or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 124

post #1846 of 8648
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalsonata View Post
 

 

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


Yes, they drive them very well.  Actually the pairing also works well with the LCD-3.

post #1847 of 8648
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukeskd View Post
 


Yes, they drive them very well.  Actually the pairing also works well with the LCD-3.

 

Good to hear. I've been toying with the idea of picking up another amp that swings a bit more power at the lower impedance levels along with a planar magnetic just to do some testing and see which amp I like with them better, but now I'll probably just jump straight for the X or 3 and see how I like the pairing. I can always test it with other amps further down the road. 

 

Now I just have to work up my (and my wallet's) courage.

post #1848 of 8648
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.
[


He-6 has some of the best sub bass ive heard. So deep and clean sounding, very accurate
post #1849 of 8648
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukeskd View Post
 

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.


Ahh, ok--in that sense brutal. I love hearing all the fine details in a recording, including the little rustles and bumped mic stands, and whatnot.  I'm not so hot on the recording, mixing, and mastering mistakes.  With the LCD-X, I'm aware of the recording defects, but it's mostly still listenable for me. I do admit to searching out better recordings--with those, the LCD-X makes your jaw drop.

post #1850 of 8648
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'm also going to have to disagree that the LCD-X is more detailed than the HD800 (or even on the same level). I've been comparing the two closely for a few weeks now, and it's not even close, IMO. The HD800 extracts much more micro-detail -- you get so much more texture and ambiance from the recording than the LCD-X.

 

It's odd though, although the HD800 is more detailed, the LCD-X is less forgiving of bad recordings (counter-intuitively, I know). It's mostly due to the fact that the LCD-X treble is rougher and less-refined. Although the HD800 has that troublesome 6K peak, the treble rendering is much sweeter and smoother overall. I've found myself cycling through music trying to see what recordings are good enough, as I'm also finding that the LCD-3 is "brutal" with less-than-perfect ones. There's definitely some wonkiness going on that I'm having trouble putting my finger on. 

post #1851 of 8648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Questhate View Post
 

 

I'm also going to have to disagree that the LCD-X is more detailed than the HD800 (or even on the same level). I've been comparing the two closely for a few weeks now, and it's not even close, IMO. The HD800 extracts much more micro-detail -- you get so much more texture and ambiance from the recording than the LCD-X.

 

It's odd though, although the HD800 is more detailed, the LCD-X is less forgiving of bad recordings (counter-intuitively, I know). It's mostly due to the fact that the LCD-X treble is rougher and less-refined. Although the HD800 has that troublesome 6K peak, the treble rendering is much sweeter and smoother overall. I've found myself cycling through music trying to see what recordings are good enough, as I'm also finding that the LCD-3 is "brutal" with less-than-perfect ones. There's definitely some wonkiness going on that I'm having trouble putting my finger on. 

 

Could be your setup...I've never been a big fan of orthos/tubes. The current that orthos need just can't be fully supplied by tube amps (again IME). But on my GS-X MK2/BDA-2 rig, both the HD800s and LCD-Xs are top notch cans for detail retrieval. The HD800s give outstanding detail in the treble / imaging, while the LCD-X offers outstanding bass/mids detail and instrumental location. 

 

And with regards to poorly recorded music, I've got some Beats 2013 here for that. :p 

post #1852 of 8648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Questhate View Post
 

 

I'm also going to have to disagree that the LCD-X is more detailed than the HD800 (or even on the same level). I've been comparing the two closely for a few weeks now, and it's not even close, IMO. The HD800 extracts much more micro-detail -- you get so much more texture and ambiance from the recording than the LCD-X.

 

It's odd though, although the HD800 is more detailed, the LCD-X is less forgiving of bad recordings (counter-intuitively, I know). It's mostly due to the fact that the LCD-X treble is rougher and less-refined. Although the HD800 has that troublesome 6K peak, the treble rendering is much sweeter and smoother overall. I've found myself cycling through music trying to see what recordings are good enough, as I'm also finding that the LCD-3 is "brutal" with less-than-perfect ones. There's definitely some wonkiness going on that I'm having trouble putting my finger on. 


The major advantage of the HD800 is the enormous sound stage and the way everything is placed imaging wise. That allows to easily distinguish sounds that you'd hear from a recording. I still think the LCD-X has excellent detail retrieval, perhaps not as much in the "microdetail" department that the HD800 rules in.

If I am being honest, I can hear microdetail with my cheap ear buds at the gym powered by a Sansa Clip ($29.99), but only when I have a cue from memory to know when the details are coming. If there is no memorized cue then the microdetails will not register since the refinement of a cheap ear bud is nothing compared to a desktop amp powering a full-sized can.

My point is that with the LCD-X it is easy to analyze a recording too and the plus side is that the X are efficient. However, this could in some ways remove the enjoyability factor that the LCD-2/3 offered because an increase in treble does in turn decrease the warmth of the sound signature.

 

My primary problem currently with all Audeze headphones is the fact I have to turn the volume high in order to enjoy listening. Amps (or source) are not the culprit since I have had a collection of them and the problem persists. For me this creates listening fatigue since I need to listen at high volumes to enjoy the music. With other headphones I do not have this problem so I find this weird but it could only be me and my personal preferences.

post #1853 of 8648
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

 

Could be your setup...I've never been a big fan of orthos/tubes. The current that orthos need just can't be fully supplied by tube amps (again IME). But on my GS-X MK2/BDA-2 rig, both the HD800s and LCD-Xs are top notch cans for detail retrieval. The HD800s give outstanding detail in the treble / imaging, while the LCD-X offers outstanding bass/mids detail and instrumental location. 

 

And with regards to poorly recorded music, I've got some Beats 2013 here for that. :p 

 

+1 on tubes + orthos. I also agree on the HD800 vs LCD-X pros. BTW, I was actually kinda surprised that the Phonitor would work well with the X.


Edited by dukeskd - 12/4/13 at 5:46pm
post #1854 of 8648
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

 

Could be your setup...I've never been a big fan of orthos/tubes. The current that orthos need just can't be fully supplied by tube amps (again IME). But on my GS-X MK2/BDA-2 rig, both the HD800s and LCD-Xs are top notch cans for detail retrieval. The HD800s give outstanding detail in the treble / imaging, while the LCD-X offers outstanding bass/mids detail and instrumental location. 

 

And with regards to poorly recorded music, I've got some Beats 2013 here for that:p 

 

How dare you!

That's way too revealing...

post #1855 of 8648
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukeskd View Post
 

 

+1 on tubes + orthos. I also agree on the HD800 vs LCD-X pros. BTW, I was actually kinda surprised that the Phonitor would work well with the X.

 

I don't think the high output impedance of the Phonitor affects orthos as they aren't really affected by damping factor. :o

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clemmaster View Post
 

 

How dare you!

That's way too revealing...

Hey, I bought the new 2013 Beats for my Comparative Review Thread of portable headphones with the full intention of returning them to the Apple Store. Then my 5 year old son decided to cut up the box to use with his Star Wars action figures....so long story short, I've still got them. That said, the new 2013 version is substantially better than the old crappy Beats.

post #1856 of 8648
Thread Starter 

I don't know if anyone had read through the Xmas buyers guide but Jude says the  X is his favorite Audeze now.  He also had great things to say about the Cavalli Liquid Glass and Gold amps.

post #1857 of 8648
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

 

Could be your setup...I've never been a big fan of orthos/tubes. The current that orthos need just can't be fully supplied by tube amps (again IME). But on my GS-X MK2/BDA-2 rig, both the HD800s and LCD-Xs are top notch cans for detail retrieval. The HD800s give outstanding detail in the treble / imaging, while the LCD-X offers outstanding bass/mids detail and instrumental location. 

 

And with regards to poorly recorded music, I've got some Beats 2013 here for that. :p 

 

The S7 isn't the only amp I've listened to the LCD-X on. I have a Mjolnir here on long-term loan, as well as my vintage Marantz 2270 with speaker taps that I original bought exclusively to drive my LCD-2. Whereas the LCD-X gains some bass control and precision with the Mjolnir, I don't get the detail retrieval of a good tube amp (again IME). 

 

And to be clear, when I speak of micro-detail, I'm not talking about, say, hearing fingers lightly scraping a fretboard, or a singer quietly clearing his throat. I'm talking about the ambiance, reverb and subtle shades of gray in timbral qualities of the instruments/singers. The HD800 is just much better at the shades of gray, and recordings sound much richer because of it. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dukeskd View Post
 


The major advantage of the HD800 is the enormous sound stage and the way everything is placed imaging wise. That allows to easily distinguish sounds that you'd hear from a recording. I still think the LCD-X has excellent detail retrieval, perhaps not as much in the "microdetail" department that the HD800 rules in.

If I am being honest, I can hear microdetail with my cheap ear buds at the gym powered by a Sansa Clip ($29.99), but only when I have a cue from memory to know when the details are coming. If there is no memorized cue then the microdetails will not register since the refinement of a cheap ear bud is nothing compared to a desktop amp powering a full-sized can.

My point is that with the LCD-X it is easy to analyze a recording too and the plus side is that the X are efficient. However, this could in some ways remove the enjoyability factor that the LCD-2/3 offered because an increase in treble does in turn decrease the warmth of the sound signature.

 

My primary problem currently with all Audeze headphones is the fact I have to turn the volume high in order to enjoy listening. Amps (or source) are not the culprit since I have had a collection of them and the problem persists. For me this creates listening fatigue since I need to listen at high volumes to enjoy the music. With other headphones I do not have this problem so I find this weird but it could only be me and my personal preferences.

 

I think we just have a bit of a misunderstanding with regards to microdetail (see above). I can also hear lots of details on iBuds if I know what to look for (as you've pointed out). But I do not get the rich subtleties in the recording that upgrading to, say, an M50 will immediately bring to mind. Things that you cannot pinpoint like subtle reverb as a trumpet sound bounces around the studio, or the nuances of how a guitar string decays in space that leads to an overall ambiance of the recording. It's like the cliche'd expression of "lifting a veil" from the music. Both the LCD-X and HD800 have great detail retrieval, and are squeezing out lots of the recording -- but to my ears, the HD800 lifts another layer of veil.
 
I agreed with you though on your earlier point that the LCD-X is brutal on poor recordings. I'm finding that aspect of it difficult for me to as I cycle through my collection of music -- but I don't think the cause is it's extreme resolution, but rather because its not as refined-sounding overall. I've also seen a couple people describe it having a "plasticky" timbre overall, which I don't think I disagree with. 
 
And yep -- I'm with you on the Audezes and having to turn them up. I've never liked Audezes at low volumes. With the LCD-2, I had to turn them up to get the mids/treble to a level that I liked to actually open them up. With the LCD-X, the mids are *slightly* scooped, so I'm having to "toe the line" between my pain tolerance of the elevated treble and where I'm accustomed my mid levels to sound (otherwise it's a bit hollow-sounding). 
post #1858 of 8648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Questhate View Post
 

 

The S7 isn't the only amp I've listened to the LCD-X on. I have a Mjolnir here on long-term loan, as well as my vintage Marantz 2270 with speaker taps that I original bought exclusively to drive my LCD-2. Whereas the LCD-X gains some bass control and precision with the Mjolnir, I don't get the detail retrieval of a good tube amp (again IME). 

 

 

 

 

FWIW, I too was referring to micro-detail. 

post #1859 of 8648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icenine2 View Post
I don't know if anyone had read through the Xmas buyers guide but Jude says the  X is his favorite Audeze now.  He also had great things to say about the Cavalli Liquid Glass and Gold amps.

 

It should be pointed out that dBel84 wrote the entries for the Cavalli amps, not Jude—there's a note about that just above the entries for those amps. Btw, just a technicality but it's the "Winter" Gift Guide, for a moment there I thought you were referring to something else. ;) 

post #1860 of 8648
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post
 

 

It should be pointed out that dBel84 wrote the entries for the Cavalli amps, not Jude—there's a note about that just above the entries for those amps. Btw, just a technicality but it's the "Winter" Gift Guide, for a moment there I thought you were referring to something else. ;) 

Oops...........:blink:

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