Originally Posted by negura
Once things settle it (assuming you own the LCD-X) it would be interesting whether you'll still find you're more aware of the treble compared to the rest. It is probably one of the hardest thing to pull off: a completely balanced presentation of the spectrum.
Equally difficult to achieve, for some reason, seems to be to get enjoyable and harmless, but very detailed and sparkly treble. For example imo the HD800s and HE-6s cannot do that very well unless they are modded/heavily tuned for in the downstream. The previous Audeze have the opposite problem, being more or less rolled-off.
Yes I do own them, they arrived a few days ago. The treble is definitely more present than the LCD-2/3. Actually a lot more present IMO. It does not have the hyper-extended treble the HE-6 evokes, but a rather very nice presentation of treble that I wouldn't classify as too harsh. It would seem that the overall sound signature of the X is less dampened than the LCD-3.
I am hearing tons of micro details in hi-res recordings that I have listened to countless times, which I figure is from the increase in treble. There is more air between instruments and vocals have a greater stage in the vertical view when compared to the LCD-3. That was my primary problem with the LCD-3 and it seems the LCD-X fixes that however, it does not have that bass that I love from the 3.
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl
so you don't think the bass hits harder on the X?
i thought the bass was more on the X and punchier but the sub-bass was less (which i would prefer cause the LCD-3 subbass is really bloaty and too weak)
My LCD-3 pair has bass that hits a lot harder with greater finesse than the X. The mid-bass section is what I need to examine closer between the two. However, I wouldn't say the sub-bass of the LCD-3 is bloaty, my pair has very great control of the sub bass, to me it is the best I've heard from a headphone. Perhaps variance of drivers is the issue between our pairs, DG?