New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 262

post #3916 of 4767
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadie View Post

Agreed, but now the conundrum is what amp to complete the trifecta with the LCD-X & Hugo.

To my ears, the Hugo's amp generates about 90% of what the LCD-X is capable of.  For more sheer power and bass, the Auralic Taurus is stellar with the LCD-X, but I didn't demo this combo with the Hugo.  

I have the Questyle CMA800R here at home, and while it's a great amp 1) it doesn't have ideal synergy with the X, given the amp's hyper detail and less-bottom end vs. the Taurus and 2) more significantly, it changes the sound character of the Hugo, which is obviously unacceptable.

Now that I have the Hugo, I need to head back to the Auralic dealer to demo this combo.  Otherwise, I may just run the X straight out of the Hugo, and use the Questyle to pair with Senn HD800s.

The Synergy is very important In audio set Up

Thats why i Bought so many portable Amps , to Find The Synergy With My headphones

The best For all rounder Amp is Mass Ko Bo 394 , i can not wait My Mass Ko Bo 394 m it take 2 Month Time For pre order
post #3917 of 4767
Quote:
Originally Posted by rydenfan View Post

I feel like I am missing something with the X I actually prefer my LCD2.2's over them. Yes they are more open on the top but I feel like they sound congested and that the bass, while plentiful, is boomy and kind of loose.

Your impression like what i First Time heard my Friend LCD X out The box
SQ so Harsh Loose and Boomy bass
My LCD 2 rev 3 is better
After i Burn In With songs that rich on High and detail about 30 hours
Like jammie Valley Round midnight album
Chinese music The Businness OF Love album

Than His LCD X Opened Up their strong Point
Now is open and more detail , The midrange is sweeter and The bass tighter

Please Burn In Yours

Yesterday i have compared With My Friend LCD X , he has about 200 hours
His SQ is better than My LCD X , smoother rich In detail , better bass body
But now has almost The same SQ

If After Burn In still Harsh than you have defected LCD X

IMO
post #3918 of 4767
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadie View Post
 

Agreed, but now the conundrum is what amp to complete the trifecta with the LCD-X & Hugo.

 

To my ears, the Hugo's amp generates about 90% of what the LCD-X is capable of.  For more sheer power and bass, the Auralic Taurus is stellar with the LCD-X, but I didn't demo this combo with the Hugo.  

 

I have the Questyle CMA800R here at home, and while it's a great amp 1) it doesn't have ideal synergy with the X, given the amp's hyper detail and less-bottom end vs. the Taurus and 2) more significantly, it changes the sound character of the Hugo, which is obviously unacceptable.

 

Now that I have the Hugo, I need to head back to the Auralic dealer to demo this combo.  Otherwise, I may just run the X straight out of the Hugo, and use the Questyle to pair with Senn HD800s.


I've always been of the impression and experience that often more is not better when it comes to audio pieced flow chart.  The more connectors involved the more potential for loss of sound quality.  I've always gravitated towards the simplier flow with choice components, as long as those components are compatible with each other. 

That being said, it's always worth a listen, can't hurt to try.   Thus I look forward to hearing your reviews with additional amps in line with the Hugo/LCD-X.

 

     Elvis


Edited by elviscaprice - 4/23/14 at 9:27am
post #3919 of 4767

Hey guys,

 

How does the LCDX compare to the other Audezes with bad Rock & Roll recordings?

 

My RS1's sometimes sounds too much like a Grado and with Metallica and the Chili Peppers's latest albums it almost sounds like a banshee screaming at me, so i am looking for something more forgiving. I've read Audezes sound great with Rock and are very forgiving, so now the only question is WHICH ONE? asking in this thread because the LCDX seems to be the most amp friendly of the bunch.

 

Unfortunately i have very little access to demo this sort of equipment, so most of the time i have no choice but to trust reviews and opinions on forums like these.


Edited by Duartisimo - 4/26/14 at 9:48am
post #3920 of 4767

LCD-X just tears up Metallica and the Chili Peppers like no one's business... You will love them!

post #3921 of 4767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duartisimo View Post
 

Hey guys,

 

How does the LCDX compare to the other Audezes with bad Rock & Roll recordings?

 

My RS1's sometimes sounds too much like a Grado and with Metallica and the Chili Peppers's latest albums it almost sounds like a banshee screaming at me, so i am looking for something more forgiving. I've read Audezes sound great with Rock and are very forgiving, so now the only question is WHICH ONE? asking in this thread because the LCDX seems to be the most amp friendly of the bunch.

 

Unfortunately i have very little access to demo this sort of equipment, so most of the time i have no choose but to trust reviews and opinions on forums like these.

All of the Audezes are easier on the ears with poor recordings than brighter headphones like the HD800. As far as forgiving, I'd rank them LCD-3>LCD-2>LCD-X. The LCD-3 is like liquid honey, especially with a neutral amp. The lush mids de-emphasize any sibilance, and the intimate soundstage also makes highly compressed recordings stand out less. With the LCD-X, I'm never wincing at bad recordings, but I'm very aware of the poor quality.

 

You're right about the LCD-X being the most amp-friendly--it pairs with a wide range of amps and still sounds good. The LCD-2 low end can be loose and boomy with some amps and the LCD-3 signature can get thick and syrupy with a warm amp. However, the LCD-2 and LCD-3 are very tight with the Mjolnir, so that's an easy choice for $750. The LCD-X is leaner out of the Mjolnir--a little too lean for my tastes at the moment.

 

So although the LCD-X is easier to pair and sound very good, I haven't found an endgame quality amp to match it for the price of the Mjolnir.  IMHO, the Mjolnir is endgame for the LCD-2 and LCD-3 in terms of quality.

post #3922 of 4767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry S View Post
 

All of the Audezes are easier on the ears with poor recordings than brighter headphones like the HD800. As far as forgiving, I'd rank them LCD-3>LCD-2>LCD-X. The LCD-3 is like liquid honey, especially with a neutral amp. The lush mids de-emphasize any sibilance, and the intimate soundstage also makes highly compressed recordings stand out less. With the LCD-X, I'm never wincing at bad recordings, but I'm very aware of the poor quality.

 

Not really. It depends on what type of poor recording you have.

 

I have many poor recordings that are soft, muddy, closed-in, congested, bloated bass, dark sounding etc  (or any combination of ) where I clearly prefer my HD800's to my LCD2.2's.

 

People seem to have the opinion that ALL bad recordings are bright, etched, lacking bass, treble happy etc, not so.


Edited by nigeljames - 4/26/14 at 9:28am
post #3923 of 4767

OK thank you guys.

 

Let me clear something up: by bad recordings i mean the RHCP Californication album at about the 12 sec. mark from the first song. With some headphones like my Grados it's simply unlistenable. I know that fixing bad sound is like putting lipstick on a pig, but can't help trying:)

post #3924 of 4767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry S View Post
 

All of the Audezes are easier on the ears with poor recordings than brighter headphones like the HD800. As far as forgiving, I'd rank them LCD-3>LCD-2>LCD-X. The LCD-3 is like liquid honey, especially with a neutral amp. The lush mids de-emphasize any sibilance, and the intimate soundstage also makes highly compressed recordings stand out less. With the LCD-X, I'm never wincing at bad recordings, but I'm very aware of the poor quality.

 

You're right about the LCD-X being the most amp-friendly--it pairs with a wide range of amps and still sounds good. The LCD-2 low end can be loose and boomy with some amps and the LCD-3 signature can get thick and syrupy with a warm amp. However, the LCD-2 and LCD-3 are very tight with the Mjolnir, so that's an easy choice for $750. The LCD-X is leaner out of the Mjolnir--a little too lean for my tastes at the moment.

 

So although the LCD-X is easier to pair and sound very good, I haven't found an endgame quality amp to match it for the price of the Mjolnir.  IMHO, the Mjolnir is endgame for the LCD-2 and LCD-3 in terms of quality.

My gear is transportable

MBP - Amarra HIFI - CLAS db - RSA (sold the SR71b, getting a Lightning)

 

Also, 20 seconds into hearing the HD800s i new i did not like it. A bit boring for my taste, specially for Rock & Roll. Guess I'm not into neutral stuff much.


Edited by Duartisimo - 4/26/14 at 9:47am
post #3925 of 4767
Quote:
Originally Posted by nigeljames View Post
 

Not really. It depends on what type of poor recording you have.

 

I have many poor recordings that are soft, muddy, closed-in, congested, bloated bass, dark sounding etc  (or any combination of ) where I clearly prefer my HD800's to my LCD2.2's.

 

People seem to have the opinion that ALL bad recordings are bright, etched, lacking bass, treble happy etc, not so.


I don't disagree with you; I was referring to "wince-worthy" recordings, with treble glare and sibilance. With muddy, murky recordings, the HD800 or similar is likely going to be better. I think dense orchestral music generally sounds better with a headphone like the HD800 where the treble boost digs out and separates the instruments.

post #3926 of 4767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry S View Post
 

All of the Audezes are easier on the ears with poor recordings than brighter headphones like the HD800. As far as forgiving, I'd rank them LCD-3>LCD-2>LCD-X. The LCD-3 is like liquid honey, especially with a neutral amp. The lush mids de-emphasize any sibilance, and the intimate soundstage also makes highly compressed recordings stand out less. With the LCD-X, I'm never wincing at bad recordings, but I'm very aware of the poor quality.

 

You're right about the LCD-X being the most amp-friendly--it pairs with a wide range of amps and still sounds good. The LCD-2 low end can be loose and boomy with some amps and the LCD-3 signature can get thick and syrupy with a warm amp. However, the LCD-2 and LCD-3 are very tight with the Mjolnir, so that's an easy choice for $750. The LCD-X is leaner out of the Mjolnir--a little too lean for my tastes at the moment.

 

So although the LCD-X is easier to pair and sound very good, I haven't found an endgame quality amp to match it for the price of the Mjolnir.  IMHO, the Mjolnir is endgame for the LCD-2 and LCD-3 in terms of quality.

Look no further than the Auralic Taurus mk 2 for your end game amp for the LCD-X. Yes its double the price of the Mjolnir but all you will do is keep buying other amps until you get to the right one which is the Taurus...so you will actually waste money in the process of searching.

Spend the money now and start the enjoyment early!!

post #3927 of 4767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray View Post
 

Look no further than the Auralic Taurus mk 2 for your end game amp for the LCD-X. Yes its double the price of the Mjolnir but all you will do is keep buying other amps until you get to the right one which is the Taurus...so you will actually waste money in the process of searching.

Spend the money now and start the enjoyment early!!


What about the ALO Audio Studio Six or Cavalli Liquid Gold, they also seem like end game for the X from what I've read.

post #3928 of 4767
I have found these LCD-X cans sound awesome on many amps. Unlike some headphones I have listened to (HD 800) or own (HD650) that require the right cabling and end game amp to sound their best, the X sounds consistently superb on my Hugo, Studio Six, Pathos Aurium etc.
post #3929 of 4767
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldendarko View Post
 


What about the ALO Audio Studio Six or Cavalli Liquid Gold, they also seem like end game for the X from what I've read.


If you can afford them then go ahead and knock yourself out........

The Taurus though is a fraction of their price with about 95% of their goodness........and the bass on the Taurus with the X's is better than both IMO.

post #3930 of 4767
Schiit will be shipping their Statement Amp soon. FTM, I am keeping my eye on the Ragnarok.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum