for a producer for many years, and having been a part of many recording sessions, I know that the word accuracy can sometimes

refer to whether or not the sound is itself is accurate (like does this sound like an actual drumkit) or does the record sound as the artist

intended?  Which hardly anyone but the original studio players would know.

 

That being said: In my limited time with the LCD-X, I would trust it's accuracy enough to track and mix with in the studio. 

 

But when I have both back in hand I'll gladly try to give you my detailed feedback.

 

 

Thanks for elaborating. I now understand the context better. Imo while I think the LCD-3s are very transparent and amongst the top headphones at this too (they are my favorite dynamic headphones and in my top 5), something was always missing compared to some other top flights for an even more refined connection with the music. Maybe because of the soundstage and imaging limitations or that they don't have the final couple of notches of clarity. My favourite headphones overall so far are the SR007s MKIs which truly connect me with the music in the way as you say, that makes you forget you're listening to gear, while also being excellent technically. If the LCD-X improve on the weaknesses of the LCD-3s and conserve the strengths well, they may indeed be a winner. Hearing they are closer to neutrality could be a very good thing, as long as they are not going too far the other way (e.g.: bright).

 

In my experience with the high end of headphones it is only by context, when one hears something better, that you notice the limitations of other products more. I am much looking forward to hear the LCD-X.


Edited by negura - 10/5/13 at 2:09pm
post #134 of 361

First of all, thanks for sharing all of that mikemercer, I couldn't agree with you more.  Frankly, it's been hard having to keep our impressions under wraps - so I'm glad we can finally let some of this out.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emertxe View Post

Thank you very much in advance for your answer, I am honestly curious, nothing more or less :beerchug: 

 

Sure, perfectly understandable. :smile:

 

Secondly, guys we all have different (and sometimes multiple) ways of evaluating gear.  And having been at this for decades, mikemercer can definitely give you guys a more analytical breakdown.  But for him, the ultimate evaluation of gear is how it serves as the interface (or vehicle as he says) between us and the music.  So trust me when I say that, what he wanted to do was to cut through a lot of jargon to get to the heart of the matter with y'all.  :smile:

 

And though mikemercer and I have very different approaches (as well as preferences), we both arrived at the same conclusion.  I'll try to answer some specific questions below.  Please keep in mind that I am - of course - speaking IMO.

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emertxe View Post
 

are the LCD-X technically more accurate,

 

Yes.  I still hold the HD 800 as a reference for dynamic driver cans.  There will always be a part of me that appreciates the HD 800 for what it is.  And NO headphone in the world will ever make it sound worse than it does.  But comparatively, yes.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emertxe View Post
 

providing more developed soundstage and imaging

 

I would say a more accurate soundstage and imaging, if that makes sense?

 

The HD 800 (stock and without mods of course) has always been wonderfully enjoyable for me in terms of staging and imaging.  However, I would also have to say that it has a tendency to exaggerate a bit in that department.  Trust me though, I totally get why that euphoric feeling is, well, euphoric.  I'm enjoying the Tralucent Audio 1plus2 right now for that exact reason.  But at some point, it can just be a bit too much.

 

With the LCD-X, the soundstage seems far more accurate, appropriate, proper and somehow just feels right.

 

EDIT:  In case someone is wondering, yes I find that the LCD-X's staging and imaging to be superior to that of the LCD-3's.  For me, the LCD-3 always swung too far to the opposite extreme of the HD 800 in terms of staging.  Yes, the LCD-3 is wonderfully intimate with crazy immediacy.  But... I'm not the biggest fan of having the sound be that danger close.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emertxe View Post
 

significantly higher microdetail etc. than HD800?

 

Yes.  Call it what you like:  microdetail, low-level information, plankton, whatever.  Yes, it does.  And, it does so effortlessly and without embellishment or exaggeration.  There are certain cans that tend to throw that stuff in your face - I'm looking at you SR-009 and Abyss.  They almost force all of that micro-detail on you... much like a screen would over-saturate colors.  But real life is not like that.  There shouldn't be that kind of micro-detail bloom.  And so those cans always seem to be a bit gimmicky in that department for me. 

 

But the LCD-X simply presents it clearly and cleanly.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by negura View Post
 

Are the LCD-X more transparent than the LCD-3s?

 

Yes.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

Transparency is a pretty ambiguous word, everybody's gonna have a different definition of it.  You should just find a reviewer who has similar taste to your own and wait and see if they're going to do a full-fledged lcd-x review.

 

It can be yes.  Or rather, the usage of that word often is.  Having said that, I believe that if we were to gather a reasonable sample size of experienced Head-Fiers for an audition, there would be a clear trend indicating that the LCD-X is more transparent.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by negura View Post
 

Or are they better or worse technically?

 

I'm not a liberty to reveal any technical details that I may or may now have at this moment (or even ever now that I think about it).  But they perform significantly better for me technically.  They sound more accurate in nearly all respects.  And if I were asked which of the two that I perceived to be better from a technical performance standpoint, I wouldn't even need a moment's hesitation before pointing to the LCD-X over the LCD-3.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe View Post
 

How do they compare to LCD-3? Your first thoughts :)

 

Hehe, see above (and below).  :smile:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by M-13 View Post
 

For me transparency = transient response (driver speed). So if it's thinner, lighter and has more powerful magnets (magnetic flux) then it will sound more transparent to me as it conveys more music information in a given space of time. Kind of like the refresh rate of a TV.

 

As this treads uncomfortably close to certain technical details I an under NDA for, I will simply say this.  Based on your criteria above, I believe that you will find the "transparency" noticeably and significantly improved.


Edited by warrenpchi - 10/5/13 at 2:41pm


Home of the Liquid Carbon, Liquid Crimson, Liquid Glass, Liquid Gold and
Liquid Lightning headphone amplifiers... and the upcoming Liquid Spark!

post #135 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post
 

First of all, thanks for sharing all of that mikemercer, I couldn't agree with you more.  Frankly, it's been hard having to keep our impressions under wraps - so I'm glad we can finally let some of this out.

 

 

Sure, perfectly understandable. :smile:

 

Secondly, guys we all have different (and sometimes multiple) ways of evaluating gear.  And having been at this for decades, mikemercer can definitely give you guys a more analytical breakdown.  But for him, the ultimate evaluation of gear is how it serves as the interface (or vehicle as he says) between us and the music.  So trust me when I say that, what he wanted to do was to cut through a lot of jargon to get to the heart of the matter with y'all.  :smile:

 

And though mikemercer and I have very different approaches (as well as preferences), we both arrived at the same conclusion.  I'll try to answer some specific questions below.  Please keep in mind that I am - of course - speaking IMO.

 


 

 

Yes.  I still hold the HD 800 as a reference for dynamic driver cans.  There will always be a part of me that appreciates the HD 800 for what it is.  And NO headphone in the world will ever make it sound worse than it does.  But comparatively, yes.

 

 

I would say a more accurate soundstage and imaging, if that makes sense?

 

The HD 800 (stock and without mods of course) has always been wonderfully enjoyable for me in terms of staging and imaging.  However, I would also have to say that it has a tendency to exaggerate a bit in that department.  Trust me though, I totally get why that euphoric feeling is, well, euphoric.  I'm enjoying the Tralucent Audio 1plus2 right now for that exact reason.  But at some point, it can just be a bit too much.

 

With the LCD-X, the soundstage seems far more accurate, appropriate, proper and somehow just feels right.

 

EDIT:  In case someone is wondering, yes I find that the LCD-X's staging and imaging to be superior to that of the LCD-3's.  For me, the LCD-3 always swung too far to the opposite extreme of the HD 800 in terms of staging.  Yes, the LCD-3 is wonderfully intimate with crazy immediacy.  But... I'm not the biggest fan of having the sound be that danger close.

 

 

Yes.  Call it what you like:  microdetail, low-level information, plankton, whatever.  Yes, it does.  And, it does so effortlessly and without embellishment or exaggeration.  There are certain cans that tend to throw that stuff in your face - I'm looking at you SR-009 and Abyss.  They almost force all of that micro-detail on you... much like a screen would over-saturate colors.  But real life is not like that.  There shouldn't be that kind of micro-detail bloom.  And so those cans always seem to be a bit gimmicky in that department for me. 

 

But the LCD-X simply presents it clearly and cleanly.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

It can be yes.  Or rather, the usage of that word often is.  Having said that, I believe that if we were to gather a reasonable sample size of experienced Head-Fiers for an audition, there would be a clear trend indicating that the LCD-X is more transparent.

 

 

I'm not a liberty to reveal any technical details that I may or may now have at this moment (or even ever now that I think about it).  But they perform significantly better for me technically.  They sound more accurate in nearly all respects.  And if I were asked which of the two that I perceived to be better from a technical performance standpoint, I wouldn't even need a moment's hesitation before pointing to the LCD-X over the LCD-3.

 

 

Hehe, see above (and below).  :smile:

 

 

As this treads uncomfortably close to certain technical details I an under NDA for, I will simply say this.  Based on your criteria above, I believe that you will find the "transparency" noticeably and significantly improved.

 

Thanks for the impressions. Can't wait to hear them :D  It looks like they will be cheaper and better... Isn't this very rare in audio world? :D 


Edited by dan.gheorghe - 10/5/13 at 2:48pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Head-Fi Network & Industry News
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Network & Industry News › CanJam at RMAF 2013 Preview (And Exclusive Early Reveals!) - Head-Fi TV