New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 39

post #571 of 5525
http://stereos.about.com/od/portableandpersonalaudio/ss/Audeze-LCD-XC-Headphone-Measurements_2.htm
here you go.
post #572 of 5525

I didn't realise anyone at About.com would have had a pair. Just FYI anyone viewing the graphs: They are uncompensated unlike the graphs at Headroom and other places that measure headphones.

post #573 of 5525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
 

I didn't realise anyone at About.com would have had a pair. Just FYI anyone viewing the graphs: They are uncompensated unlike the graphs at Headroom and other places that measure headphones.

I see! That means what q.q 

post #574 of 5525

I had totally made up my mind that I was satisfied with my lcd 2's till I read DSG's review. Why do this to me?!?!?

post #575 of 5525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post
 

I see! That means what q.q 

 

 

The uncompensated graphs will have lots of energy around 2-3khz because that's where the effects of the ear amplify the sound.  The compensated graph will lower that to be more linear.  

post #576 of 5525
Could someone explain the impact of vegan pad?
Should i pick up my lcd x next week and would like to know if it is worth to take the vegan pads.

Sal
Edited by biscottino - 11/3/13 at 6:22am
post #577 of 5525
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

 

 

The uncompensated graphs will have lots of energy around 2-3khz because that's where the effects of the ear amplify the sound.  The compensated graph will lower that to be more linear.  

that explains alot thank you! I wonder why the 2-3k range had such a giant hump 

post #578 of 5525

The latest reviews seem to conflict with what was reported by those who heard it at CanJam.

So now the X has more bass and a  smaller soundstage than 2/3?? :confused: 

post #579 of 5525
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenpunk View Post
 

The latest previews  seems to conflict with what was reported by those who heard it at CanJam. So now the X has more bass and a  smaller soundstage than 2/3?? :confused:

yea... taht sounds kinda wacky as well >.> 

post #580 of 5525
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscottino View Post

Could someone explain the impact of vegan pad?
Should i pick up my lcd x next week and would like to know if it is worth to take the vegan pads.

Sal

i know you:biggrin:

post #581 of 5525
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenpunk View Post
 

The latest reviews seem to conflict with what was reported by those who heard it at CanJam.

So now the X has more bass and a  smaller soundstage than 2/3?? :confused: 

 

 

They coincide with what I've heard of the canjam impressions.  The LCD-XC is slightly bassier and more closed-in sounding than the X, but still sounds very open for a closed headphone.


Edited by TMRaven - 11/3/13 at 7:32am
post #582 of 5525
Alota, nice to meet you!
post #583 of 5525
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscottino View Post

Alota, nice to meet you!

the pleasure is mine:wink:

post #584 of 5525
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

 

 

They coincide with what I've heard of the canjam impressions.  The LCD-XC is slightly bassier and more closed-in sounding than the X, but still sounds very open for a closed headphone.

 

the X i think is slightly more closed in than LCD-3, sounding more like LCD-2, but alot more improved. its more open and wider. just not at the LCD-3 level. i think the LCD-XC would be too much for me.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

A few questions:

 

LCD-X = Smaller Sound Stage but less closed in?  Does this mean it has more air - or ???

 

LCD-3 = More colored and more resolving?  More resolving where - Treble, Mids, Bass? 

 

This is subjective I know. However, less colored = more resolving, more colored = less resolution - no?

 

Speed.  Which one seems to have more speed?

 

the LCD-X. what i meant to say is yes, it has a smaller soundstage than the LCD-3, but its not as closed in as the LCD-2. its similar to LCD-2 in sound, but its improved in every way. the bass is better, theres a little more of it. it goes deeper. there is more air than LCD-2, about the same as LCD-3 but maybe less. the LCD-X does not seem to have that lushness and rich warmth as well as the tonal qualities and smoothness of the LCD-3. its a little darker in the mids, the smaller soundstage, it all makes it sound alot more like an LCD-2. its still an audeze, different, but i feel like its more of an LCD-2 sounding headphone than it is an LCD-3 sounding headphone. the LCD-3 sounds more balanced in frequency response, but also has a sort of smoothness and creamy warmth in its sound. the LCD-3 with the bigger soundstage has more sense of air. but its also slightly laid back. 

 

the LCD-X is more LCD-2 like, smaller soundstage, maybe slightly slower, more impactful, the treble is better than LCD-2 and similar to LCD-3 but not more or less per se. also some of peoples impressions over LCD-3. i think what they're noticing that i noticed is that the LCD-X is more forward sounding than LCD-3. it has that engaging attack and energy of the LCD-2. so you hear the midrange more and you can hear some details more, but its not more resolving than LCD-3. it just feels a little clearer in some areas, especially with the small treble improvement over the LCD-2. 

 

i think the LCD-3 has a better drive, the colorations though do make it hard to hear details at times, its more of an easy listen for some. but the LCD-X doesn't have those colorations, you can hear some stuff better, but im not necessarily hearing extra detail over the LCD-3. i also find the LCD-3 to be faster slightly. maybe they're similar, the performance is kinda too close for me to decide in many ways. the LCD-X with its bass and more closed in sound over the LCD-3 seems to have a slower sound as well. more impactful, but not as fast. transients are great but have that ortho flavor to them. 

 

overall, the LCD-X is better seen as closer sounding to the LCD-2 than the LCD-3, but with the performance similar to LCD-3. i think it fits the price point well. i can see many preferring it. i am right in the middle since i like qualities of both. they are both audezes and both sound quite similar. in some songs, its hard to find a difference, in others, the differences are obvious. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by M-13 View Post
 


Wow finally a comparison of the 2 heavy weights. Cool DG. So you think they're equivalent? Or do you prefer the GSX?

 

i prefer GSX Mk2 since its soundstage is more natural rather than expanded and its slightly on the warm side; its slightly laid back in the mids. the Master 8 goes for a more expansive soundstage and more air and slightly more detail in some parts of the sound. it can sound bright on poor recordings, especially with an unforgiving system. the audezes and the fostex especially paired very nicely with it. the audeze took on a more neutral sound on the master 8. on the gsx mk2, they sound like audezes lol. they are both quite neutral and the master 8 for being much easier to get and over 1000$ cheaper than GSX MK2, more than holds its own against it. its a great amp. the 1000$ really shows the diminishing returns. of course, the gsx mk2 is also lighter and smaller. the master 8 is huge!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chirawatf View Post

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Dubstep Girl. Looks like lcdx definite has better treble. What's about speed, veil of lcdx when compare to lcd2 and lcd3

thanks

 

there is no veil. its more clear like the LCD-3 but not as open in the soundstage and doesn't seem to have the liquidity of the LCD-3. its not as smooth either. its more neutral yet dark like the LCD-2 as in colorations. its also slightly slower i think, closer to the LCD-2. its forward, has more impact, more bass, etc. LCD-X has as good of treble as LCD-3, you might hear some things better though since the mids aren't laidback like LCD-3. however, theres also more bass on LCD-X. the LCD-3 is more balanced sounding and pushes things back a little due to the soundstage.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deverica Wolf View Post
 

 

GREAT. You feel it is better than the LCD-2 and is an equal-in-quality alternative to the LCD-3. I feel I may prefer some attack and bass compared to soundstage and resolution (Saving $246 bonus!). I've had to make that choice before. What's important is that while the LCD-X has more bass and smaller soundstage, it doesn't sound closed in. I am sensing two different takes on the Audeze sound and I am sure both are great.

 

What is intriguing is if the LCD-X will sound good with the V200 amp. I could just sell my LCD-2 without upgrading my equipment. I will wait and see if they work together.

 

yes! except i think resolution overlaps each other, the LCD-3 is more laidback and has a sort of liquidity to it. the LCD-X is more forward and punchy like LCD-2. you hear some stuff better, some less. the treble is better on LCD-X than 2 and similar to the 3. i would consider it an upgrade to LCD-2 and an equal-in-quality alternative to the LCD-3 like you said. its another flavor of the audeze sound, but very much an audeze. i don't hear any huge change in sound overall.

 

note that amps do matter. on the master 8, the LCD-X sounded alot more neutral and more monitor like. on my gsx mk2, it sounded like an audeze and i have to pay more attention since it has many of the audeze qualities in the sound. its just different.

 

 

 

 

for LCD-3 owners, its worth listening, but don't think your LCD-3 is worse. they overlap each other and i have things i prefer on both. i don't think the LCD-X is gonna be the new flagship, just a nice different presentation of the audeze sound. its performance is so close. you just have to decide what you want. however, if you are very happy with LCD-3, don't rush and sell it, you might like LCD-X more, but you might also be disappointed if you weren't expecting more bass or less smoothness or more forwardness/etc.


Edited by Dubstep Girl - 11/3/13 at 8:36am
post #585 of 5525

oh and i received a pm asking me about the colorations/sound of LCD-X and LCD-3. i might have explained it better here. if the above is too confusing. i used an analogy to the sennheisers here, this might clear things up.

Quote:

when i say less neutral, i mean less colored as in tonally and whatnot. the LCD-2 i found to be slightly darker but not with the colorations like the liquid smooth creamy warmth lushness of the LCD-3. the LCD-X doesn't have that. its flatter sounding in those ways, more monitor like. but it does have the frequency response of the LCD-2. just not as dark, was similar to an HD 600, laidback and warm, but still neutralish. the LCD-3 would be more like an HD 650 where its more colored for musicality and tonality, etc.

 

i did find the LCD-X to be a little slower. its so close to LCD-3 peformance i can't really say, just that they sounded alot more like LCD-2s especially with bass and whatnot.

 

the LCD-X are winners though, but i don't think they will make you give up the 3's, but who knows. i am considering it, they are good. they crisscross with the LCD-3, they are not a league ahead or any of the exaggerations u might of read on some impressions. they sound like an audeze, just different but very similar, lol.

 

oh and the LCD-X are heavier than LCD-3, but they are also comfortable you won't notice the difference when you put them on your head.


Edited by Dubstep Girl - 11/3/13 at 8:39am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum