New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 149

post #2221 of 9091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

Just an FYI, but our hearing's "frequency response" changes depending on level. At lower levels, we are less sensitive to the lowest and highest frequencies, and midrange becomes more dominant. As you go up in level, the response begins to get more even. You can see this in the classic Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves and is why stereos back in the day commonly had a "loudness" switch which gave a bit of boost to the lows and the highs so that things would sound a bit more natural when listening at lower volumes.

se

I agree with you Steve that this is the normal behavior on most headphone and speakers system.

 

On some speakers, like the Apogee Diva, I found that is the midrange that loosens up the most on higher volume. IMHO Diva and other headphones/speaker system that has a very full midrange, have like a bit of lack of clarity in the mids (relatively speaking) then played on lower volume, but then power up they rely sing. Other component, then the headphones and speakers, in the system will also inflect on this.

 

On Linn Klimax 350, with is a fast and good speaker, but IMO don’t have a very full/warm midrange that’s not the case. For me the LCD 3 behave like the Diva and the He-500 like the Klimax.   

 

From my experiences most system will benefit in some ways from a little higher volume, but the ones with a very full midrange will advantage even more because of improved clarity for voices, piano and so on.

post #2222 of 9091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Articnoise View Post
 

On some speakers, like the Apogee Diva, I found that is the midrange that loosens up the most on higher volume. IMHO Diva and other headphones/speaker system that has a very full midrange, have like a bit of lack of clarity in the mids (relatively speaking) then played on lower volume, but then power up they rely sing. Other component, then the headphones and speakers, in the system will also inflect on this.

 

 

Yeah, this is how I remember the Divas: the record being played when I heard them was Famous Blue Raincoat, with Leonard Cohen's voice filling the room. So yes the midrange really did sing when the sales person cranked it up..... in that typical unforced, planar way.

 

A little off topic, sorry. :redface: 

post #2223 of 9091

+1 Raven the He-400 sounds best to me at lower levels

post #2224 of 9091
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctaCosmos View Post
 

+1 Raven the He-400 sounds best to me at lower levels

 

That's probably because that insane treble peak is, well, too much...

post #2225 of 9091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonhead View Post

That was what i was afraid of, then it is TH900 for me.

TH900 is amazing at any volume...mids mildly recessed, but other than that, a worthy Fostex Flagship.  Best closed HPs I've ever heard.

post #2226 of 9091
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe View Post
 

I remember saying that 2 years ago :))  with lcd2 and burson ha-160ds. Many have changed since then... Now I am sure this game...may be for life :))

I remember saying that 10 seconds ago and I am already planning the next major buy!

post #2227 of 9091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

Just an FYI, but our hearing's "frequency response" changes depending on level. At lower levels, we are less sensitive to the lowest and highest frequencies, and midrange becomes more dominant. As you go up in level, the response begins to get more even. You can see this in the classic Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves and is why stereos back in the day commonly had a "loudness" switch which gave a bit of boost to the lows and the highs so that things would sound a bit more natural when listening at lower volumes.

se

Ah...you see! This makes a lot of sense and explain why I am finding the LCD-Xs a bit less than optimal at lower levels.  You are absolutely right...the mids are more prominent and the low and high get kind of lost in the shuffle...that about sums it up.

post #2228 of 9091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clemmaster View Post
 

 

That's probably because that insane treble peak is, well, too much...

  

 

I EQ my HE-400's treble down, so the treble peak doesn't even come into play with retards to low vs high volume listening.  Low volume listening is just easier on the ear for me and sometimes easier to get better sense of detail and instrument separation out of the song as a result of the laxness. 

post #2229 of 9091

i don't really know what normal listening levels are for a headphone.  I listen at a level that is comfortable and i wouldn't consider it loud except on some recordings i have to turn down a notch.

i don't really comprehend enjoying music once it hits a certain loudness on any headphone.


Edited by DoctaCosmos - 12/17/13 at 3:04pm
post #2230 of 9091

i will say the bass on these really doesn't bloom for me on these until i turn it up to a certain level

post #2231 of 9091

would you say the vocals on the x are high or even with your ears

post #2232 of 9091

@SMG52 did your profile picture use to have a picture of you wearing sunglasses?  I remember when the Rev2.2's came out a man that had just bought the 2.1 and sold them because he didn't like them and then tried the 2.2 and paired with the Violectric reminded him of his old speakers that he had to get rid of because he was moving.  If not sorry.  Just sounded so similar.  That was a very long time ago

post #2233 of 9091
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctaCosmos View Post
 

@SMG52 did your profile picture use to have a picture of you wearing sunglasses?  I remember when the Rev2.2's came out a man that had just bought the 2.1 and sold them because he didn't like them and then tried the 2.2 and paired with the Violectric reminded him of his old speakers that he had to get rid of because he was moving.  If not sorry.  Just sounded so similar.  That was a very long time ago

No, wasn't me. I never actually owned the LCD-2s, just demoed them from Cable Company.

post #2234 of 9091
Probably WarriorAnt. He went back to speakers (Gallos) early 2012.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctaCosmos View Post

@SMG52
did your profile picture use to have a picture of you wearing sunglasses?  I remember when the Rev2.2's came out a man that had just bought the 2.1 and sold them because he didn't like them and then tried the 2.2 and paired with the Violectric reminded him of his old speakers that he had to get rid of because he was moving.  If not sorry.  Just sounded so similar.  That was a very long time ago
post #2235 of 9091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

Just an FYI, but our hearing's "frequency response" changes depending on level. At lower levels, we are less sensitive to the lowest and highest frequencies, and midrange becomes more dominant. As you go up in level, the response begins to get more even. You can see this in the classic Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves and is why stereos back in the day commonly had a "loudness" switch which gave a bit of boost to the lows and the highs so that things would sound a bit more natural when listening at lower volumes.

se

Thank you for bringing this up. I feel like we weren't acknowledging psychoacoustics in this line of discussion. 

This makes me think though that TH900 could be a better match for me. I prefer listening at low levels -- I wonna keep my hearing -- and I have enough gear that requires higher levels of volume, HE6 being a prime example. That thing is awesome on my F3, but I do have to shot out the world completely and then some, to really get that transcendental experience. Sometimes I need a break from that though. I really would live to hear both in my system (LCD-x and TH900) before making the call. 

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