New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 32

post #466 of 4783

In this case, it's current / power delivery, which tends to dramatically go "ugh" with lower impedance loads, especially with headamps. Less linear distortion (FR) but non-linear distortion.

post #467 of 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post
 

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

 

What's your favorite headphone in your collection for rock / metal in terms of clarity, euphony, and slam?

 

I'm particularly curious about the T-1, because I'm thinking the HD800 would be too thin, grainy, and bass-light for my tastes. I know amp and source have a lot to do with that, and I'm running Mjolnir/Gungnir with my LCD-2.2.

post #468 of 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8o88y View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post
 

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

 

What's your favorite headphone in your collection for rock / metal in terms of clarity, euphony, and slam?

 

I'm particularly curious about the T-1, because I'm thinking the HD800 would be too thin, grainy, and bass-light for my tastes. I know amp and source have a lot to do with that, and I'm running Mjolnir/Gungnir with my LCD-2.2.

You will like T-1. The problem is that T-1 needs some recabling because the cable is not detachable.

post #469 of 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post
 
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.

 

Based on your comments, it seems LCD-X and XC should be driven from those small IEM amps. I searched for UHA-6S that you recommended, and it seems it is indeed a low-powered, very low distortion ideal for IEMs.

 

By the way, what opamps are installed in your UHA-6S? It seems people can choose the chips they want to hear.

post #470 of 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post
 

In this case, it's current / power delivery, which tends to dramatically go "ugh" with lower impedance loads, especially with headamps. Less linear distortion (FR) but non-linear distortion.

I'm guessing plugging the LCD-X on speaker taps may not yield as good results as with the LCD3... :o

post #471 of 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by wn. kh View Post
 

 

Based on your comments, it seems LCD-X and XC should be driven from those small IEM amps. I searched for UHA-6S that you recommended,ifand it seems it is indeed a . w-powered, very low distortion ideal for IEMs.

 

By the way, what opamps are installed in your UHA-6S? It seems people can choose the chips they want to hear.

It depends on their efficiency.  IEMs have far more efficiency than any full size headphones.  Smaller IEM amps may not provide enough current to properly drive the LCD-X if their efficiency is too low.

post #472 of 4783

My bet is the Soloist will do these justice for its price range.


Edited by negura - 10/30/13 at 12:55pm
post #473 of 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWahl View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wn. kh View Post
 

 

Based on your comments, it seems LCD-X and XC should be driven from those small IEM amps. I searched for UHA-6S that you recommended,ifand it seems it is indeed a . w-powered, very low distortion ideal for IEMs.

 

By the way, what opamps are installed in your UHA-6S? It seems people can choose the chips they want to hear.

It depends on their efficiency.  IEMs have far more efficiency than any full size headphones.  Smaller IEM amps may not provide enough current to properly drive the LCD-X if their efficiency is too low.

Based on specification LCD-X really does not need much power 

  • Impedance:  22 ohms, purely resistive
  • Efficiency:  96 dB/1 mW

 

Now it does say optimal power requirement is 1~4W tho. I guess LCD-X will be best matched with good-powered solid state amps with very low noise. It certainly won't like a lot of tube amps.

post #474 of 4783

It might pair well with Audio-GD Master-8 then    7000mW into 50Ohm

post #475 of 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by negura View Post
 

My bet is the Soloist will do these justice for its price range.

My thoughts as well, though given the impressions so far I also think the Violectric V200 could end up being a good choice as well.

post #476 of 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWahl View Post
 

My thoughts as well, though given the impressions so far I also think the Violectric V200 could end up being a good choice as well.


Also possibly the yet to be released Geek Pulse (which I am a backer of).

post #477 of 4783

After reading the posts on this thread, and thank you all, I've placed my order for the LCD-X.  I was ready to order the LCD-2 as my first set of open cans, until I heard about the LCD-X and changed my mind.

 

I have an idea on the Audeze strategy to place the X...

 

As we read in the posts, the X/XC membrane thickness is between that of the LCD2 and LCD3, then the X/XC are mid-range products and will protect the LCD3 as the flagship.  So, draw in a new fan base who want brighter sound.  Maybe there's still headroom for Audeze to apply the new technology to an LDC-4 model with the thinnest membrane + the new technology.  Just a thought.

 

I'm really interested to read your comments of direct comparisons between the LCD-2, LCD-X and LCD-3.

post #478 of 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCBinTN View Post
 

After reading the posts on this thread, and thank you all, I've placed my order for the LCD-X.  I was ready to order the LCD-2 as my first set of open cans, until I heard about the LCD-X and changed my mind.

 

I have an idea on the Audeze strategy to place the X...

 

As we read in the posts, the X/XC membrane thickness is between that of the LCD2 and LCD3, then the X/XC are mid-range products and will protect the LCD3 as the flagship.  So, draw in a new fan base who want brighter sound.  Maybe there's still headroom for Audeze to apply the new technology to an LDC-4 model with the thinnest membrane + the new technology.  Just a thought.

 

I'm really interested to read your comments of direct comparisons between the LCD-2, LCD-X and LCD-3.

 

I have always said I really think that a new flagship is on it's way with the new technology :D. The question is when? Will Santa come with the new flagship or will it be in 2014? :P

post #479 of 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8o88y View Post
 
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?

Have not received Silver Widow yet. Frank indicated it should ship first part of November. Ordered in March. Wow. Anyway yes the LCD3 improves on the LCD2r2 and yes the 3s do maintain the sweet bass but maybe with a bit of a shift to the mid-bass but IMHO this is a general shift up along the whole range to enable yielding that enhanced resolution and clarity away from the very slight muddiness I heard on some recordings with the LCD2r2. The extreme bass slam the 2s were capable of the 3s will almost do and I believe the tradeoff is very much worth it. I would love to audition a pair of the X but in no way will I ever move on from the 3s. I believe that if Audeze does come out with a "4" or new flagship it will be requisite to look at amp and source with a critical eye as the chain may need updating to capitalize on the extreme capability of the phones (assuming that proves to be the case and I have no reason to doubt). So that an investment into a new flagship may well involve an upward migration in component quality and now we are talking potentially serious money.

post #480 of 4783
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowglycdb View Post
 

It might pair well with Audio-GD Master-8 then    7000mW into 50Ohm

Hopig it will pair nicely with a Audio GD 10ES2, 6w into 50 ohms. Plus it's very balanced :3 my dt 880s love it! 

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