or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 51

post #751 of 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Focker View Post
 

Great feedback, MH...was really hoping you'd chime in with some impressions today. 

 

The fact that both you and DG give them positive marks is a very good indication of what I'll think of them. Gracias!

 

No worries. Not sure how burn in will affect them (if at all), but that's why I really don't want to say that much more until I've got a lot of hours on them and I've really got to know them well. The LCD-3s have been with me for 2 years now, so I now what they're all about.

post #752 of 8688

Anyone with the X

 

Is there a midrange suck out or not? MuppetFace mentioned this as a possibility?

post #753 of 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by M-13 View Post
 

Anyone with the X

 

Is there a midrange suck out or not? MuppetFace mentioned this as a possibility?

Definitely not IMO. It isn't as full as the LCD-3s comparatively (think closer to the LCD-2s in that regard and no one ever thought the midrange was recessed on them), but clean and flat. The TH900s, while better than the D7000s, have a bit of this.

post #754 of 8688
mids are not recessed.
post #755 of 8688

Quick update: the instrumental separation is truly outstanding with the LCD-X. Very, very clean sounding headphones and still have that great Audeze sound. Win-win IMO.


Edited by MacedonianHero - 11/5/13 at 6:36pm
post #756 of 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by M-13 View Post
 

Anyone with the X

 

Is there a midrange suck out or not? MuppetFace mentioned this as a possibility?

In comparison to the TH900, it is not sucked out. But it is missing the natural mids of the LCD2.2 (voices have more of a life to them). But the mids still seem accurate and not lacking.

 

I still can't grasp what is going on with the soundstage and imaging. There are definitely layers but I can sort of hear this swirling effect that's hard to explain. Maybe I need more time with them or they need more burn in. For example, to me the PS1000 create a very deep space going outward left to right and uses it's bass to anchor everything. With the X I'm having a hard time seeing the space it's trying to create. If I close my eyes I either forget thinking about this and it's no problem, or I start paying even more attention to it. I have a feeling this will change or I'll stop analyzing to the point of making up stupid crap like this. 

post #757 of 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by hop ham View Post
With the X I'm having a hard time seeing the space it's trying to create.

 

Good soundstage but poor imaging? Or does it sound like it's in an impossible room?

post #758 of 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taowolf51 View Post
 

 

Good soundstage but poor imaging? Or does it sound like it's in an impossible room?

Great sound stage and great imaging (along with instrumental separation) IMHO. :smile: 

 

I thought the PS1000s were far from accurate in pretty much everything. I can see how some might love them, but "accurate" they ain't to my ears.

post #759 of 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taowolf51 View Post
 

 

Good soundstage but poor imaging? Or does it sound like it's in an impossible room?

Great sound stage and great imaging (along with instrumental separation) IMHO. :smile: 

 

I thought the PS1000s were far from accurate in pretty much everything. I can see how some might love them, but "accurate" they ain't to my ears.

 

Exception of Joseph Grado's, none of Grado headphones are made for accuracy anyway, even Alessandro flavored ones. PS1000 is maybe the best Grado, but it is hardly even great headphones when faced against actual competition.

post #760 of 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
 

 

Exception of Joseph Grado's, none of Grado headphones are made for accuracy anyway, even Alessandro flavored ones. PS1000 is maybe the best Grado, but it is hardly even great headphones when faced against actual competition.

Agreed. To confirm, my comments were based on current production Grado headphones. The HP1000s are a different beast altogether. 

post #761 of 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taowolf51 View Post
 

 

Good soundstage but poor imaging? Or does it sound like it's in an impossible room?

I'm mainly talking about the space, i.e. left-right, up-down, front-back. It does sound like house Audeze in some ways but the 2.2 draws you into the music but is congested in comparison so I don't pay attention to imaging/space and other things. I do think the 2.2. has a very focused type of sound. Since the X is more spacious I feel the need to try to make some sense of the character of the space it creates. And I can't do it but I can still get lost in the music and forget about it. 

post #762 of 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnmnkh View Post
 

 

Exception of Joseph Grado's, none of Grado headphones are made for accuracy anyway, even Alessandro flavored ones. PS1000 is maybe the best Grado, but it is hardly even great headphones when faced against actual competition.

sure is fun to listen to though......

post #763 of 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post

 

I thought the PS1000s were far from accurate in pretty much everything. I can see how some might love them, but "accurate" they ain't to my ears.

You thought right. But they have a certain magic for me if I'm in the mood. 

post #764 of 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by hop ham View Post
 

You thought right. But they have a certain magic for me if I'm in the mood. 

terrific at low volume......

post #765 of 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by hop ham View Post
 

You thought right. But they have a certain magic for me if I'm in the mood. 

Hey, nothing wrong with that!

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