or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 147

post #2191 of 8787
Quote:
Originally Posted by figaro69 View Post
 

Finally I've been able to detect a chink in the LCD-Xs armor, one that has been alluded to before (by someone whose name/avatar I don't remember) in this thread: these headphones are not made to be played at lower-than-average (or even average, for that matter) levels.  You have to listen at higher-than-Average (the higher the volume, the happier they are) in order to get the full potential out of them.  The problem is that these headphones are so non-fatiguing because of the darker/"mahogany" sound that you may end up damaging your hearing without even realizing it.  By the way, it's not a matter of power...the RS Darkstar and EF-6 are extremely powerful (at least for these headphones) and still, this issue remains.  If someone doesn't like the sound of the LCD-X, it is because they listen to music at Average or lower-than-Average levels.  At lower levels they can sound uninspiring and grayish.  For lower volume levels something like the T1, HD600, PS1000, and others would, in my opinion, be better...other than that, pure perfection.

 

I tested this theory today with several types of music.  My conclusion is yes the X sound better at higher volumes but the sound quality does not totally degrade to gray at lower volumes.  The mids/voice and bass drop out first.  The biggest effect was with classical music on quieter passages where the whole orchestra is playing.  Then, the X lose definition like probably any headphone would.  I actually liked the sound at the lower volume levels.

 

With other types of music - rock, country, acoustic - the effect is less noticeable.  On most music, I still heard good definition even at sound levels below where most everyone will listen.  I also didn't hear much difference on piano pieces including classical and jazz.

 

And thanks, Figaro.  I got to listen to some classical music today.  Still waiting a proper DAC/amp combo...

 

Best -

RCBinTN

post #2192 of 8787
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCBinTN View Post
 

 

I tested this theory today with several types of music.  My conclusion is yes the X sound better at higher volumes but the sound quality does not totally degrade to gray at lower volumes.  The mids/voice and bass drop out first.  The biggest effect was with classical music on quieter passages where the whole orchestra is playing.  Then, the X lose definition like probably any headphone would.  I actually liked the sound at the lower volume levels.

 

With other types of music - rock, country, acoustic - the effect is less noticeable.  On most music, I still heard good definition even at sound levels below where most everyone will listen.  I also didn't hear much difference on piano pieces including classical and jazz.

 

And thanks, Figaro.  I got to listen to some classical music today.  Still waiting a proper DAC/amp combo...

 

Best -

RCBinTN

I don't know...it's almost as if the treble recedes and the warmth takes over when played at lower volume levels...it a word, it become a bit "undynamic" so to speak with the music genre I like the most, which is Classical.  I think you are right...saying "gray" was a mistake...bad choice of words.  Since I like to listen to above average volumes (I.e., I rarely listen to music for more than one hour at a time), I don't think it will be of consequence to me.  This is just information for those individuals who are sensitive to louder volumes, as they may ultimately not like LCD-X as much as most of us do.

post #2193 of 8787

i see here that someone has the th-900 and the x. Out of curiosity, which one has a more effortless imaging?  On either headphone does it seam that vocals in particular are high up in your brain and easily focused? I have extensively looked at graphs of just about every headphone on headphone.com and came to the conclusion with the headphones that i own, owned or heard that phase is over looked and to me makes for a better headphone. I see the x has some super flat phase response which i relate to as having a very focused image.   

post #2194 of 8787
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctaCosmos View Post
 

i see here that someone has the th-900 and the x. Out of curiosity, which one has a more effortless imaging?  On either headphone does it seam that vocals in particular are high up in your brain and easily focused? I have extensively looked at graphs of just about every headphone on headphone.com and came to the conclusion with the headphones that i own, owned or heard that phase is over looked and to me makes for a better headphone. I see the x has some super flat phase response which i relate to as having a very focused image.  

Supposed we are in school...the TH900 get 96/100 (i.e., penalized five points for the recessed mids); the LCD-X gets 99/100 points (penalized one point for the fact that they do not sound their best at low average to average volume levels).  With regard to imaging, vocals, and virtually everything else (except for weight/comfort) the LCD-X beats the TH900, even though the Fostex are an awesome pair of cans.

post #2195 of 8787

Violectric V200 + LCD-X =  !:L3000:!

 

End game for moi. 

post #2196 of 8787

i have the he-400's and the sound feels as though it's on a narrow band of sound.  though the drivers give off a rather larger sound.  my problem is i have to focus to really get the sound to come together in the middle of my head.  I borrowed a buddies pair of ah-d600 and the imaging was just over the top amazing.  The imaging just took over my head.  Vocals seams like they were trying to escape from my brain.  Now unfortunately they were not up to par in speed or detail...by far.  The imaging really made me really enjoy the music more.  way more. i'm hoping i can get this out of one of these headphones.  I called the closest speaker shop and they have a pair of xc's in i will wait till income tax when i have the money to go listen to them.  Hopefully they can get the x in by then.

post #2197 of 8787

@figaro69

What about bass? The closed-back XC was a bit balls-less for me. Is the X better?

I'm not talking about "correct" bass. The correct way is never the most fun way. I'm talking entertainment value with dubby electronica type of bass.


Edited by kurochin - 12/16/13 at 6:47pm
post #2198 of 8787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clemmaster View Post
 

 

It is actually true for the sub-bass thing. 

The LCD-X indeed extends deeper and has more oomph in the bass than the HE-6, which rolls off a bit by comparison.

 

But, I still think the HE-6 has a more tactile and textured bass that's overall tighter. The LCD-X feels bloated by comparison. The LCD-X has this "heavy" feeling in sound, as if the bass was bleeding in the mids. i'm quite sure it's not the case but this is something I never experienced in the Hifimans and I'm not sure I like it much. That plus the smell of the pads are my only complaints.

 

For the rest, the LCD-X really is a top notch headphone. I feel the lower treble is more elevated than that of the HE-6, which increase the hiss in music and, more often than not, brings out "bad" recording/compression details. I had a very similar experience with the Alpha Dogs in that region. The HE-6 is elevated in the upper treble but somehow smoothes over this region and the hiss and those nasty details are not there. You can call it a nicely adjusted FR.

 

While the LCD-X/3 have more bass than the HE-6s, they're all very tight and controlled. It's just that the Audeze headphones have more of it (and more natural to my ears, though your mileage may vary). And it's this "moar bass" that can sound at times "less tight" than a pair of relatively bass-lite headphones like the HE-6s (relatively speaking here). But if you listen carefully and critically to only the lower frequencies, you should notice that the details, layering and control are all there on the LCD-X/3. I think this is part of the magic of the LCD-X and LCD-3s, I can have great thumping, true to life bass with great texture and details and it doesn't have to be on the lighter side of things.  :o 


Edited by MacedonianHero - 12/16/13 at 6:42pm
post #2199 of 8787
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctaCosmos View Post
 

i have the he-400's and the sound feels as though it's on a narrow band of sound.  though the drivers give off a rather larger sound.  my problem is i have to focus to really get the sound to come together in the middle of my head.  I borrowed a buddies pair of ah-d600 and the imaging was just over the top amazing.  The imaging just took over my head.  Vocals seams like they were trying to escape from my brain.  Now unfortunately they were not up to par in speed or detail...by far.  The imaging really made me really enjoy the music more.  way more. i'm hoping i can get this out of one of these headphones.  I called the closest speaker shop and they have a pair of xc's in i will wait till income tax when i have the money to go listen to them.  Hopefully they can get the x in by then.

 

 

As I said before I think it just goes back to a possible preference for closed-in soundstage.  Most of the HE-400 owners have liked their imaging as a strength.  You can read DavidMahler's review of them too where he praises their imaging as well.

post #2200 of 8787

i personally don't feel that the imaging is all that great. It images like a normal pair of headphones to me but the fast speed and detail allow you to differentiate instruments.  It in no way is 3 dimensional or effortless.  What others say doesn't mean much to me as i know what i'm hearing.  i think the large size of the transducer gives the effect of having a larger image than it does but the headphones horrible phase response keeps your brain from developing the natural 3-d soundscape that it can

post #2201 of 8787
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMG52 View Post
 

Violectric V200 + LCD-X =  !:L3000:!

 

End game for moi.

C'mon, end of game? You should know better than that!!! There is never an end to this, so don't be naïve.  When the next big thing shows up you'll be drooling just like there rest of us tortured souls!

post #2202 of 8787
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurochin View Post
 

@figaro69

What about bass? The closed-back XC was a bit balls-less for me. Is the X better?

I'm not talking about "correct" bass. The correct way is never the most fun way. I'm talking entertainment value with dubby electronica type of bass.

Do you want more than correct bass?  Forget the LCD-Xs, way too neutral for you.  I've never been a bass head, so I'm really satisfied with the Xs.  Maybe you should steer in the direction of the LCD-2s, LCD-3s, and TH900s/AD7000s of the world for most fun!

post #2203 of 8787

HE6 sounds best on high volumes, LCD X sounds best on high Volumes. 

 

What about the LCD 3

-figaro or anybody with both.

post #2204 of 8787
Quote:
Originally Posted by figaro69 View Post
 

I have great tidings from the western front!...and here they are:

 

1.  I've taken care of the bug that was afflicting the Decware Taboo.  The hummingbird inside my Taboo has been exterminated!  What was happening...silly me, I was not aware that one of the RCA cables had become sort of dislodged from the jack and creating the dreaded hum.  Now I can say, with complete certainty, that the Taboo is on par with the Darkstar and EF-6.  Using the Philips 5R4GYS Rectifier, two Tungsram (i.e., Hungarian) EL84s, and the Sylvania Gold Brand 5751 tube (remember, with the new Taboo you would need to get a 6922 tube such as an Amperex or something) the pairing is just perfect...great synergy.  Mr. Dan.Ghorghe...what can I say...you were right, my man!!! Simply amazing and not tubey at all.

 

2.  As a service to all my fellow budget-oriented brothers and sisters who can afford (just barely) the LCD-X but fall just a bit short with regard to a worthy amp, I have a little surprise for you:  The EF-5 Hifiman amp (2 Watts per channel; hybrid) is a force to be reckoned with.  This amp costs around $500 and uses a 12AU7 tube.  I kid you not when I say that with this amp you get about 95+ percent of the performance you get from the Taboo ($1600), Darkstar ($3,500), and EF-6 ($1,500) for a third of the cost of the cheapest of those three amps.  I used the Siemens, Mazda Cifte, and Radio Technique tubes from my tube collection and each sounds marvelous (i.e., Mazda the most vivid and Technicolor; Radio Technicque the most airy and treble-happy; the Siemens the most balanced...even though I didn't have a Mullard to try, I am thinking that it would be magical with the EF-5 (Upscale Audio has all the aforementioned tubes and each costs between 35 and 50 dollars more or less, so it won't break the bank.  There is a minor problem with the EF-5, though: even in the low gain position, the volume gets loud very fast with even a rather subtle rotation of the volume knob; but this is a minor annoyance considering how it makes the LCDX sound (i.e., better than the much-heralded Soloist/Conductor for sure; even better than the Mjolnir in my book).  If you have a pre-amp, maybe you can connect the EF-5 to it and control the volume with the pre-amp and problem solved, I think.

 

So, as you can see, great news all around.  This EF-5 was definitely the surprise of the day...it's definitely the little brother of the EF-6, yet has cojones that just won't quit!!! By the way, I did my listening with the stock single ended cable and the ALO copper cable. While the ALO is slightly better, one definitely can do with the stock cable if strapped for cash.

That's a very helpful read.

 

My wallet thanks you too!

post #2205 of 8787

-


Edited by thinker - 12/27/13 at 9:59am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum