New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 19

post #271 of 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by seb7 View Post
 

I have the HD600 and HD800 so I know how they sound.

 

I have heard the LCD-2s and 3s only at RMAF last year so I guess I was (poorly stated) trying to get a handle on how the tonality of LCD-X compares to HD800 (similarly neutral or darker, richer tone)

 

But then I saw the-kraken's impression "To my ears, it's the Audeze signature sound, voiced analytical/studio. Perhaps what you'd get if you asked Audeze to design their own version of a T1."

which more or less gives me an idea of where they fall in the continuum since I own the T1s. But I am assuming the Audeze signature sound is darker and richer than what is considered 'neutral' or is that just too subjective? Like comparing apples to oranges because of the different sound signatures

 

Anyway, I'll just have to wait to listen to them, of course, to decide...but I am intrigued by the descriptions of its sound so far :smile: 

 

What you're confused about is what the Audeze signature/house sound is referring to. It's not the FR, whether it's dark or not, but the silky lushy part (relative).

post #272 of 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by rext81 View Post
 

 

The LCD-X sounded nothing like the HD800.

How about the Alpha Dog? And what did the LCD-X sound more like to you?


Edited by paradoxper - 10/20/13 at 6:25am
post #273 of 5522

I'm surprised we haven't had more comments on the LCD-X versus 2/3/XC.  From the few cursory reviews that I've read it seems that the LCD-X is more of a different flavor of the LCD sound rather than an evolution. 

 

I spoke to someone at Audeze last week to ask about their return policy.  Turns out I caught them rather late in the day and the person answering the phone wasn't the normal customer service person but instead someone who assembled all the LCDs.  I asked him which LCD he preferred and he stated that he liked them all and the differences between them were more of personal preference than objectively "better".

 

I think that tends to capture the many peoples impressions of the difference between the LCD-2 and LCD-3. 

post #274 of 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuffyElvis View Post
 

I'm surprised we haven't had more comments on the LCD-X versus 2/3/XC.  From the few cursory reviews that I've read it seems that the LCD-X is more of a different flavor of the LCD sound rather than an evolution. 

 

I spoke to someone at Audeze last week to ask about their return policy.  Turns out I caught them rather late in the day and the person answering the phone wasn't the normal customer service person but instead someone who assembled all the LCDs.  I asked him which LCD he preferred and he stated that he liked them all and the differences between them were more of personal preference than objectively "better".

 

I think that tends to capture the many peoples impressions of the difference between the LCD-2 and LCD-3. 

Most who've heard both, prefer the LCD-3s (not all mind you). The LCD-3s are better, no doubt to my ears. But a few things, you'll need to really look at what's driving them and your source as they are certainly pickier than the LCD-2s...that and they aren't 2X better as the price would suggest. :smile:

post #275 of 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post

Most who've heard both, prefer the LCD-3s (not all mind you). The LCD-3s are better, no doubt to my ears. But a few things, you'll need to really look at what's driving them and your source as they are certainly pickier than the LCD-2s...that and they aren't 2X better as the price would suggest. smile.gif

Not that there have been all that many impressions posted, but from what I've seen, the LCD-X seemed to be favored over the LCD-3. Can you elaborate on why you think the LCD-3 is better?
post #276 of 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

Most who've heard both, prefer the LCD-3s (not all mind you). The LCD-3s are better, no doubt to my ears. But a few things, you'll need to really look at what's driving them and your source as they are certainly pickier than the LCD-2s...that and they aren't 2X better as the price would suggest. :smile:

 

 

How did you feel about LCD XC vs TH900?

post #277 of 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry S View Post


Not that there have been all that many impressions posted, but from what I've seen, the LCD-X seemed to be favored over the LCD-3. Can you elaborate on why you think the LCD-3 is better?

Please see the wiki I wrote a while ago here on Head-Fi (page 2 or 3 I think). Too few opinions to really see how they go. We'll see when they're released. But less bass and moar treble, why not just buy an HE-6? No thanks...I love what the LCD-3s are all about. :smile:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rrahman View Post
 

 

 

How did you feel about LCD XC vs TH900?

Haven't heard the LCD-XC, but an ortho heavier than the LCD-2/3...not sure I want to go down that route. :p

post #278 of 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

Most who've heard both, prefer the LCD-3s (not all mind you). The LCD-3s are better, no doubt to my ears. But a few things, you'll need to really look at what's driving them and your source as they are certainly pickier than the LCD-2s...that and they aren't 2X better as the price would suggest. :smile:


Yes, true enough.  Based on the survey many believe the LCD-3 to be best driven by the Mjolnir or the various Cavelli amps- which I can't help but to find ridiculously priced given the alternatives in the same class, i.e. WA-22, GS-X2, etc... but whatever).  And yes, I agree with you- I'd say there's a consensus that the LCD-3 is better by 10-20% for twice the price.

 

I'm curious though, do people find the LCD-3 to be better only on high quality recordings (like people agree that the HD800 is best on audiophile recordings but unforgiving on poor recordings- and I don't mean just low bit rate)?

 

Based on the limited feedback of the LCD-X so far I wonder if spectrum of neutral(ness) goes like this:  

 

   LCD-2----------LCD-3-----------LCD-X

(least neutral)                   (most neutral)

post #279 of 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuffyElvis View Post
 


Yes, true enough.  Based on the survey many believe the LCD-3 to be best driven by the Mjolnir or the various Cavelli amps- which I can't help but to find ridiculously priced given the alternatives in the same class, i.e. WA-22, GS-X2, etc... but whatever).  And yes, I agree with you- I'd say there's a consensus that the LCD-3 is better by 10-20% for twice the price.

 

I'm curious though, do people find the LCD-3 to be better only on high quality recordings (like people agree that the HD800 is best on audiophile recordings but unforgiving on poor recordings- and I don't mean just low bit rate)?

 

Based on the limited feedback of the LCD-X so far I wonder if spectrum of neutral(ness) goes like this:  

 

   LCD-2----------LCD-3-----------LCD-X

(least neutral)                   (most neutral)

I'd say that the LCD-3s are about 25% better than the LCD-2s (give or take depending on your upstream rig). I would not say that the Cavalli amps were "best" to drive them...the LF I owned was easily bested by the GS-X /  GS-X MK2. 


Edited by MacedonianHero - 10/20/13 at 6:54pm
post #280 of 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

I'd say that the LCD-3s are about 25% better than the LCD-3s

you mean better than the LCD-2s?

post #281 of 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jd007 View Post
 

you mean better than the LCD-2s?

Correct....fixed. Thanks.

post #282 of 5522

i've heard from people that lcd-2 makes a better complementary headphone than the lcd-3 if you already have something more neutral and bright like HD800, even tho lcd-3 is technically the superior of the two. i've been looking for something in addition to my hd800 for when my gs-x mk2 arrives, and if lcd-x is the most neutral of the lcd series then i definitely will not be getting it. so far though based on what i've heard, lcd-2 seems to be the best for me as i think its a bit more bassy than the lcd-3 (without being too bloated like th900), which should make it a good addition/complement to the hd800 imo. of course if i had to pick only one lcd phone i'd probalby go with either the 3 or x.

 

btw if anybody has any other suggestions for a complement phone to the hd800 pls let me know. i've tried the he500 and t1 and they are too similar for me to keep.

post #283 of 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuffyElvis View Post
 


Yes, true enough.  Based on the survey many believe the LCD-3 to be best driven by the Mjolnir or the various Cavelli amps- which I can't help but to find ridiculously priced given the alternatives in the same class, i.e. WA-22, GS-X2, etc... but whatever).  And yes, I agree with you- I'd say there's a consensus that the LCD-3 is better by 10-20% for twice the price.

 

I'm curious though, do people find the LCD-3 to be better only on high quality recordings (like people agree that the HD800 is best on audiophile recordings but unforgiving on poor recordings- and I don't mean just low bit rate)?

 

Based on the limited feedback of the LCD-X so far I wonder if spectrum of neutral(ness) goes like this:  

 

   LCD-2----------LCD-3-----------LCD-X

(least neutral)                   (most neutral)

 

 

I think most people would probably say the LCD3 is better than the LCD2 on poor recordings and great recordings, but the LCD2 is more forgiving on lower quality recordings (i.e. the gap is narrower on poor recordings).  I actually think the LCD3 is more forgiving of poor recordings than the LCD2.  In other words outside of preferring the warm/darker intonation of the LCD2, IMO there is absolutely nothing the LCD2 does better than the LCD3.

post #284 of 5522
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuffyElvis View Post
 

I'm surprised we haven't had more comments on the LCD-X versus 2/3/XC.  From the few cursory reviews that I've read it seems that the LCD-X is more of a different flavor of the LCD sound rather than an evolution. 

 

I spoke to someone at Audeze last week to ask about their return policy.  Turns out I caught them rather late in the day and the person answering the phone wasn't the normal customer service person but instead someone who assembled all the LCDs.  I asked him which LCD he preferred and he stated that he liked them all and the differences between them were more of personal preference than objectively "better".

 

I think that tends to capture the many peoples impressions of the difference between the LCD-2 and LCD-3. 


That's cool you spoke to a non-customer service person. You probably got an honest opinion instead of the usual marketing/memorized official company line. It's intersting to hear what a person actually assembling them thinks. I assume he's got some exeprience with how they should sound.

 

I'm very happy with my new LCD-2, they are so very different from the one I bought in 2011 and even slightly different from the one I got in 2012; not sure if it was poor quality control issues or steady improvement, but the new pair I have is so nice and I'm so happy. When I have it on my head I really don't want any other headphoen, which is something I've never felt since entering this hobby. It was always at least 2% dissatisfaction with some minor aspect of the sound, but for the first time I don't have that qualm. I can see my journey ending very soon and never coming back here.

post #285 of 5522
Quote:
 It was always at least 2% dissatisfaction with some minor aspect of the sound, but for the first time I don't have that qualm.

Advancing years does that................

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