New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 30

post #436 of 4932
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

Wouldn't it be funny if Purrin got a veiled LCD-X.


He's actually the perfect person to send a veiled Audez'e to. He'll probably fix it somehow using stuff found in the common bathroom.

post #437 of 4932
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post
 

 

Thanks to an anonymous person who purchased the LCD-X and mailed it to me, I have an LCD-X in my hands.

 

A "good" or "non-veiled" LCD3 is superior. The LCD3 is way more resolving and has better transient response. The LCD-X tonal balance is similar to other the Audezes, i.e. bassy and laid back. Measurements pending.


Wow... this is very dissapointing. If this opinion is confirmed by others, I'm no longer intersted in the X. I thought all this new tech gave the X faster transient response than the 3.

post #438 of 4932
Quote:
Originally Posted by M-13 View Post
 


Wow... this is very dissapointing. If this opinion is confirmed by others, I'm no longer intersted in the X. I thought all this new tech gave the X faster transient response than the 3.

I've got a pair of LCD-X on their way to me now. I'll post some initial findings as soon as they arrive (hopefully by week's end). I did confirm that the LCD-X's drivers are thinner/lighter diaphragm than the LCD-2's drivers. But the "Lotus" drivers on the LCD-3s are still the thinnest/lightest of the three. Though by how much, I don't know. 

 

I'm pretty excited to finally hear them :smile:. So far, Audeze has been 3/3 for me with the LCD-2R1, LCD-2R2 and LCD-3 as I've owned each headphone (and still have my LCD-3s) and enjoyed them all. 

 

What intrigues me is how they'll sound without a full sized desktop amp to drive them as the LCD-X are most efficient headphones made by Audeze.


Edited by MacedonianHero - 10/29/13 at 6:49pm
post #439 of 4932
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

I've got a pair of LCD-X on their way to me now. I'll post some initial findings as soon as they arrive (hopefully by week's end). I did confirm that the LCD-X's drivers are thinner/lighter diaphragm than the LCD-2's drivers. But the "Lotus" drivers on the LCD-3s are still the thinnest/lightest of the three. 

 

I'm pretty excited to finally hear them :smile:. So far, Audeze has been 3/3 for me with the LCD-2R1, LCD-2R2 and LCD-3 as I've owned each headphone and enjoyed them all. 

 

What intrigues me is how they'll sound without a full sized desktop amp to drive them as the LCD-X are most efficient headphones made by Audeze.


Wow, looking forward to your comparison.:popcorn:

Also good job on confirming the diaphragm thickness. That's really surprsing that they developed an inbetween driver. I would have thought 2 years of research would result in something even thinner than the Lotus, but I'm sure Audez'e has their own reasons for this.

 

So I guess preliminarily it's likely that transient response/resolution is lower than the 3, which means it has to make it up with an even more pleasing tonality.

 

But yeah I'm dissapointed to say the least... I guess I can always just get the 3 or get an HE-6.

post #440 of 4932
Quote:
Originally Posted by M-13 View Post
 


Wow, looking forward to your comparison.:popcorn:

Also good job on confirming the diaphragm thickness. That's really surprsing that they developed an inbetween driver. I would have thought 2 years of research would result in something even thinner than the Lotus, but I'm sure Audez'e has their own reasons for this.

 

So I guess preliminarily it's likely that transient response/resolution is lower than the 3, which means it has to make it up with an even more pleasing tonality.

 

But yeah I'm dissapointed to say the least... I guess I can always just get the 3 or get an HE-6.

 

Why disappointed? I'm not sure how these differences relate to what we can actually hear sonically. These look like they have a lot of potential. Many ears that I trust (and hear similarly with) really liked them (Frank I, baka1969 and Jude) a lot. Both Frank (Frank I) and Ross (baka1969) where at the Philly meet this past weekend and really raved about them. They are very good friends and we tend to hear things very similarly (though we certainly don't agree on everything :p). FWIW, I owned the LCD-3 and HE-6s at the same time and sold off the HE-6s a few months after the LCD-3s arrived. 

 

I'll report my initial findings once they arrive (by the end of this week or early next week) and then give them a thorough listen and post a review (and compare them to my LCD-3s). 


Edited by MacedonianHero - 10/29/13 at 7:09pm
post #441 of 4932
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

 

Why disappointed?

The reason I'm dissapointed is that because I would like noticeably superior resolution/transient response compared to the LCD-2 if I'm going to almost pay the price of the LCD-3. I could just get a open-box LCD-3 for around the same price and get that transient response.

 

In terms of tonality I find the HE-500 perfect. It's completely neutral for my own ears. I know they're dark on an absolute scale. I would basically like a HE-500 with more resolution, but the HE-6 would be too bright. I think the Abyss works, except it's $5500 and looks like a torture device created in the  middle-ages...

post #442 of 4932
Quote:
Originally Posted by M-13 View Post
 

The reason I'm dissapointed is that because I would like noticeably superior resolution/transient response compared to the LCD-2 if I'm going to almost pay the price of the LCD-3. I could just get a open-box LCD-3 for around the same price and get that transient response.

 

In terms of tonality I find the HE-500 perfect. It's completely neutral for my own ears. I know they're dark on an absolute scale. I would basically like a HE-500 with more resolution, but the HE-6 would be too bright. I think the Abyss works, except it's $5500 and looks like a torture device created in the  middle-ages...

I'm expecting exactly that. :o

post #443 of 4932
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

I'm expecting exactly that. :o


I wish you had a brand new pair of LCD-2s to compare them to. You no longer have the 2 right? So no direct comparison?

post #444 of 4932
Quote:
Originally Posted by M-13 View Post
 


I wish you had a brand new pair of LCD-2s to compare them to. You no longer have the 2 right? So no direct comparison?

I don't, I wish I did now. :p

post #445 of 4932
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

I don't, I wish I did now. :p


Well I think the LCD-3 vs LCD-X is the more interesting, and the one more people are looking for. LCD-2 owners like me will have to wait for others to receive their X and see what they say.

post #446 of 4932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry S View Post
 

Man, there are some really different opinions about the LCD-X. Makes me think this is a very source-dependent set of cans. It's either bright, neutral or warm, and resolves significantly better or worse than the LCD-3s. :confused_face(1):

 

 

I would say they are much more recording dependent than most other cans.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by M-13 View Post
 

The reason I'm dissapointed is that because I would like noticeably superior resolution/transient response compared to the LCD-2 if I'm going to almost pay the price of the LCD-3. I could just get a open-box LCD-3 for around the same price and get that transient response.

 

In terms of tonality I find the HE-500 perfect. It's completely neutral for my own ears. I know they're dark on an absolute scale. I would basically like a HE-500 with more resolution, but the HE-6 would be too bright. I think the Abyss works, except it's $5500 and looks like a torture device created in the  middle-ages...

 

I like the tonal balance of the HE-500 a lot. A little bit more than a stock Abyss in fact. I've tweaked my Abyss to have a similarly slightly dark signature as the HE-500. The HE-6 is too etched for me.

 

The LCD-X so far has been difficult for me to pin down. It seems devoid of the lush and "organic" nature of the LCD3 mids - noting that even the LCD2.2 has more than a hint of this. The bass sounds very similar to the LCD3 but the lower midrange seems to lack body. The LCD-X also has more treble than the LCD2.2/3. Whether this amounts to a neutral signature, I would not be so sure. I would go back on what I said earlier about their sound and modify that statement a bit: the LCD-X is bassy and laid back, but with more mid-treble. This treble does not quite blend in with the rest of the spectrum. It's certainly not too much, or of a scratchy or etched nature, but it just sort of seems out of place and as a result does make the mids seem recessed. The new driver tends omit low level information - the LCD3 seems much more resolving. I liked my LCD3 quite a bit, but this one I'm not sure about yet. I feel the LCD-X is more along the lines of a sidegrade to a good LCD2.2.

 

Quite a lot of other folks have the LCD-X in their hands so it would be interesting to hear from them soon. I also believe there's an eval going around, but they may not be able to speak freely yet.


Edited by purrin - 10/29/13 at 9:18pm
post #447 of 4932

Saw your measurement result. At least it is probably the one of the best, if not the best, measurement I've ever seen so far.

 

Edit : and I am glad it is still laid-back with bass. Otherwise no point of getting these when we are crowded with phones like HD800.


Edited by wnmnkh - 10/29/13 at 8:08pm
post #448 of 4932

I have a pair of loaner LCD-X here. They are definitely more exciting-sounding than my LCD-3s were. The lower mids aren't as strong, which emphasises this. They definitely have that "wow" factor when listening at first, like the LCD-2s did for a lot of people. The problem I had with the LCD-3s was that, despite being detailed, even after 3 pairs, they sounded "veiled". I think though it was simply bad luck with the FR of the various pairs I owned.

 

One interesting experience I had was when switching from my ADAM ARTist 3s to the LCD-X (I just turn off the pre-amp function on my amp) the sound was the least different than when switching to any other headphones I've had now or in the past. In other words, I feel they sound the most like my monitor speakers.

post #449 of 4932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
 

I have a pair of loaner LCD-X here. They are definitely more exciting-sounding than my LCD-3s were. The lower mids aren't as strong, which emphasises this. They definitely have that "wow" factor when listening at first, like the LCD-2s did for a lot of people. The problem I had with the LCD-3s was that, despite being detailed, even after 3 pairs, they sounded "veiled". I think though it was simply bad luck with the FR of the various pairs I owned.

 

One interesting experience I had was when switching from my ADAM ARTist 3s to the LCD-X (I just turn off the pre-amp function on my amp) the sound was the least different than when switching to any other headphones I've had now or in the past. In other words, I feel they sound the most like my monitor speakers.

 

So if you were choosing among the LCD2s, 3s, and X, which would you choose if money was not a factor? 

post #450 of 4932

Hi Currawong

 

Could you please share your opinion regard to speed, veil, dynamic contrast, tonal balance, microdetails, 3D effect of LCD-X (compare to LCD3)?

 

:L3000:

 

Thank you very much

Chirawat


Edited by chirawatf - 10/30/13 at 4:55am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum