New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 90

post #1336 of 5160

so I've narrowed my amp choices down to these:

 

Audio-GD Master 9

TBI Millenium 3 speaker amp

Burson Conductor

 

The Burson, obviously, has the DAC piece, which makes it a pretty attractive solution.  The M9 seems like the best overall amp only I can reasonably get, and the TBI is an exciting but unknown commodity.

 

Anyone have an opinion or info that will push me in one direction or another?  As of now, I'll have only the LCD-X to use with it.  If not the Burson, what do I do for a DAC?  I work at Analog Devices, and we get some discounts from a few big names, so maybe there's something like that available...

 

Thanks!

post #1337 of 5160

An acquaintance just received his XC, but has to go overseas on business for more than a week. So he asked if I wanted to have a go at them during that time, helping him with their burn-in in the process. Will be picking them up tomorrow.

post #1338 of 5160

Post your impressions of the -XC in the new LCD XC thread (http://www.head-fi.org/t/691151/audeze-lcd-xc), not here.  All this back and forth between -X and -XC is making my wallet dizzy. :)


Edited by cizx - 11/20/13 at 5:55am
post #1339 of 5160

Part two of the LCD-X review (vs HD800 ) coming soon.

post #1340 of 5160
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattTCG View Post

I don't mean to say that cables make NO difference at all to the sound signature. I believe that they do, albeit a modest one. here is mine.

700
Very classy. Is that dark brown?
post #1341 of 5160

Yes, it's a dark chocolate color. I tend to favor it over plain black. Gives it a little style. 

post #1342 of 5160

If these bad boys are good with big orchestral classical and opera, daddy likes and daddy wants.

post #1343 of 5160

They are awesome with those genres (and not only).

 

And here is my HD800 vs LCD-X comparison. 


Edited by dan.gheorghe - 11/20/13 at 3:55pm
post #1344 of 5160

So I've been going back and forth with the X's and XC's.  I'm coming to the conclusion that both are excellent headphones, but they are more cousins than siblings.

 

It's not accurate to say that they are very similar in timbre with the XC's just being more 'closed in' sounding.  They are voiced differently. The X's are much more akin to the typical Audez'e house sound.  Liquid kids with a darker signature.  When listening to Yo Yo Ma playing in Dvorak's Cello Concerto in B, the timbre of the cello really comes through with all tile warmth and depth on the X's, while the XC's are a little thinner in that range.  That's not necessarily a knock on them as they sound very, dare I say, open and natural in the upper midrange.  I would say that those looking for the ultimate in fine detail retrieval might prefer the XC's as the X's can seem a little thick when compared with the XC's.  And that's with the Lyr...an amp not necessarily known for detail retrieval.  

 

The vocals bear this out as well.  Female vocals on the X's sound thick and even a little throaty after listening to the same recording on the XC. Conversely, If I listened on the X's first and switched to the XC's, the vocals sounded thin.  Neither was bad, but they were very different.  

 

The imaging was surprisingly good from the closed back XC's.  While not quite as airy, they were pinpoint.  The separation between the instruments was very distinct and there was no hint of three-blob imaging.  The X's did present a wider and deeper soundstage, but they do not have the same rock solid placement and separation of the instruments.  

 

Both have wonderful extended treble without being sibilant nor grainy.  You will not confuse either pair for HD800's.  That said, I think I prefer the treble of the XC...at least with the notoriously warm Lyr. That may change with the Mjolnir and the Woo WA22 arrive tomorrow and next week respectively.  

 

The bass belongs to the X's outright.  Both delve the nether regions, but the bass on the X's is more natural.  Kick drums have a wonderful decay and reeks of reality.  Electronic bass is less muddy on the X's.  The XC's have bass in truckloads, but the X's bass is more realistic.

 

It seems to me that the XC's have been received a little like the red-headed step sister of the vaunted X's.  I'm hear to say it's more like the very pretty cousin you find yourself wanting to get to know.  
 

Can't wait for the new amps to arrive to get even better acquainted with these two beauties.

post #1345 of 5160
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesure View Post
 

So I've been going back and forth with the X's and XC's.  I'm coming to the conclusion that both are excellent headphones, but they are more cousins than siblings.

 

It's not accurate to say that they are very similar in timbre with the XC's just being more 'closed in' sounding.  They are voiced differently. The X's are much more akin to the typical Audez'e house sound.  Liquid kids with a darker signature.  When listening to Yo Yo Ma playing in Dvorak's Cello Concerto in B, the timbre of the cello really comes through with all tile warmth and depth on the X's, while the XC's are a little thinner in that range.  That's not necessarily a knock on them as they sound very, dare I say, open and natural in the upper midrange.  I would say that those looking for the ultimate in fine detail retrieval might prefer the XC's as the X's can seem a little thick when compared with the XC's.  And that's with the Lyr...an amp not necessarily known for detail retrieval.  

 

The vocals bear this out as well.  Female vocals on the X's sound thick and even a little throaty after listening to the same recording on the XC. Conversely, If I listened on the X's first and switched to the XC's, the vocals sounded thin.  Neither was bad, but they were very different.  

 

The imaging was surprisingly good from the closed back XC's.  While not quite as airy, they were pinpoint.  The separation between the instruments was very distinct and there was no hint of three-blob imaging.  The X's did present a wider and deeper soundstage, but they do not have the same rock solid placement and separation of the instruments.  

 

Both have wonderful extended treble without being sibilant nor grainy.  You will not confuse either pair for HD800's.  That said, I think I prefer the treble of the XC...at least with the notoriously warm Lyr. That may change with the Mjolnir and the Woo WA22 arrive tomorrow and next week respectively.  

 

The bass belongs to the X's outright.  Both delve the nether regions, but the bass on the X's is more natural.  Kick drums have a wonderful decay and reeks of reality.  Electronic bass is less muddy on the X's.  The XC's have bass in truckloads, but the X's bass is more realistic.

 

It seems to me that the XC's have been received a little like the red-headed step sister of the vaunted X's.  I'm hear to say it's more like the very pretty cousin you find yourself wanting to get to know.  
 

Can't wait for the new amps to arrive to get even better acquainted with these two beauties.

 

Good stuff. I'd love to hear the XCs some time soon. The Lyr makes the X's sound somewhat thick and warm.  I think you'll be floored at the differences, once your Mjolnir arrives.  The jump in detail and energy makes for a very different presentation.

post #1346 of 5160
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe View Post
 

They are awesome with those genres (and not only).

 

And here is my HD800 vs LCD-X comparison. 


Great review!  I agree with most of your observations on the LCD-X. My original plan was to buy an HD800 to complement my LCD-2, but I no longer have that desire with the LCD-X. I do think you could justify having both the LCD-X and HD800, because they're still quite different in voicing, but the LCD-X treble is what I was really missing in the LCD-2.

post #1347 of 5160
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe View Post
 

They are awesome with those genres (and not only).

 

And here is my HD800 vs LCD-X comparison. 

Great write up of these top cans! 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by leesure View Post
 

So I've been going back and forth with the X's and XC's.  I'm coming to the conclusion that both are excellent headphones, but they are more cousins than siblings.

 

It's not accurate to say that they are very similar in timbre with the XC's just being more 'closed in' sounding.  They are voiced differently. The X's are much more akin to the typical Audez'e house sound.  Liquid kids with a darker signature.  When listening to Yo Yo Ma playing in Dvorak's Cello Concerto in B, the timbre of the cello really comes through with all tile warmth and depth on the X's, while the XC's are a little thinner in that range.  That's not necessarily a knock on them as they sound very, dare I say, open and natural in the upper midrange.  I would say that those looking for the ultimate in fine detail retrieval might prefer the XC's as the X's can seem a little thick when compared with the XC's.  And that's with the Lyr...an amp not necessarily known for detail retrieval.  

 

The vocals bear this out as well.  Female vocals on the X's sound thick and even a little throaty after listening to the same recording on the XC. Conversely, If I listened on the X's first and switched to the XC's, the vocals sounded thin.  Neither was bad, but they were very different.  

 

The imaging was surprisingly good from the closed back XC's.  While not quite as airy, they were pinpoint.  The separation between the instruments was very distinct and there was no hint of three-blob imaging.  The X's did present a wider and deeper soundstage, but they do not have the same rock solid placement and separation of the instruments.  

 

Both have wonderful extended treble without being sibilant nor grainy.  You will not confuse either pair for HD800's.  That said, I think I prefer the treble of the XC...at least with the notoriously warm Lyr. That may change with the Mjolnir and the Woo WA22 arrive tomorrow and next week respectively.  

 

The bass belongs to the X's outright.  Both delve the nether regions, but the bass on the X's is more natural.  Kick drums have a wonderful decay and reeks of reality.  Electronic bass is less muddy on the X's.  The XC's have bass in truckloads, but the X's bass is more realistic.

 

It seems to me that the XC's have been received a little like the red-headed step sister of the vaunted X's.  I'm hear to say it's more like the very pretty cousin you find yourself wanting to get to know.  
 

Can't wait for the new amps to arrive to get even better acquainted with these two beauties.

Thanks for your impressions...now I'm really curious to hear the LCD-XCs...so far the LCD-Xs are still astounding me with every listen. Gotta say that the wooden earcups on  the XC look very impressive!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry S View Post
 


Great review!  I agree with most of your observations on the LCD-X. My original plan was to buy an HD800 to complement my LCD-2, but I no longer have that desire with the LCD-X. I do think you could justify having both the LCD-X and HD800, because they're still quite different in voicing, but the LCD-X treble is what I was really missing in the LCD-2.

Agreed!

post #1348 of 5160

 

I highly recommend this album with the LCD-Xs (or any fine listening device).  It's hard to describe the genre, but it's a London duo that layers melodic vocals over a rhythmic backing that includes a large variety of acoustic and homemade instruments (eg, a marimba made of bones).  The music is good and fresh sounding, but the bigger reason is listening to the natural timbre of so many instruments-- the plucked stings, horns, voice, shakers, and even cows. It's great music to put the LCD-X through its paces.

post #1349 of 5160

^^^listening now....very interesting

post #1350 of 5160
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe View Post
 

They are awesome with those genres (and not only).

 

And here is my HD800 vs LCD-X comparison. 

 

Thank you very much but it seems I cannot find enough info on how you value comfort on both. Imagine that you would have to own only one high-end headphones - in that case, comfort would become extremely important, if not the most important thing.

 

You state in your comparison with LCD-3 that you find LCD-X almost the same comfortwise... As you also managed to own LCD-2, therefore I would like to ask (you or anyone else):

 

1) Is the headband design still as odd as it was with LCD-2? That leather rev2 headband was such a pain for my head... Maybe the vegan version would improve on that somehow but not sure as the weight is still very high and its distribution is not ideal.

 

2) Is the clamping force still much more present than with HD800? I am allergic to that so while I could stand the weight itself, I just cannot stand excessive clamp that a lot of headphones have.

 

I definitely prefer comfort of Hifimans over Audeze - much less clamp due to wider-extended headband... Even the weight distribution seems better - I definitely dont feel like wearing heavy headphones, as I did with LCD-2. Maybe LCD-X could change that?


Edited by emertxe - 11/20/13 at 9:23pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum