New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 151

post #2251 of 5162
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDuke990 View Post
 

 

For me the LCD-X is far away from beeing neutral. Bass impact is to much and drowns the mids and treble.

Maybe the sound signature changed after burn in (40h of continious use). I don't listen to it in the last 1,5 days but today in the evening I will.

Hopefully the the signature changed more into neutral than into warm.

 

this is the only reason i'm interested in the X, is the strong bass vs. the LCD-3. though my new pair of LCD-3 seems to do a little better.

 

would be nice to hear if the strong bass remains, or if it subsides over time like with most other headphones.

post #2252 of 5162
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctaCosmos View Post

Have you heard the Amber Rubarth   Sessions from the 17th ward cd from Chesky records?  It' s a binaural recording that was recommended on the 2013 winter buyers guide.  It's available on spotify and it has great 3d imaging.  I plan on purchasing it on hdtracks.com simply to help support the binaural recordings.  Some of them truly are magical and i hope they add more genres.

Thanks, I'll check this out. I've got some other tracks I use to reference other aspects of sound, but nothing I consider suitable for judging spatial imaging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDuke990 View Post

...Bass impact is to much and drowns the mids and treble...

You hear what you hear, but your description sounds like a low end bass-head headphone, not the LCD-X. Maybe poor control from your DAC/amp, or you just don't like the voicing, but I don't hear anything that resembles excessive, sloppy or bloated bass out if the LCD-X.
post #2253 of 5162
Dubstep Girl -- That is an interesting observation and something I personally have not noticed with my cans. That is not to say that I do not agree. I simply did not notice this phenomenon with my headphones. I do think that my HE6 mellowed in the upper register a bit over time, but I did not notice changes to bass. I know that you have a wider assortment to TOTL HPs in your stable, so I am not disputing your observation. I would appreciate it thought if you'd expound on it. Which headphones did you notice this with? How long did it take? How dramatic was the change? 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post
 

 

this is the only reason i'm interested in the X, is the strong bass vs. the LCD-3. though my new pair of LCD-3 seems to do a little better.

 

would be nice to hear if the strong bass remains, or if it subsides over time like with most other headphones.

post #2254 of 5162

Thanks Barry! I am looking forward to it!

 

While not a huge fan of LCD3, I would disagree that its treble and mids are not overpowered by the bass. What I understand from reading this thread is that LCD-X is even better in the upper registers, and since there is pretty much a consensus on this, I would look for the source of poor control upstream. Come to think of it, when i heard LCD2, I thought it had weak treble performance, but then I heard it on Barry's gear and actually liked it. I do believe that was because Barry had gear that handled these cans to my liking. 

Also, 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry S View Post


Thanks, I'll check this out. I've got some other tracks I use to reference other aspects of sound, but nothing I consider suitable for judging spatial imaging.
You hear what you hear, but your description sounds like a low end bass-head headphone, not the LCD-X. Maybe poor control from your DAC/amp, or you just don't like the voicing, but I don't hear anything that resembles excessive, sloppy or bloated bass out if the LCD-X.
post #2255 of 5162

For sure the LCD-X is better in "upper register" but nevertheless the bass impact is to much for beeing neutral.

 

The first thing that comes to mind when I hear word Audeze is "Bass" and the LCD-X doesn't changed it. But if I have to choose between all Audeze headphones I would pick the LCD-X for sure ! But if I have to choose between LCD-X and HD800, I would pick the HD800.

 

Voices and most of the rest sounds more realistic and clearer. Don't mix it up with bright. If the record has bass, the HD800 gives it to you in a perfect way and the Audeze headphones gives you bass (little bit dull sound) all the time independed from the record. Same for voices. E.g. Sade sounds a little bit veiled or dull (not correct.) with the Audeze.

But on the other hand high hats etc. are pretty good.

 

Summary:

- Bass: is sweat and nice but a little bit too much and overwhelm the mids

- Mids: are a little bit to dark because of the overwhelming bass and that's why some instruments and sometimes voices too are sound not real

- Treble: are okay but could be a little bit more

 

Today I got the Bryston and I will check whether it is better or the same like as it is.

post #2256 of 5162
Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry S View Post
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDuke990 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry S View Post
The LCD-X's strong points are neutrality and resolution of fine detail.

 

For me the LCD-X is far away from being neutral. Bass impact is to much and drowns the mids and treble.

Maybe the sound signature changed after burn in (40h of continious use). I don't listen to it in the last 1,5 days but today in the evening I will.

Hopefully the the signature changed more into neutral than into warm.

 

You hear what you hear, but your description sounds like a low end bass-head headphone, not the LCD-X. Maybe poor control from your DAC/amp, or you just don't like the voicing, but I don't hear anything that resembles excessive, sloppy or bloated bass out if the LCD-X.

 

I'm gonna have to go with Barry here.  Though I wouldn't go so far as to say neutral in an absolute sense, I would definitely say that it is fairly balanced... and certainly more neutral than the LCD-3.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post
 

this is the only reason i'm interested in the X, is the strong bass vs. the LCD-3. though my new pair of LCD-3 seems to do a little better.

 

would be nice to hear if the strong bass remains, or if it subsides over time like with most other headphones.

 

I'm a little confused by this actually.  I've always perceived the LCD-X to be brighter than the LCD-3.  Or conversely, that the LCD-3 was warmer than the LCD-X.  In fact, HeadRoom's graphs show:

 

 

I fixed them at 100 Hz as opposed to 1 kHz.  If anything, the LCD-X has elevated mids... specifically lower mids between 800 Hz and 2 kHz.

 

In any case, I haven't noticed a significant drop in LF response of the course of well over a hundred hours.  And I think Tyll measures at 60 hours (though I don't know if he bothers burning-in planars).  So I'm doubtful that you'll hear the drop in bass that you're hoping for.  :( 

post #2257 of 5162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry S View Post


Thanks, I'll check this out. I've got some other tracks I use to reference other aspects of sound, but nothing I consider suitable for judging spatial imaging.
You hear what you hear, but your description sounds like a low end bass-head headphone, not the LCD-X. Maybe poor control from your DAC/amp, or you just don't like the voicing, but I don't hear anything that resembles excessive, sloppy or bloated bass out if the LCD-X.

+1; maybe he needs silver cables (i.e., interconnects and headphone cable).

post #2258 of 5162
Quote:
Originally Posted by figaro69 View Post
 

+1; maybe he needs silver cables (i.e., interconnects and headphone cable).


I don't believe in cable sound that much ;)

post #2259 of 5162
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDuke990 View Post
 


I don't believe in cable sound that much ;)

I didn't use to either, but the difference between silver and good quality cooper (i.e., a la Moon Audio) is not subtle.  If you think bass is bloated, silver will tidy it up.  If you think treble is rolled off, silver will extend it considerably.  If a headphone is bright, copper will reduce the treble and increase the bass.  Now, I agree with you with cables in the sense that Copper is copper and Silver is Silver, meaning that if you get expensive silver cables from 10 different companies, I don't think you'll be able to perceive a difference in sound; the same with Copper.  Now, I have noticed a difference between stock cables and replacement cables.  It all started because I like long headphone cables and didn't want to use an extension cord lest the sound quality degrade.  I immediately noticed a difference (subtle, but noticeable nonetheless) in the quality of the sound and there was no turning back.  By the way, the same would apply to interconnects.  With dullish-sounding headphones you use silver all around and the sound will be transformed.

post #2260 of 5162

I do not say duke will change his opinion it is very individual but he needs try definitely better dac and amp for quality opinion..

post #2261 of 5162
Quote:
Originally Posted by figaro69 View Post
 

I didn't use to either, but the difference between silver and good quality cooper (i.e., a la Moon Audio) is not subtle.  If you think bass is bloated, silver will tidy it up.  If you think treble is rolled off, silver will extend it considerably.  If a headphone is bright, copper will reduce the treble and increase the bass.  Now, I agree with you with cables in the sense that Copper is copper and Silver is Silver, meaning that if you get expensive silver cables from 10 different companies, I don't think you'll be able to perceive a difference in sound; the same with Copper.  Now, I have noticed a difference between stock cables and replacement cables.  It all started because I like long headphone cables and didn't want to use an extension cord lest the sound quality degrade.  I immediately noticed a difference (subtle, but noticeable nonetheless) in the quality of the sound and there was no turning back.  By the way, the same would apply to interconnects.  With dullish-sounding headphones you use silver all around and the sound will be transformed.

^^^^what he said....

post #2262 of 5162

@figaro: your comparision between copper and silver are absolutely right ! I know there are differences but it doesn't change the sound signature at all.

 

@knopi: I know a lot of people which are not able do hear great differences between amps. Nevertheless in the evening I will compare my Objective2 with the Bryston BHA-1.

But better equipment doesn't changed the general sound signature of a HD800 and LCD-X. Means a HD800 can never sounds like a LCD-X and vice versa.

post #2263 of 5162
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDuke990 View Post... I know a lot of people which are not able do hear great differences between amps. Nevertheless in the evening I will compare my Objective2 with the Bryston BHA-1.

But better equipment doesn't changed the general sound signature of a HD800 and LCD-X. Means a HD800 can never sounds like a LCD-X and vice versa.

 

Amps and DACs make a huge difference with highly resolving headphones like the LCD-X and HD800. The HD800 can vary between painfully bright and neutral depending on the amp. The LCD-X sounds very congested and smeared out of the Modi DAC. With the Gungnir, the LCD-X sounds warm and rich out of the Vali, but lean and airy out of the Mjolnir. I plan on some serious auditioning of amps and DACs with the LCD-X, and have only scratched the surface.

 

Beyond that, there are differences in sound signatures between Audeze, and the HD800--the same is true for Stax, AKG, Beyer, HiFiMan. There's a big difference between neutral and "sounding like reality". Neutral implies a balance between parts of the spectrum, so no one area predominates. The LCD-X is very neutral to me, but neutral isn't exactly the same for everyone. Not even the SR009 + BHSE sounds like "reality". Maybe in 200 years headphones will sound like reality, but today--every headphone has its own way of stylizing the sound. Photographs can accurately represent aspects of reality, but they're only simulacra.


Edited by Barry S - 12/19/13 at 7:03am
post #2264 of 5162
Hi theduke990, the thing is you are not just comparing on the sound signatures, you are criticizing on the 'weaknesses' which can/may be solved by more appropriate gears/cables. Personally, I feel that it is quite pointless comparing two TOTL headphones on inadequate gears as you are missing so much things. What you are hearing is just the tip of the iceberg, so what is point of comparing the tips?
post #2265 of 5162

I see it a little bit different.

A perfect amp has to amplify the signal without adding anything. But in reality it is different. Most of the amps are not perfect means they have a sound signature as well. Like headpones from Audeze, Sennheiser, etc. Same for DACs.

As I already said I know a lot of people which cannot hear any difference between an Bryston, Meyer or similar neutral amp but there is a huge difference in price.

 

Anyway. In a few hours I will start my listening session by using the Bryston which is known as a good amp and HD800/LCD-X.

But sometimes a neutral amp is not the best solution. For some people it seems that T1 or HD800 should better be matched with a good tube amp to give him a little bit more warmth but it depends on your on preferences.

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