or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 16

post #226 of 8653

A couple of quick questions about the new models:

 

*Dont you think LCD-X model is in a strange position, priced quite similar to the LCD3, but without improving it.

It seems a similar process made by Sennheiser with the appearance of HD700, but at twice its price
 
Whats the purpose of Audeze with the appearance of this model?

 

 

*Do you think the LCD-XC will be the best closed model in production now?

 

 

 

Regards

post #227 of 8653
My guess, I repeat guess only:

1. Identity: the naming and finish give a much sharper look reflecting the intentions of a monitoring ready device. Make no mistake, visual aspect influences perception. Even if the X were to be the same sound as the 3, it would be perceived as more neutral with the 2 and 3 being warmer.

2. Differentiation: pricewise it's quite similat to the existing models, you better make everything you can to differentiate it so as to prevent confusion / hesitation.

3. Competition: the abyss is all metal, the sr009 is all metal. To me, just the finish the x and the neutral voicing means it's going after potential buyers of these 2 phones, at significantly lower price point.

4. Cost / SQ: that I have hard time convincing myself of this one but it might be cheaper for audeze to make the housing in metal. Maybe more expensive in terms of materials / machining but cheaper in the long run at is it more stable (no more cracks at the cable entry location for example).
post #228 of 8653

Would love to try these at the next meet!!! 

post #229 of 8653
So is the lcd-x not as bassy as lcd-2 or is it even more bass light than lcd-3?
post #230 of 8653
Good points arnaud
post #231 of 8653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post

So is the lcd-x not as bassy as lcd-2 or is it even more bass light than lcd-3?

Bass light is not a word I would use for either the 2 or the 3s  But I guess your'll talking about relative to each other..

post #232 of 8653

I would love an easy to drive pair of ortho but the bass of the LCD2 is already too lean for my taste so those new Xs are unlikely to do it for me. :( 

post #233 of 8653
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post
 

Bass light is not a word I would use for either the 2 or the 3s  But I guess your'll talking about relative to each other..

 

the 2 had a good amount of bass, and i felt i lost some of the bass with the 3s, the LCD-X from what people have said seems to be even lighter.

post #234 of 8653

Bass head??

post #235 of 8653
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post
 

Bass head??

 

nope, considering i prefer bass out of T1 over every other headphone i have (HE-6 is only one thats really impressed me since), and the TH-900 has a little too much sub-bass at times. i do enjoy a tight strong midbass punch, something hifiman does very well, as well as LCD-2, the LCD-3 lacks that, and gains a tiny amount of sub-bass over LCD-2, but not enough.

post #236 of 8653
I was at Canjam and actually listened to the LCD-X (unfortunately it was out of the AK unit rather than ALO Studio Six, but in light of the efficiency of X it probably didn't make a huge difference). In sum, it sounded a lot like the LCD-3 to me. Perhaps a little (emphasis on little) brighter, but not much. Bass was present as it is with all Audeze models. I certainly wouldn't call it "bass light" by any means.

I also talked to Mark Harper about how the X fits into the LCD hierachy. Below is what he described using his hands:

LCD2 _____________________________> LCDX _____> LCD3

I also overhead Alex Rosson telling Tyll that the X was his personal favorite. So, take that for what it's worth. Besides the difference in the sound, which in my highly untrained mind was slight, there is also the construction/appearance and the efficiency factor. Personally, the X felt a lot more durable to me with its aluminum construction. You also don't have to worry about the maintenance of the wood, particularly in a dry place like CO.

YMMV, as always.
post #237 of 8653

This sounds promising - I can't wait to hear the LCD-800s  :biggrin:

post #238 of 8653
Quote:
Originally Posted by rext81 View Post


I also talked to Mark Harper about how the X fits into the LCD hierachy. Below is what he described using his hands:

LCD2 _____________________________> LCDX _____> LCD3
 

 

I think I got what you mean, but shouldn't it be like this....

 

LCD2_______________________<LCDX_____<LCD3

 

Another point, and this seems to be particularly true of amps/dacs but not as true with headphones:  The latest release is usually a manufactures "best" effort.  I'm not discounting price points here, certainly manufactures try to cater to certain price points in order to compete in the market place, however I find that regardless of whether a manufacture continues to sell older models, the newer models tend to be better.  If you think about it there's a sort of obviousness to it- a manufacturer is always trying to improve their product and doesn't release something until it sufficiently surpasses the current product.

 

This is even true of headphones (though not as overwhelmingly obvious) and perhaps seems particularly true in the case of the LCD-X.  It isn't "supposed" to surpass the LCD-3, though it does use a new and redesigned driver and a more durable enclosure.  It's also easier to drive.  Seems like some pretty clear improvements to me.  The fact that it potentially threatens the LCD-3 product line might just be an unintended consequence.  It's pricing may reflect this.

 

A lot of time the marketing tag lines (e.g. designed for portable or studio use) come after the product creation.

post #239 of 8653
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuffyElvis View Post

 

I think I got what you mean, but shouldn't it be like this....

 

LCD2_______________________<LCDX_____<LCD3

 

Another point, and this seems to be particularly true of amps/dacs but not as true with headphones:  The latest release is usually a manufactures "best" effort.  I'm not discounting price points here, certainly manufactures try to cater to certain price points in order to compete in the market place, however I find that regardless of whether a manufacture continues to sell older models, the newer models tend to be better.  If you think about it there's a sort of obviousness to it- a manufacturer is always trying to improve their product and doesn't release something until it sufficiently surpasses the current product.

 

This is even true of headphones (though not as overwhelmingly obvious) and perhaps seems particularly true in the case of the LCD-X.  It isn't "supposed" to surpass the LCD-3, though it does use a new and redesigned driver and a more durable enclosure.  It's also easier to drive.  Seems like some pretty clear improvements to me.  The fact that it potentially threatens the LCD-3 product line might just be an unintended consequence.  It's pricing may reflect this.

 

A lot of time the marketing tag lines (e.g. designed for portable or studio use) come after the product creation.

 



True. I originally intended the diagram to be arrows but the formatting got screwed up so I changed it to underscores.

Good points. The question then becomes which product was the X designed to surpass - the LCD2 or LCD3? We'll probably never know the answer to that question, and even if we did it would all be subject to interpretation and listener preference.

I would have really enjoyed listening to all three LCDs plugged into the Studio Six back to back to back. Alas, I could not.
post #240 of 8653

I'm getting LCD-X for sure! 

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