New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 31

post #451 of 4916

Please add AIR to the treble too.

post #452 of 4916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry S View Post

There's a lot of things in life to regret, but buying a pair of a LCD-3s shouldn't be one of them.

+1! ;D I absolutely do not regret buying my LCD3. In fact at over 300+ hours on the phones I think they are starting to sound even more resolving and spacious if such a thing is possible. I mean really noticeably so. I am sure the LCD-X are fine cans but really I could just never give up my LCD3. It is nice to have choices isn't it?
post #453 of 4916
Quote:
Originally Posted by commtrd View Post


+1! ;D I absolutely do not regret buying my LCD3. In fact at over 300+ hours on the phones I think they are starting to sound even more resolving and spacious if such a thing is possible. I mean really noticeably so. I am sure the LCD-X are fine cans but really I could just never give up my LCD3. It is nice to have choices isn't it?

I'm glad to see you post this, as I was wondering about your thoughts having acquired your LCD-3 fairly recently.

 

I however, have a choice to make. I'll be upgrading from LCD-2.2 soon, and I know most of us are just as curious to how different the 3 and X are from one another.

 

My only complaints about the 2.2's are that they seem to be congested, or lacking clarity, particularly in the highs and mids. The soundstage could be a bigger, but it's not a deal breaker.

 

Do the 3's improve greatly on those weaknesses without losing that sweet bass? Also, have you received your silver widow cable yet, and what are your impressions if so?

post #454 of 4916

The LCD-3 has sweeter bass than the LCD-2 but has less slam, it has more lower treble and slightly more higher treble (more refined), it's more neutral than LCD-2, and has better detail extraction. The biggest change is soundstage and imaging IMO. The biggest turn off for me is that it doesn't have much air, slightly better than LCD-2 though.


Edited by mowglycdb - 10/30/13 at 8:58am
post #455 of 4916
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowglycdb View Post
 

The LCD-3 has sweeter bass than the LCD-2 but has less slam, it has more lower treble and slightly more higher treble (more refined), it's more neutral than LCD-2, and has better detail extraction. The biggest change is soundstage and imaging IMO. The biggest turn off for me is that it doesn't have much air, slightly better than LCD-2 though.

i wish the LCD-3 had the slam of the LCD-2

post #456 of 4916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post
 

i wish the LCD-3 had the slam of the LCD-2


I get the impression that after a certain point with current transducer technology, improving one aspect of frequency response and accuracy, means making compromises somewhere else. If I used sound processing software to hard roll-off all frequencies above 400-500 Hz, I think the LCD-2 and LCD-3 would sound very very similar. The LCD-3's better treble response (and better resolved mids) ends up changing the relationship between the bass and mids/treble. The LCD-2s biggest weakness is listening at low volumes, where the lower treble recedes too much.

post #457 of 4916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry S View Post
 


I get the impression that after a certain point with current transducer technology, improving one aspect of frequency response and accuracy, means making compromises somewhere else. If I used sound processing software to hard roll-off all frequencies above 400-500 Hz, I think the LCD-2 and LCD-3 would sound very very similar. The LCD-3's better treble response (and better resolved mids) ends up changing the relationship between the bass and mids/treble. The LCD-2s biggest weakness is listening at low volumes, where the lower treble recedes too much.

 

ah

 

i do notice the LCD-3 does a better job with low volumes, the LCD-2 always sounded better louder, at lower volumes it was congested sounding

post #458 of 4916
sill question but how does the lce x compare with a T1
post #459 of 4916

and HE-6!

post #460 of 4916
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8o88y View Post

 

I however, have a choice to make. I'll be upgrading from LCD-2.2 soon, and I know most of us are just as curious to how different the 3 and X are from one another.

 

My only complaints about the 2.2's are that they seem to be congested, or lacking clarity, particularly in the highs and mids. The soundstage could be a bigger, but it's not a deal breaker.

 

Do the 3's improve greatly on those weaknesses without losing that sweet bass? Also, have you received your silver widow cable yet, and what are your impressions if so?

 

In my experience, the LCD-3 was smoother and typically more laid back in the treble compared to the 2.2. It's difficult to say because there is some variation among the cans. The congestion issues with the Audeze do tend to go away with good powerful amping. For example, I've found the Mjolnir a good match for the LCD-3 in terms of bringing more precision and articulation to the bass. The LCD-3 bass quality is better, less rough; and the LCD-3 staging is more open.

 

On the topic of amping, I'm finding the LCD-X extremely sensitive to amps. My initial impressions above were mostly from the Mjolnir, but I'm finding the the Leckerton UHA-6S a better match in terms of tonality because it brings some of the lushness back. I quite like the LCD-X with the Leckerton. The LCD-X from the Vali was too bassy and mushy - seemed underpowered or unable to deal with the low impedance of the LCD-X. It's been a Goldilocks experience with the LCD-X in terms of finding the right amp.


Edited by purrin - 10/30/13 at 10:55am
post #461 of 4916
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post
 

 

In my experience, the LCD-3 was smoother and typically more laid back in the treble compared to the 2.2. It's difficult to say because there is some variation among the cans. The congestion issues with the Audeze do tend to go away with good powerful amping. I found the Mjolnir a good match for the LCD-3 in terms of bringing more precision and articulation to the bass. The LCD-3 bass quality is better, less rough; and the LCD-3 staging is more open.

 

On the topic of amping, I'm finding the LCD-X very sensitive to amps. The impressions above were mostly from the Mjolnir, but I'm finding the the Leckerton UHA-6S a better match in terms of tonality because it brings some of the lushness back. I quite like the LCD-X with the Leckerton. The LCD-X from the Vali was too bassy and mushy - seemed underpowered or unable to deal with the low impedance of the LCD-X.

 

hows the bass and especially the slam on them vs the LCD-2/3?  

post #462 of 4916
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8o88y View Post

 

I however, have a choice to make. I'll be upgrading from LCD-2.2 soon, and I know most of us are just as curious to how different the 3 and X are from one another.

 

My only complaints about the 2.2's are that they seem to be congested, or lacking clarity, particularly in the highs and mids. The soundstage could be a bigger, but it's not a deal breaker.

 

Do the 3's improve greatly on those weaknesses without losing that sweet bass? Also, have you received your silver widow cable yet, and what are your impressions if so?

 

In my experience, the LCD-3 was smoother and typically more laid back in the treble compared to the 2.2. It's difficult to say because there is some variation among the cans. The congestion issues with the Audeze do tend to go away with good powerful amping. For example, I've found the Mjolnir a good match for the LCD-3 in terms of bringing more precision and articulation to the bass. The LCD-3 bass quality is better, less rough; and the LCD-3 staging is more open.

 

On the topic of amping, I'm finding the LCD-X extremely sensitive to amps. My initial impressions above were mostly from the Mjolnir, but I'm finding the the Leckerton UHA-6S a better match in terms of tonality because it brings some of the lushness back. I quite like the LCD-X with the Leckerton. The LCD-X from the Vali was too bassy and mushy - seemed underpowered or unable to deal with the low impedance of the LCD-X. It's been a Goldilocks experience with the LCD-X in terms of finding the right amp.

With low impedance and high sensitivity, I say that is expected.

post #463 of 4916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post
 

hows the bass and especially the slam on them vs the LCD-2/3?  

 

This is difficult for me to say for sure because as I've indicated, the LCD-X does have a little less body and tactile sense to compared LCD2.2/3; but yet at the same time, there is a greater sense of attack (because there is more treble presence.) Using one of my test tracks that I've typically used with the Mojo and other Audezes (Talking Heads - Television Man - the fairly recent remaster) I get the sense that the impact from bass drums is lighter and the impact from snares stronger.


Edited by purrin - 10/30/13 at 11:11am
post #464 of 4916
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 less source dependent, but more recording and amp dependent. Twenty-two ohms, that almost uncharted territory for headphones. This can't be stressed enough. That's IEM land. Those of us with low impedance IEMs know how amp dependent they can be.


Edited by purrin - 10/30/13 at 11:20am
post #465 of 4916

In my experience a high output impedance is not much of a problem for planars as the impedance of the phones doesn't change with frequency.

That's why a planar below 60 ohm can be driven perfectly fine from a vintage receiver with an output impedance of sometimes several hundred ohms, and not colour the sound.

 

Let's see how this one measure, but the impedance should be as stable over frequency as all the others.

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