or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 123

post #1831 of 8668

Awaiting the arrival of my LCD-X (any moment now).

 

What are people's experience with break-in? I was planning to let music run through them for about 24 hours before doing serious listening.

post #1832 of 8668
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMG52 View Post
 

Awaiting the arrival of my LCD-X (any moment now).

 

What are people's experience with break-in? I was planning to let music run through them for about 24 hours before doing serious listening.

you should definitely do as much frivolous listening as possible before engaging in any serious listening.

post #1833 of 8668
Quote:
Originally Posted by cizx View Post
 

you should definitely do as much frivolous listening as possible before engaging in any serious listening.

Point taken! :L3000:

post #1834 of 8668
Quote:
Originally Posted by cizx View Post
 

you should definitely do as much frivolous listening as possible before engaging in any serious listening.


LOL!  This is actually good advice.

post #1835 of 8668

I am not so sure the LCD-X sustains that "Audeze" house sound of the LCD-2 and 3. The headphone itself is voiced to be more treble oriented and detail extraction a lot better than the LCD-2 and 3. The sublime bass of the LCD-3 is not present anymore, but a more elegant type of bass that is of high quality but it is not as concentrated as with the older LCDs. The decay tail of the bass is definitely shorter and sub-bass level is reduced. To me, the overall bass is very similar in execution to a well-powered HE-6. From the brief impressions I've read of the LCD-XC, it seems that it has more sub-bass than the X.

 

Why do I say that the X does not have that "Audeze" house in general? Because it is more analytical. And it was probably designed so for studio usage. The imaging is a lot better than the LCD-2 & 3 and there is more air between instruments/layers, a consequence of the Fazor technology.

 

I prefer the mids of the HE-6 over the X because I feel more emotions flowing from music when listening with the HE-6. The LCD-X is more analytical in nature, but the treble is nicely presented, without harshness that the HE-6 may potentially produce. There is also no hints of graininess in the treble. To me the detail extraction ability of the X is equal to the HD800, or even better in some cases. It is absolutely brutal with badly recorded music, as I have come to learn these past few days.


Edited by dukeskd - 12/4/13 at 11:50am
post #1836 of 8668

Another benefit that I must mention of the X over the HD800 in regards to detail extraction is the fact that it does not require quality amplification. I think that is a huge plus for studio and home use.

post #1837 of 8668
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukeskd View Post
 

I am not so sure the LCD-X sustains that "Audeze" house sound of the LCD-2 and 3. The headphone itself is voiced to be more treble oriented and detail extraction a lot better than the LCD-2 and 3. The sublime bass of the LCD-3 is not present anymore, but a more elegant type of bass that is of high quality but it is not as concentrated as with the older LCDs. The decay tail of the bass is definitely shorter and sub-bass level is reduced. To me, the overall bass is very similar in execution to a well-powered HE-6. From the brief impressions I've read of the LCD-XC, it seems that it has more sub-bass than the X.

 

Why do I say that the X does not have that "Audeze" house in general? Because it is more analytical. And it was probably designed so for studio usage. The imaging is a lot better than the LCD-2 & 3 and there is more air between instruments/layers, a consequence of the Fazor technology.

 

I prefer the mids of the HE-6 over the X because I feel more emotions flowing from music when listening with the HE-6. The LCD-X is more analytical in nature, but the treble is nicely presented, without harshness that the HE-6 may potentially produce. There is also no hints of graininess in the treble. To me the detail extraction ability of the X is equal to the HD800, or even better in some cases. It is absolutely brutal with badly recorded music, as I have come to learn these past few days.

 

I find that LCD-3 is more detailed than the X from the lows to the middle of the mids and X to be more detailed from the upper mids to the treble. Sometimes on crowded music they are more easy to pick on X because of the better instrument separation.

 

HD800 is still overall more detailed than both LCD-3 and X, however there are still some portions that are more apparent on LCD-X like on the treble region and the upper mids.

post #1838 of 8668

It's really helpful to know the amp and DAC you're using with the LCD-X. Thanks!

post #1839 of 8668

At the moment, Mytek DAC and Phonitor.

post #1840 of 8668
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukeskd View Post
 

At the moment, Mytek DAC and Phonitor.


Cool, thanks.

post #1841 of 8668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry S View Post
 


Cool, thanks.


How is your amp/dac pairing? Do my impressions match yours?

post #1842 of 8668

I rented LCD-X and it should be here in a few days. :D Unfortunately, it'll be getting here after I have to send back the LCD-3, T1, and HD800. :(  I will post my impressions and possibly some comparisons though. Pretty stoked.

post #1843 of 8668
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukeskd View Post
 


How is your amp/dac pairing? Do my impressions match yours?


I've been mostly listening out of my Gungnir/Mjolnir with some Gungnir/Vali lately. The Vali is surprisingly good, but the signatures are very different with each amp. "Audeze House Sound" can easily be defined differently, but for me the LCD-X is in line with the damped, somewhat cocooned Audeze sound. It does sound distinct from the LCD-2 and LCD-3, but maybe not more than the LCD-2 and LCD-3 differ from each other. Not sure about that, because it does have somewhat of an airy quality in comparison to the other two, but not airy like a Stax.   I agree the LCD-X is very revealing, but brutal? Brutal makes me think of bright cans that reveal lots of detail, but painfully. More detail than the LCD-2, but hard to tell with the LCD-3.  Gotta run to pick up my daughter, but thanks for posting your thoughts. 

post #1844 of 8668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry S View Post
 


I've been mostly listening out of my Gungnir/Mjolnir with some Gungnir/Vali lately. The Vali is surprisingly good, but the signatures are very different with each amp. "Audeze House Sound" can easily be defined differently, but for me the LCD-X is in line with the damped, somewhat cocooned Audeze sound. It does sound distinct from the LCD-2 and LCD-3, but maybe not more than the LCD-2 and LCD-3 differ from each other. Not sure about that, because it does have somewhat of an airy quality in comparison to the other two, but not airy like a Stax.   I agree the LCD-X is very revealing, but brutal? Brutal makes me think of bright cans that reveal lots of detail, but painfully. More detail than the LCD-2, but hard to tell with the LCD-3.  Gotta run to pick up my daughter, but thanks for posting your thoughts. 

Yes very brutal indeed. Have been listening to some high-res tracks and I can hear all the nitpicks I haven't heard with the HE6 or LCD-3, such as random noises in the back ground and so on.

post #1845 of 8668
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukeskd View Post
 

At the moment, Mytek DAC and Phonitor.

 

So the Phonitor delivers enough oomph to drive the X's satisfactorily, at least insofar as you are concerned?

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