New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 70

post #1036 of 9209
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. 

 

 

Peter, to me the LCD-X was not excessively bright nor peaky. I actually liked their balance, and their bass.

 

My problem with it was that it did not have the smoothest treble (possibly due to notches, not peaks), at least the one I've heard, which might explain some of the weirdness I heard. I could give them another shot. Also, I'm not the only one with that assessment either. Some people I trust have been auditioning them for longer than 5 days with similar impressions.

 

Not sure if there are product variations at this early stage.

 

As far as meet conditions, their reliability depends on many factors: familiarity with tracks used (including mastering), if a baseline was used, experience, and so forth. I definitively agree that they will never be a the level of a 2 week evaluation. However, they are far from worthless IMO, unless one was just doing casual listening.


Edited by ultrabike - 11/10/13 at 2:46pm
post #1037 of 9209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Focker View Post
 
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. 


sorry  Focker but you are totally ignoring what we are saying to you

 

it's not about what NZtechfreak wrote, which is perfectly clear to everyone what he meant, and i see now to you as well

 

but it's about the way you quoted his post, that was highly misleading, and gave the impression you didn't actually understand it, or maybe was offended by it, i don't know

 

maybe we should apologize to you :rolleyes:

post #1038 of 9209
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post

Peter, to me the LCD-X was not excessively bright nor peaky. I actually liked their balance, and their bass.

My problem with it was that it did not have the smoothest treble (possibly due to notches, not peaks), at least the one I've heard, which might explain some of the weirdness I heard. I could give them another shot. Also, I'm not the only one with that assessment either. Some people I trust have been auditioning them for longer than 5 days with similar impressions.

Not sure if there are product variations at this early stage.

As far as meet conditions, their reliability depends on many factors: familiarity with tracks used (including mastering), if a baseline was used, experience, and so forth. I definitively agree that they will never be a the level of a 2 week evaluation. However, they are far from worthless IMO, unless one was just doing casual listening.

So there are two different meet impressions and I hear neither.
post #1039 of 9209
So I got it today.

Treble is definitely single most biggest improvement from LCD2 and 3. IMO this alone makes it the best Audeze I've heard so far.

The sound is slightly more forward, but not as drastic as old Audeze's. It still has Audeze house sound.

The bass is very slightly less in quantity than LCD 2 and definitely less than LCD 3. Yes I feel 3 has more bass than 2. But due to slightly forward nature of X, difference is very hard to notice.

Soundstage is also biggest I've heard from Audeze.... but still HD800 is king here.
post #1040 of 9209
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post


So there are two different meet impressions and I hear neither.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about two meet impressions.

 

I felt the HE-6 was brighter than the LCD-X, and the LCD-X brighter than the LCD-2s I've heard. That does not make the LCD-X bright to me, or at least not too bright.

 

I've always felt that most LCD-2s tend towards dark while felt the HE-6 is slightly bright in a more absolute sense.


Edited by ultrabike - 11/10/13 at 3:32pm
post #1041 of 9209
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post

I'm not sure what you mean about two meet impressions.

I felt the HE-6 was brighter than the LCD-X, and the LCD-X brighter than the LCD-2s I've heard. That does not make the LCD-X bright to me, or at least not too bright.

I've always felt that most LCD-2s tend towards dark while felt the HE-6 is slightly bright.

Simple, yours and someone else's.
post #1042 of 9209

i've heard lcd2.2 and mad dogs 3.2 alpha pads, , side by side at home on my violectric setup, and both headphones had the typical ortho sound, coloration? timbre?, that something that makes you instantly aware you have orthos on your head

 

is it the same for the lcd-x , and he-6 as well?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post
 

I felt the HE-6 was brighter than the LCD-X, and the LCD-X brighter than the LCD-2s I've heard. That does not make the LCD-X bright to me, or at least not too bright.

 

I've always felt that most LCD-2s tend towards dark while felt the HE-6 is slightly bright in a more absolute sense.

 

simply put, and very helpful, thx


Edited by roskodan - 11/10/13 at 3:37pm
post #1043 of 9209
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post


Simple, yours and someone else's.

 

Someone else's impressions were not meet, they have them on loan. And that would be more than two people other than me.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by roskodan View Post
 

i've heard lcd2.2 and mad dogs 3.2 alpha pads, , side by side at home on my violectric setup, and both headphones had the typical ortho sound, coloration? timbre?, that something that makes you instantly aware you have orthos on your head

 

is it the same for the lcd-x , and he-6 as well? 

 

IMO, the LCD-X and HE-6 would have more treble than the LCD-2 and Mad Dogs I've heard.


Edited by ultrabike - 11/10/13 at 3:36pm
post #1044 of 9209
Quote:
Originally Posted by roskodan View Post
 


sorry  Focker but you are totally ignoring what we are saying to you

 

it's not about what NZtechfreak wrote, which is perfectly clear to everyone what he meant, and i see now to you as well

 

but it's about the way you quoted his post, that was highly misleading, and gave the impression you didn't actually understand it, or maybe was offended by it, i don't know

 

maybe we should apologize to you :rolleyes:

 

I really don't know how to make it any more clear than what I already have, so let's just agree to disagree so we don't keep tying up the thread. 

post #1045 of 9209
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post
 

IMO, the LCD-X and HE-6 would have more treble than the LCD-2 and Mad Dogs I've heard.

 

than lcd2 and mad dogs must be really similar in sound, except dogs being brighter and closed smaller sounding, but i felt they had the same coloration

 

now is lcd-x more closer to lcd2 or mad dogs or he-6? in timbre and coloration terms.

post #1046 of 9209
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post

Someone else's impressions were not meet, they have them on loan. And that would be more than two people other than me.


IMO, the LCD-X and HE-6 would have more treble than the LCD-2 and Mad Dogs I've heard.

Those are not the one ' so was referring to. They are on the Tokyo meet thread.
post #1047 of 9209
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post


Those are not the one ' so was referring to. They are on the Tokyo meet thread.

 

If you mean THESE impressions, I actually agree. To me, the LCD-X are relatively brighter than the other Audeze offerings I've heard.


Edited by ultrabike - 11/10/13 at 4:08pm
post #1048 of 9209
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

 

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. 

I think I'm going to have to just splurge and buy them. I really do dig the black anodized finish! 

 

If the JH Roxanne really are on waiting list until february, I will get the LCD-X :tongue:

post #1049 of 9209
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleblanc343 View Post

I think I'm going to have to just splurge and buy them. I really do dig the black anodized finish! 

If the JH Roxanne really are on waiting list until february, I will get the LCD-X tongue.gif

I wish my ears still worked with IEMs. The new JH ones look stellar.
post #1050 of 9209

Speaking about impressions and listening during the meets, I rarely seen people do volume match for the comparison... which kinda irritate me because the difference in volume makes a huge difference on perceived sound quality of the headphones.

 

That said, I am still evaluating the difference between LCD-2 and LCD-X...

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