New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 42

post #616 of 4637

Going to guess that the LCD-3 / LCD-XC is going to be the best combo to own.  If I could have gotten an all wood LCD-XC I wood have! (would/ wood.... get it? yeah that was pretty bad lol :frown: )   Was planning on a th-900 originally but I don't think they have warranty in the states. Also Audeze sells parts and I already have a q-audio red cable to fit it so its a win/win.  I am hoping mine ships Monday.

 

Anyone know if this is bubinga or the purple heart?

 

http://www.audio360.org/photos/a0004_05_09_zoom.jpg

post #617 of 4637
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanDude View Post
 

 

post #554 and onwards didn't satisfy you? :blink: 

 

Perhaps I should have clarified... I'm interested in people's first initial impression upon listening.  As in their gut emotional response within the first few seconds.  Just trying to take a different approach from other people's x versus y comparison.

post #618 of 4637
Quote:purrin
 Yes. At the end of the day where I lay the two headphones down side by side - and taking the influence of price OUT of the equation, and I ask myself which one, I'd pick the LCD2.2. The LCD2.2 is a consistent performer regardless of recording. It's voicing is more coherent and seems according to a specific vision. The LCD-X is a good headphone, but it sounds (and looks) more like the entry level headphone to the house of Audeze. IMHO, YMMV, FWIW, my 2 cents, PWNED, WTF, etc.

After reading this and purrin's take on the HD800 I have come to the firm conclusion thar he is allergic to treble.

post #619 of 4637
Quote:
Originally Posted by wink View Post
 
Quote:purrin
 Yes. At the end of the day where I lay the two headphones down side by side - and taking the influence of price OUT of the equation, and I ask myself which one, I'd pick the LCD2.2. The LCD2.2 is a consistent performer regardless of recording. It's voicing is more coherent and seems according to a specific vision. The LCD-X is a good headphone, but it sounds (and looks) more like the entry level headphone to the house of Audeze. IMHO, YMMV, FWIW, my 2 cents, PWNED, WTF, etc.

After reading this and purrin's take on the HD800 I have come to the firm conclusion thar he is allergic to treble.

 

To be fair, a lot of people do allergic to treble. I mean at least having too much bass does not forcefully take off the headphones as hard as too much treble does.

 

This is one huge reason LCD-2 is super successful despite 1k price tag.

post #620 of 4637
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
 

 

To be fair, a lot of people do allergic to treble. I mean at least having too much bass does not forcefully take off the headphones as hard as too much treble does.

 

This is one huge reason LCD-2 is super successful despite 1k price tag.

+9000

post #621 of 4637

True, but purrin is extra sensitive to treble.

 

Not a bad thing, it's just that we are all differently attuned to the frequency spectrum.

 

The day we all have exactly the same ear geometry, we may perhaps even agree on sonic presentations.

 

I highly doubt this, because we all LEARN to hear differently.


Edited by wink - 11/3/13 at 9:15pm
post #622 of 4637
Quote:
Originally Posted by wink View Post
 

After reading this and purrin's take on the HD800 I have come to the firm conclusion thar he is allergic to treble.

I once had a friend named becky who snorted treble at a party. She died.

post #623 of 4637

The treble issue with the LCD-X is what I would consider minor and not on the scale of the stock HD800. We are talking about some edginess to horns, snares, upper end of female vocals, etc. Whereas with the HD800, the more marginal quality pop recordings, especially the remasters or stuff from the early 80s, are totally unlistenable to me.

 

My main issue with the LCD-X is that it isn't as cohesive of the LCD-2/3: Once I adjust to the presentation of say the LCD2.2 or a good LCD3, those headphones never fail to put a smile on my face regardless of recording, even the marginal ones. The LCD-X, with the its thinner, less tactile mids, splash of mid-treble, doesn't make me smile as consistently. Occasional, there's even a WTF.

 

Again, just nitpicking. I do find that the LCD-X is pretty good once I get accustomed to its sound. The LCD-X does have some very good technicalities such as speed, clarity, precision; but once I move back to the LCD-2/3 or even HE-500 (jerg/modular pads), I say to myself, "Ahhh, that's more right."

 

For those who are confused, expect the LCD-X to continue to generate more disparate opinions if the SD meet was any indication.


Edited by purrin - 11/3/13 at 6:28pm
post #624 of 4637
Quote:
Originally Posted by wink View Post
 

After reading this and purrin's take on the HD800 I have come to the firm conclusion thar he is allergic to treble.

 

 

Lots of people should be allergic to HD800's treble.

post #625 of 4637
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post
 

The treble issue with the LCD-X is what I would consider minor and not on the scale of the stock HD800. We are talking about some edginess to horns, snares, upper end of female vocals, etc. Whereas with the HD800, the more marginal quality pop recordings, especially the remasters or stuff from the early 80s, are totally unlistenable to me.

 

My main issue with the LCD-X is that it isn't as cohesive of the LCD-2/3: Once I adjust to the presentation of say the LCD2.2 or a good LCD3, those headphones never fail to put a smile on my face regardless of recording, even the marginal ones. The LCD-X, with the its thinner, less tactile mids, splash of mid-treble, doesn't make me smile as consistently. Occasional, there's even a WTF.

 

Again, just nitpicking. I do find that the LCD-X is pretty good once I get accustomed to its sound. The LCD-X does have some very good technicalities such as speed, clarity, precision; but once I move back to the LCD-2/3 or even HE-500 (jerg/modular pads), I say to myself, "Ahhh, that's more right."

 

For those who are confused, expect the LCD-X to continue to generate more disparate opinions if the SD meet was any indication.

 

Just to clarify, At SD meet, LCD-X had vagan pads, right? Is there any difference between vagan pads and leather pads on LCD-X (if you heard leather one)?

post #626 of 4637

When I read comments about certain headphones sounding good with all recordings, that suggests to me it lacks transparency. The headphone is coloring everything that comes through it. In some cases, that means poor recordings will sound more listenable. But it also means that excellent recordings will not sound as glorious as they should. The phone is pulling both good and bad recordings toward a compromised middle. The HD800 is highly transparent. That is why I love it. Transparency is also why I previously shied away from Audeze headphones, because they mellowed everything out. From what I heard about the X and its supposedly more neutral/transparent voicing, I thought it might be more to my tastes than Audeze's other phones. So far, based on a few days of listening, I think Audeze probably succeeded (although comfort is not even close to the HD800). The X is not as transparent as my HD-800. But it is close. And the X has a colorful tone that is a nice change from the HD800. I have especially enjoyed how piano and vocals sound on the X as compared to the HD800. 

 

Many of you are eager to know how the X compares to the LCD 2 or LCD 3. I don't think Audeze was aiming at people who like/love the 2 or 3. I think Audeze was trying to create a new audience for its products by offering a phone that appeals to people who previously had chosen not to get either the 2 or the 3, in favor of perhaps the HD800, or the T1.

post #627 of 4637

The LCD-X I had was leather pads.

 

The brightness of the HD800 and T1 is a separate issue that should not be totally equated with transparency. Brightness is also a form of coloration which renders marginal recordings unlistenable rather than passably listenable. Yes, the LCD2/3 to mellow things out, but the HD800 and T1 make bright recordings that much worse. FWIW, I prefer an Anax 2.0 modded HD800 slightly more than the Audezes.


Edited by purrin - 11/3/13 at 7:00pm
post #628 of 4637

Yeah I'm just baffled by the impressions of the X so far, and I guess people are having a hard time figuring this new headphone out. I see people are trying but still no clear picture of it.

 

I think someone will eventually come up with the right words to describe this things and then everyone will start using those words.

post #629 of 4637

Things are going to get even more wild once the first people start receiving their personal XCs.

post #630 of 4637
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
Lots of people should be allergic to HD800's treble.

 

Preach it! :p

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by M-13 View Post
I think someone will eventually come up with the right words to describe this things and then everyone will start using those words.

 

That would be amazing if it ever happened, but I've never seen that happen with any set of headphones in the history of Head-Fi so far, so I doubt it will. Mere words can't fully describe headphones anyway though. It's like the old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words". That also extends to anything auditory - "a sound is worth a thousand words". It's impossible to describe sound with words, you need to hear it for yourself. That won't stop us Head-Fiers from trying anyway of course (including me). ;)

 

As always I recommend that folks try to hear headphones at meets. There were 3 around the country just yesterday in San Diego, San Francisco, and Chicago. A couple more coming up soon too, just see the Meets forum: http://www.head-fi.org/f/24/local-regional-head-fi-meets-parties-get-togethers

 

And for those who can't (or won't) attend a meet, then just buy the headphones, either new or used. It's always easy to sell (or re-sell) headphones on Head-Fi if you don't like them.


Edited by Asr - 11/3/13 at 8:30pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum