Latest Thread Images

Featured Sponsor Listings

Audeze LCD-X

Oct 30, 2013 at 10:08 AM Post #452 of 12,902
barry s said:
There's a lot of things in life to regret, but buying a pair of a LCD-3s shouldn't be one of them.
Click to expand...


+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?
 
Oct 30, 2013 at 11:45 AM Post #453 of 12,902
commtrd said:
+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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Oct 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM Post #454 of 12,902
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.
 
Oct 30, 2013 at 12:22 PM Post #455 of 12,902
mowglycdb said:
  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.
Click to expand...

i wish the LCD-3 had the slam of the LCD-2
 
Oct 30, 2013 at 1:14 PM Post #456 of 12,902
dubstep girl said:
  i wish the LCD-3 had the slam of the LCD-2
Click to expand...


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.
 
Oct 30, 2013 at 1:34 PM Post #457 of 12,902
barry s said:
 
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.
Click to expand...

 
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
 
Oct 30, 2013 at 1:52 PM Post #460 of 12,902
the8o88y said:
 
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?
Click to expand...

 
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.
 
Oct 30, 2013 at 1:53 PM Post #461 of 12,902
purrin said:
   
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.
Click to expand...

 
hows the bass and especially the slam on them vs the LCD-2/3?  
 
Oct 30, 2013 at 2:10 PM Post #462 of 12,902
purrin said:
 
the8o88y said:
 
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?
Click to expand...

 
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.
Click to expand...

With low impedance and high sensitivity, I say that is expected.
 
Oct 30, 2013 at 2:10 PM Post #463 of 12,902
dubstep girl said:
  hows the bass and especially the slam on them vs the LCD-2/3?  
Click to expand...

 
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.
 
Oct 30, 2013 at 2:16 PM Post #464 of 12,902
barry s said:
  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).gif

 
Click to expand...

 
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.
 
Oct 30, 2013 at 2:27 PM Post #465 of 12,902
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 92 (members: 0, guests: 92)
Back
Top