New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 40

post #586 of 3848

DG: Fair to say that if one felt the LCD-2s were a great complement to the T1s that the same would hold true for the X?

 

The way you're describing the X makes it sound very attractive to me...moreso than perhaps the 3s...so I'm guessing that a headphone that was "like the 2s, except better in almost every way" would be exactly what I'm looking for. 

post #587 of 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Focker View Post
 

DG: Fair to say that if one felt the LCD-2s were a great complement to the T1s that the same would hold true for the X?

 

The way you're describing the X makes it sound very attractive to me...moreso than perhaps the 3s...so I'm guessing that a headphone that was "like the 2s, except better in almost every way" would be exactly what I'm looking for. 

go for it.

 

the X also has a sense of neutrality as in not very smooth or colored or recessed. just dark and with that audeze way of presenting things. and with the LCD-2 bass, so frequency response wise, its not neutral. but umm yeah

post #588 of 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post
 

go for it.

 

the X also has a sense of neutrality as in not very smooth or colored or recessed. just dark and with that audeze way of presenting things. and with the LCD-2 bass, so frequency response wise, its not neutral. but umm yeah

 

Nice...sounds like the X is going to be the ticket. 

 

You should write a blog or something...your feedback has always been spot on. Much appreciated!

post #589 of 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiont View Post
 

Can anybody with the X or XC post the frequency response chart?

 

For X

 

 

 

 

post #590 of 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleblanc343 View Post


Wow I love the gray microsuede on the LCD-X!

For me LCD-2 remains the winner as for the looks.

post #591 of 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by korzena View Post
 

For me LCD-2 remains the winner as for the looks.

 

At the SD meet yesterday, I was reminded of the beauty of the wood on LCD2/3s. The metal frame on the LCD-X made me sad.

post #592 of 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post
 

 

For X

 

 

 

 

 I want

post #593 of 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post
 

 

At the SD meet yesterday, I was reminded of the beauty of the wood on LCD2/3s. The metal frame on the LCD-X made me sad.

 

I was waiting for someone to say this...I fell in love with the bamboo on the 2s I had in-house for the last month...I'm going to miss the beauty of those babies if I go with the X. 

post #594 of 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio-Omega View Post
 

I guess LCD-XC wasn't at the meet.  

 

The XCs started shipping Friday and the meet was on Saturday.  No chance to get one.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dleblanc343 View Post


Wow I love the gray microsuede on the LCD-X!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PuffyElvis View Post
 

Wow, really?  After looking at that photo of the vegan LCD-X it really makes me want the leather.  It looks like a dentist chair from the the 70's.

 

The lighting washed out the picture and the suede doesn't seem to photograph well. The color is a deep chocolate brown, looks really nice with the black metal.  The ear pads are also a lot softer, cushier than the pads on either the 2 or 3.  Very comfortable.  I noticed less head-clamp than on the leather 2 or 3, but I didn't have any issue with the force on those either so take that for what its worth.

post #595 of 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post
 

 I want

 

Just a few notes: 

 

  • The 5k ringing is an "ortho wall" for lack of a better term. All tensioned orthos (HE400, HE500, Abyss, etc.) have them, but at different frequencies, and I don't think it's audible.
  • Overall FR of the LCD-X is similar to that of the LCD2/3 with the exception of the slight peak at 8kHz. I found these this troublesome only some of the time. It's not a showstopper for sure.
  • Driver matching is very good - better than typical LCD2/3.
post #596 of 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post
 

 

At the SD meet yesterday, I was reminded of the beauty of the wood on LCD2/3s. The metal frame on the LCD-X made me sad.

I agree with this sentiment.....

post #597 of 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post
 

 

Just a few notes: 

 

  • The 5k ringing is an "ortho wall" for lack of a better term. All tensioned orthos (HE400, HE500, Abyss, etc.) have them, but at different frequencies, and I don't think it's audible.
  • Overall FR of the LCD-X is similar to that of the LCD2/3 with the exception of the slight peak at 8kHz. I found these this troublesome only some of the time. It's not a showstopper for sure.
  • Driver matching is very good - better than typical LCD2/3.

peak of 8hrz might give it the treble that I like still not sure though maybe one day.... but I'd like to try these before I get an H6 or T1 even they look so nice <3 

post #598 of 3848
Purrin, do you really prefer the LCD2 to the LCDX? You mentioned so elsewhere, and I guess it's kind of disappointing to hear :/
post #599 of 3848

Yeah he's had a good while with the LCD-X on different amps, then he confirmed his findings at the San Diego meet where he got to compare it to LCD2 and 3.

 

 

I'm trying to make out Dubstep Girl's impressions but they're all over the place.  Basically what I'm getting is that LCD-X is more akin to an LCD2 but more aggressive sounding, while LCD-3 remains the top Audeze overall.

post #600 of 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

Yeah he's had a good while with the LCD-X on different amps, then he confirmed his findings at the San Diego meet where he got to compare it to LCD2 and 3.

 

 

I'm trying to make out Dubstep Girl's impressions but they're all over the place.  Basically what I'm getting is that LCD-X is more akin to an LCD2 but more aggressive sounding, while LCD-3 remains the top Audeze overall.

 

nope. i said the LCD-X is LIKE the LCD-2 BECAUSE it is more aggressive. the LCD-2 is also more aggressive and forward than LCD-3, which is more laid-back.

 

i dont think LCD-x is more aggress or forward than LCD-2, they are almost the same in that regard. the LCD-X has better treble and more coherency, resolution, etc. like the LCD-3, its better than LCD-2, though they sound similar. the LCD-X is alot like LCD-2 but better and not as dark and closed in and congested. however, it is NOT laidback and creamy like LCD-3, but it also doesn't have as good of a soundstage as LCD-3.

 

the LCD-3 and LCD-X overlap each other in performance, neither is better neither is worse. i see it more like HD 600 is the LCD-X and HD 650 is the LCD-3, its the best analogy i can give.

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