or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 69

post #1021 of 8693
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

Definitely man.  On Head-Fi every headphone trashes every other headphone on basis of how likable their sound signature alone is to the person talking about them.

 

Yep, I was just telling someone in PM last night that when I first signed up on here about two years ago, the degree to which people were passionate about their choices and preferences was something I wasn't expecting...certain threads are like mine fields around here lol. 

 

But the more I listen to headphones of various quality, they more I'm of the belief that while the strengths and weaknesses are obviously present, it's not often some massive night and day discrepancy from one to the next. For someone like me who doesnt' have the resources or opportunity to audition tons of gear, it can really be hard to sort through the impressions and figure out what to take with a grain of salt and what to accept at face value. 

post #1022 of 8693
Quote:
Originally Posted by commtrd View Post
 

Meh... I have the LCD3 and sounds awesome and it's paid for. I think peeps just work themselves up into a frenzy over other's subjective observational nuances all the while knowing that everyone hears slightly (or more) differently on top of approaching every single thing thru their belief system so that the only input that should ever matter at all is a personal audition of the cans with their own amp and dac. Period. Just like tubes vs solid state. There will be those who are willing to argue endlessly about how SS just sucks for a set of cans while there will be others who argue just as strenuously the other way. What about sample variance? What about __________________?

 

The truth is the X likely sound just great and also the truth is the LCD 3 sound great too. I own the LCD3 so I know it sounds awesome. And I know that basing thousands of dollars worth of potential purchases on other people's totally subjective feedback when you know they do not and can not hear exactly the way you do is ridiculous.

 

Listen to both on your system and make your choice. Or buy a Stax 009 or whatever. Its all good. There's choices... My choice is to keep my LCD 3 and be happy.

 

Well said. For me, though, it doesn't always come down to a purchase decision. I've always enjoyed the sharing of information and reading about others impressions and preferences...I could be perfectly happy living with my $20 JVC nanotube phones if need be, cause for me it's more about the music than the gear. I dont' get caught up in making sure I have the BEST gear possible either objectively or subjectively, cause I enjoy my toys regardless of their price point. I just get a little frustrated when the descriptors aren't grounded in reality, cause it makes it really hard to feel as if I've learned something from the feedback that is offered, you know? 

post #1023 of 8693
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnaud View Post

Also, I did check the IF measurements you're mentioning and I personally feel is nothing to write home about. I see resonances at 4kHz/7kHz and harmonics of that, an impulse response with big reflection right after main pulse and quite a bit of junk after that, distortion near and even exceeding 1%. I wonder even if Tyll might not be double checking this before publishing.

 

Wut!? Did I publish some LCD-X measurements somewhere? Oooops....got a linky. I am indeed having some issues getting a good measurement at the moment.

post #1024 of 8693
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe View Post
 

 

I just love LCD-X's treble. It is clean, transparent and smooth. 

 

About the bass roll off. Had the LCD-X here for over a week now. Didn't hear any bass roll off.

 

There shouldn't be any significant bass roll off if you get a good pad seal which may not be that difficult. I believe I mentioned that HERE. However, there might be a slight sub-bass depression below 30 Hz based on the IF measurements. When I heard them, I don't think I had many issues with the bass response though.

 

Disagree about the treble. I don't find it smooth and transparent.

 

EDIT: As always, take impressions and measurements with a grain of salt, but these are the measurements from upper bass to treble I took from the LCD-X, LCD-2 and HE-6 I heard. The measurements in that region sort of agree with my impressions.

 

 

Blue: HE-6 right

Yellow: LCD-2 right (good one)

Red: LCD-X right


Edited by ultrabike - 11/10/13 at 10:50am
post #1025 of 8693
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post
 

 

There shouldn't be any significant bass roll off if you get a good pad seal which may not be that difficult. I believe I mentioned that HERE. However, there might be a slight sub-bass depression below 30 Hz based on the IF measurements. When I heard them, I don't think I had many issues with the bass response though.

 

Disagree about the treble. I don't find it smooth and transparent.

 

EDIT: As always, take impressions and measurements with a grain of salt, but these are the measurements from upper bass to treble I took from the LCD-X, LCD-2 and HE-6 I heard. The measurements in that region sort of agree with my impressions.

 

 

Blue: HE-6 right

Yellow: LCD-2 right (good one)

Red: LCD-X right

 

LCD-X is the first headphone that made me grow a fascination about treble :) . HD800 could have been the first if it weren't for the sibilance, which takes away from treble transparency.


Edited by dan.gheorghe - 11/10/13 at 11:00am
post #1026 of 8693
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe View Post

 

LCD-X is the first headphone that made me grow a fascination about treble :) . HD800 could have been the first if it weren't for the sibilance, which takes away from treble transparency.

 

same for me with the lcd2.2, however i couldn't manage to get the hd800 to be sibilant, unlike the beyer t1 which i couldn't really totally tame, not even with my violectric stack, on which the hd800 are really at home same as the lcd2.2, neither go out of balance, unlike with the conductor or source you have i suppose, i found the source is a higher factor in getting a balanced and detailed sound and get rid of such phenomena like sibilancy etc., except in the beyer t1 case where tubes seems to be the only cure

 

edit: the problem that arises now is the awareness that you can't rule out any headphone before you've tried it at least in 10 different setups :angry_face:


Edited by roskodan - 11/10/13 at 11:26am
post #1027 of 8693
Quote:
Originally Posted by roskodan View Post
 

 

same for me with the lcd2.2, however i couldn't manage to get the hd800 to be sibilant, unlike the beyer t1 which i couldn't really totally tame, not even with my violectric stack, on which the hd800 are really at home same as the lcd2.2, neither go out of balance, unlike with the conductor or source you have i suppose, i found the source is a higher factor in getting a balanced and detailed sound and get rid of such phenomena like sibilancy etc., except in the beyer t1 case where tubes seems to be the only cure

 

edit: the problem that arises now is the awareness that you can't rule out any headphone before you've tried it at least in 10 different setups :angry_face:

I didn't rule out any of them unfortunately. That is my wallet's problem :))

post #1028 of 8693
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe View Post
I didn't rule out any of them unfortunately. That is my wallet's problem :))

you know you are laying, and you feel fortunate because of that, unlike your wallet of course ... all of our wallets ... :o

post #1029 of 8693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyll Hertsens View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnaud View Post

Also, I did check the IF measurements you're mentioning and I personally feel is nothing to write home about. I see resonances at 4kHz/7kHz and harmonics of that, an impulse response with big reflection right after main pulse and quite a bit of junk after that, distortion near and even exceeding 1%. I wonder even if Tyll might not be double checking this before publishing.

 

Wut!? Did I publish some LCD-X measurements somewhere? Oooops....got a linky. I am indeed having some issues getting a good measurement at the moment.

Speaking of the measurement, any chance to do short review on LCD-X?

post #1030 of 8693
Quote:
Originally Posted by roskodan View Post
 

you know you are laying, and you feel fortunate because of that, unlike your wallet of course ... all of our wallets ... :o

laying? Are you referring to the fact that I am fortunate to have both HD800 and LCD3? If so...I admit it... :))

 

I have HD800 and LCD3 as I really like them both. And now I really like LCD-X too...:P (new dilemma)


Edited by dan.gheorghe - 11/10/13 at 12:57pm
post #1031 of 8693

Bummer, all these measurements (mainly innerfidelity) are bothering me. I was expecting it to measure better than LCD2's at least :mad: 

 

I hope I don't have to wait out until the LCD4 to get an Audeze again darn it.

post #1032 of 8693
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnaud View Post


Hi peter,

While I agree that meet conditions aren't ideal to assess a can, when you keep hearing the same traight over several rigs and tunes, it's hard to dismiss.

Also, I did check the IF measurements you're mentioning and I personally feel is nothing to write home about. I see resonances at 4kHz/7kHz and harmonics of that, an impulse response with big reflection right after main pulse and quite a bit of junk after that, distortion near and even exceeding 1%. I wonder even if Tyll might not be double checking this before publishing.

I think you kinda proved my point. I've had the LCD-X for 5 days now and they have never been bright or peaky as you described them. Had I gone off your meet impressions I might have missed out on a chance to hear a spectacular pair of headphones. Sorry Arnaud, you really need to hear them on my setup...their treble is definitely one of their strong points. At times, they feel like a progression over even my LCD-3s (while never venturing far from the Audeze sound signature). Never once have I found myself with troublesome treble energy as I have with so many other headphones (HE-6s, K702s, DT880s, SRH940s). In fact they are still very much Audeze headphones with treble that never leaves me wanting for more (or less). Seeing that we both hear the SR-009s similarly, could be again the meet conditions of unknown music, unknown gear, etc...or we just happen to disagree here? 

 

Just to roll back to my "meet condition" impressions of the SR-007s...I was never impressed enough to buy them. But I've since heard them in the proper conditions and proper upstream rig (previous ones where all with Stax amps) and now I might end up picking up a pair down the road. :o I'm not saying your impressions were wrong, far from it, but just when it comes to meet conditions (especially for my personal meet impressions) I always take them with copious amounts of salt for the reasons mentioned above.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe View Post
 

 

I just love LCD-X's treble. It is clean, transparent and smooth. 

 

About the bass roll off. Had the LCD-X here for over a week now. Didn't hear any bass roll off.

Exactly how I hear it. In fact, the LCD-X have very linear bass all the way down like my LCD-3s (with a bit more oomph than the LCD-3s).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dleblanc343 View Post
 

Bummer, all these measurements (mainly innerfidelity) are bothering me. I was expecting it to measure better than LCD2's at least :mad: 

 

I hope I don't have to wait out until the LCD4 to get an Audeze again darn it.

I really think you'd enjoy these. Based on your previous comments of the LCD-3s, these seem to be more up your alley. As Tyll mentioned, it appears the measurements posted are a work in progress, but they do look quite good. The 300Hz waveform no longer has a double leading edge (hopefully that will show up in the final measurements too) that can affect imaging. 


Edited by MacedonianHero - 11/10/13 at 1:49pm
post #1033 of 8693
Quote:
Originally Posted by roskodan View Post
 

 

 

you quotation is highly misleading, and this is why it's so hard to find quality conceived feedback

 

actually it was stated:

 

 

please note the "for me" and "for metal" and everything else stated

 

Thank you for taking the time to take my comments in the context of their totality.

 

To Focker: FYI, you can't label my personal feelings on their comparison for metal as hyperbole. I straightaway conceded that others enjoy the LCD-2 for metal, so my comments seem even-handed from my point of view, despite the vast gulf in preference that I personally have for that genre on those two headphones.

post #1034 of 8693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

I think you kinda proved my point. I've had the LCD-X for 5 days now and they have never been bright or peaky as you described them. Had I gone off your meet impressions I might have missed out on a chance to hear a spectacular pair of headphones. Sorry Arnaud, you really need to hear them on my setup...their treble is definitely one of their strong points. At times, they feel like a progression over even my LCD-3s (while never venturing far from the Audeze sound signature). Never once have I found myself with troublesome treble energy as I have with so many other headphones (HE-6s, K702s, DT880s, SRH940s). In fact they are still very much Audeze headphones with treble that never leaves me wanting for more (or less). Seeing that we both hear the SR-009s similarly, could be again the meet conditions of unknown music, unknown gear, etc...or we just happen to disagree here? 

 

Just to roll back to my "meet condition" impressions of the SR-007s...I was never impressed enough to buy them. But I've since heard them in the proper conditions and proper upstream rig (previous ones where all with Stax amps) and now I might end up picking up a pair down the road. :o I'm not saying your impressions were wrong, far from it, but just when it comes to meet conditions (especially for my personal meet impressions) I always take them with copious amounts of salt for the reasons mentioned above.

 

Exactly how I hear it. In fact, the LCD-X have very linear bass all the way down like my LCD-3s (with a bit more oomph than the LCD-3s).

 

I really think you'd enjoy these. Based on your previous comments of the LCD-3s, these seem to be more up your alley. As Tyll mentioned, it appears the measurements posted are a work in progress, but they do look quite good. The 300Hz waveform no longer has a double leading edge (hopefully that will show up in the final measurements too) that can affect imaging. 

 

+1 on all of the above aspects!

post #1035 of 8693
Quote:
Originally Posted by NZtechfreak View Post
 

 

Thank you for taking the time to take my comments in the context of their totality.

 

To Focker: FYI, you can't label my personal feelings on their comparison for metal as hyperbole. I straightaway conceded that others enjoy the LCD-2 for metal, so my comments seem even-handed from my point of view, despite the vast gulf in preference that I personally have for that genre on those two headphones.

 

 

NZ: Nobody needed Roksodan to point out the fact that you were referring to you own personal feelings. That was plainly obvious, and I'm pretty sure the majority of head-fi'ers can read without too much difficulty lol. I'm quite certain that you know exactly what you mean when you say one headphone "trashes" another in a particular area. My point is that since there is both a poster and a reader, it's very hard for the READER to make sense of what "trashed" means to you vs what the READER'S view of that may be.

 

You're not posting your opinions in a vacuum...you're putting them out there for all to see and interpret based on the way you present them. To the reader, of course it's going to come off as hyperbole. People will read that and interpret it in different ways. Surely you can understand that. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum