New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 44

post #646 of 4761
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuffyElvis View Post

Interesting increase in frequency between the 1 kHz and 4 kHz on the XC.  Makes me wonder if they sound bright over time or just natural...

Great link by the way, thanks!


The graphs aren't compensated.
post #647 of 4761

I was able to access the article via Google....no need to give an email address or anything. 

post #648 of 4761

As requested, here is my frequency chart

post #649 of 4761
Quote:
Originally Posted by hop ham View Post
 

As requested, here is my frequency chart

Thanks!  It looks like the upper-mids and treble are smoothed out compared to the LCD-3. It's a nice looking graph, for sure. Obviously, it's just one aspect of the LCD-X, but it looks like Audeze is getting more control over the frequency response above 4K.

post #650 of 4761

I've posted my impressions of the LCD-X elsewhere, so I figured I'd stick a summary of them here now that I've had some time to get to know 'em.

 

First off, I should say that I like the LCD-X more than I dislike it. The overall balance is pleasing to me, with more prevalent highs compared to other models in the Audez'e lineup (except for the original LCD-1). One of the effects of this increase in top end presence is that details seem to "pop" a bit more, but when I actually compare them to the LCD-3 side-by-side, they just aren't as detailed as the 3s to my ears. They do however seem more open and spacious compared to the stock LCD-3, which is nice.

 

TBH, these are bassier than I expected given some of the early impressions I read about their linearity. The bass is fairly well controlled, packing a lot of punch, but is doesn't seem quite as articulate as the LCD-3. Seems less tight. Overall though I like the balance of the frequency extremes at either end, and I think in terms of that particular aspect the X will appeal to some folks over the other models. That being said, for me the mids are kind of problematic. At the volume levels I'm accustomed to listening, I perceive a sucked-out quality to certain parts of the midrange. I find myself having to turn the volume up more than I'm used to in order to reach a satisfying midrange presence. At these higher volume levels however I also perceive some upper mid harshness, or something to that bothersome effect, so I'm compelled to turn them back down again. Really, I found myself fiddling with the volume quite a bit during my listening sessions. Even though they're a wholly different beast in a lot of respects, I found myself thinking back to the TH900 midrange and the issues I had with it.

 

Overall I find the LCD-X kind of lacks the "Audez'e magic" of the former models. The midrange isn't as full bodied and natural sounding to me as it is on the LCD-2 and LCD-3. The timbre has a slightly artificial quality (possibly how my brain responds to the new driver material?). Still, as I said above, the LCD-X is more likable than not for me. I would take it in a heartbeat over one of the earlier more "veiled" LCD-3s, though if we're talking about a "good" LCD-3 my sentiments would be reserved.

 

Pros:

~> Very open-sounding compared to other Audez'e

~> Nice balance of highs, satisfying but not too bright

 

Neither here nor there: 

~> Bass: very punchy and well balanced overall, but could be tighter

~> Detail is good, but not up to LCD-3 levels to my ears.

 

Cons:

~> Issues with mids: sucked out in spots, sharp in others

~> Sounds a bit unnatural to me

 

 

Finally a brief word on their build. Seems very solid to me, feels nice to hold. Personally I like the wood more, but I think the metal cups are actually rather appropriate for the character of the LCD-X compared to the previous Audez'e models.

 

Overall I wouldn't call the LCD-X a "game changer" personally. It does however add some diversity to the Audez'e lineup, and for some folks I imagine it would be a good choice over the other models.

 


 

Edit: In case people are curious, the above impressions were taken from a variety of amps (Cavalli Liquid Glass and Gold, Leckerton UHA-6S portable, and ECP Black Diamond prototype transformer amp). Sources were Macbook Pro + Onkyo DAC1000 and Invicta, as well as Sony Walkman DAPs.


Edited by MuppetFace - 11/4/13 at 1:34pm
post #651 of 4761

Built with GIF Movie Gear 4.0

post #652 of 4761

yes they have more bass than LCD-3 which i really like, and they didn't seem as smooth and colored, but they also didn't have as balanced of a frequency response, and they felt like they where more open in some areas, but they lacked the soundstage of the LCD-3 and they didn't sound quite as resolving in some areas.

 

but i still come back to the fact that i prefer the bass of the LCD-X which is stronger, and its more forward sound like the LCD-2. so i'm not sure on it yet. it really overlapped the LCD-3 in some things

 

of course this depends on your amp as well. on the audio gd master 8, it sounded quite neutral almost hd 600 like (in terms of that warm laid back, yet rather neutral and uncolored sound). then on my gsx mk2, sounded like an improved lcd-2r2


Edited by Dubstep Girl - 11/4/13 at 4:20pm
post #653 of 4761
Can you elaborate on what not being as smooth and colored, but also not having as balanced of a response means?
post #654 of 4761

i have in the previous posts i've made on this page.

 

mostly, the LCD-3 seems more lush, more laidback, more of a creamy smooth tone. whereas the LCD-X seems a little less colorated, seems more neutral in terms of tone and decay and timbre. however, the LCD-3 has a more balanced response as in, neutral frequency response, its overall sound, the bass is more towards the light and neutral rather than bassy and punchy. the midrange is slightly laidback and goes well with the bass. the treble is also fairly smooth. it overall seems to have good coherency.

 

the LCD-X aren't as coherent  because they seem to bring the bass out and the mids seem a little odd at times. the treble is good, but theres just some weird LCD-2 like qualities with it. the extra bass i really enjoy but theres some things that seem odd about it. in the mids mostly and some of the treble detail. the treble isn't as clean as LCD-3, but theres more clarity in some parts, yet it just doesn't seem as good as a whole. i can't really describe it. 

 

anyways, the LCD-X i prefer its bass, its punchier and deeper like LCD-2  rather than the more relaxed LCD-3, but everything else, i think i prefer the LCD-3.

post #655 of 4761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post
 

i have in the previous posts i've made on this page.

 

mostly, the LCD-3 seems more lush, more laidback, more of a creamy smooth tone. whereas the LCD-X seems a little less colorated, seems more neutral in terms of tone and decay and timbre. however, the LCD-3 has a more balanced response as in, neutral frequency response, its overall sound, the bass is more towards the light and neutral rather than bassy and punchy. the midrange is slightly laidback and goes well with the bass. the treble is also fairly smooth. it overall seems to have good coherency.

 

the LCD-X aren't as coherent  because they seem to bring the bass out and the mids seem a little odd at times. the treble is good, but theres just some weird LCD-2 like qualities with it. the extra bass i really enjoy but theres some things that seem odd about it. in the mids mostly and some of the treble detail. the treble isn't as clean as LCD-3, but theres more clarity in some parts, yet it just doesn't seem as good as a whole. i can't really describe it. 

 

anyways, the LCD-X i prefer its bass, its punchier and deeper like LCD-2  rather than the more relaxed LCD-3, but everything else, i think i prefer the LCD-3.

 

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate with additional terms and phrases.  I'm still confused, but that might be just me.

post #656 of 4761

So the LCD3 is more colorated, the LCD-X is more neutral, but the LCD3 is more balanced with neutral frequency response?

 

And the LCD-X has more neutral tone and timbre but is less coherent?


Edited by TMRaven - 11/4/13 at 5:07pm
post #657 of 4761
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

So the LCD3 is more colorated, the LCD-X is more neutral, but the LCD3 is more balanced with neutral frequency response?

 

And the LCD-X has more neutral tone and timbre but is less coherent?

 

yes correct.

 

i still can't fully explain why the LCD-X is less coherent, but just something is kinda odd about it. its small though.

 

its an improvement over LCD-2 but it sounds so much like it, it also picks up a few of the bad things the LCD-2 had. its performance is still very close to LCD-3 though.  i think burn-in would fix some of those minor issues i've heard. they sounded very good overall, and i really did enjoy the bass out of them cause it was fun. but besides that i think these are winners.  

 

the big thing to get out of this is what i said an what muppetface said as well. its not a game changer. its not the "omg go sell your LCD-3 these are much better!!!" kinda thing, its just a different audeze, picking up things from the others, improving along the way, and offering a different flavour of the audeze house sound. but its still very much an audeze. some of the comments made earlier i believe are simply hype and promotion. 

 

i think its close enough where LCD-3 owners shouldn't worry about missing out, and LCD-2 owners who didn't really like LCD-3 but want an upgrade, can try the LCD-X out and see if it works for them. i really liked the LCD-X, but not sure i'll get rid of the LCD-3 anytime soon. i would honestly like to own both, but money-wise, thats a bad idea.

post #658 of 4761

My lcd-xc shipped today. Coming Wednesday .... get your popcorn ready boys.:popcorn::popcorn:

post #659 of 4761
Great observations MF. Concerning taking the LCD3 versus LCDX: when you wrote "reserved" - last word, last paragraph before Pros... - did you mean "my sentiments would be reversed"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

I've posted my impressions of the LCD-X elsewhere, so I figured I'd stick a summary of them here now that I've had some time to get to know 'em.

post #660 of 4761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post
 

 

yes correct.

 

i still can't fully explain why the LCD-X is less coherent, but just something is kinda odd about it. its small though.

 

its an improvement over LCD-2 but it sounds so much like it, it also picks up a few of the bad things the LCD-2 had. its performance is still very close to LCD-3 though.  i think burn-in would fix some of those minor issues i've heard. they sounded very good overall, and i really did enjoy the bass out of them cause it was fun. but besides that i think these are winners.  

 

the big thing to get out of this is what i said an what muppetface said as well. its not a game changer. its not the "omg go sell your LCD-3 these are much better!!!" kinda thing, its just a different audeze, picking up things from the others, improving along the way, and offering a different flavour of the audeze house sound. but its still very much an audeze. some of the comments made earlier i believe are simply hype and promotion. 

 

i think its close enough where LCD-3 owners shouldn't worry about missing out, and LCD-2 owners who didn't really like LCD-3 but want an upgrade, can try the LCD-X out and see if it works for them. i really liked the LCD-X, but not sure i'll get rid of the LCD-3 anytime soon. i would honestly like to own both, but money-wise, thats a bad idea.

 

How does it stack up with the HE-6 and HE-500? I would guess that the LCD-X is a step closer to the Hifiman sound signature, but still darker sounding with more bass quantity. 

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