New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-X - Page 54

post #796 of 5010
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurochin View Post
 

Euphonic cardboard. The next delusional audiophile craze!!

 

Aftermarket cardboard = SQ never got better...

post #797 of 5010
Quote:
Originally Posted by emertxe View Post
 

 

Isnt it better to just purchase Hifiman HE-6 if you want a brighter ortho of the same quality as LCD-3? No wood on the LCD-X, they are incredibly heavy and do not offer anything spectacular in terms of performance it seems... So whats so interesting about this headphone?

 

The HE-6 doesn't have the Audeze sound signature, the LCD-X does. The LCD-X is for people who like the Audeze house sound but don't like dark headphones.

post #798 of 5010
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurochin View Post

Euphonic cardboard. The next delusional audiophile craze!!
Pfft, I was listening to cardboard before it was cool!
post #799 of 5010
Quote:
Originally Posted by snaps11 View Post
 

Here is my XC freq chart.  They came fedex today but I have not opened them yet. :atsmile:

 

Edit: first freq response of xc on head-fi!

Yes. Yes. I can verify that the chart is exactly as you'd think, and will agree that it's quite accurate with regards to most everyone suspicions, barring certain expectations.


Edited by Kirosia - 11/6/13 at 4:11pm
post #800 of 5010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taowolf51 View Post
 

...The LCD-X is for people who like the Audeze house sound but don't like dark headphones.

 

 

This. 

 

   

  

Also, the comments surrounding the bass of the LCD-x have been interesting. Headfonia just did a writeup, and had this to say: 

 

"The first thing you notice [about the LCD-x] is that the sound has less bass body than the two or the three, while improving on the bass detail (even compared to the 3). It’s a flatter and more linear sound. Things sound cleaner especially on the mids and the bass section."

 

"They [customers, reviewers] liked the fact that the bass is clearer due to the body being less. Yet I’m not talking about a thin monitoring sound here. Just like how I can’t listen to a bass-light, weightless sound, the X still maintains a good weight on the sound while not being as bassy as the 3."

 

http://www.headfonia.com/faster-and-lighter-the-lcd-x/

post #801 of 5010

Sounds like these Fazor drivers are putting out a very clean low end. I dig it. 

post #802 of 5010

Ok, I started to write the review on LCD-X. It will be ready soon :D. What would you guys want to know more about LCD-X?

post #803 of 5010

This isn't the most important thing in the world, but please be sure to include info about aesthetics and how the X compares to the other Audeze phones. When I had the bamboo 2s in here recently, I was in awe of how beautiful they were. Pics simply did not do them justice at all. It made it even more difficult to send them back because I just loved staring at them (I know that sounds stupid, but I can't help it...pride of ownership!). Thanks man...really looking forward to your review!

post #804 of 5010

I really do not really think about how much aesthetics of the headphones when we are talking about headphones as expensive as these... I mean performance/price ratio is already quite bad and I really do not think we need worse ratio. :P

 

That said, I think I might not getting Audeze and instead grabbing TH-900... Way too good deal to pass it on.

post #805 of 5010
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe View Post
 

Ok, I started to write the review on LCD-X. It will be ready soon :D. What would you guys want to know more about LCD-X?

 

I would like to know what music genres are best suited for the LCD-X, as opposed to the 2.2 / 3. I have a 2.2, and LOVE the bass and drum slam for rock / metal / hip-hop / electronic music.

 

I've been wanting to upgrade to a 3 for better clarity, more open soundstage, and slightly more forward vocal presentation, but I'm not so sure anymore because it seems like the "liquid smooth, more neutral" description it always seems to get suits more audiophile / acoustic / pretty type music. That, and the fact that there is less bass quantity, which is a trade-off for better bass quality from what I've read.

 

I'm a band director / music teacher, and so I listen to and love many genres of music, but the majority of my collection is rock / metal / alternative. When I do upgrade, whether it be to an Audeze, T1, HE-6, TH-900, Alpha Dog, etc, I want the ideal match for that majority.

 

Unfortunately, I live in a small town in south Texas, probably couldn't make it to Dallas for a meet, and know I probably won't be able to listen to any of these before I make a purchase. I place my faith in you all. Help me Obi-Wan. :D

post #806 of 5010
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8o88y View Post
 

I'm a band director / music teacher, and so I listen to and love many genres of music, but the majority of my collection is rock / metal / alternative. When I do upgrade, whether it be to an Audeze, T1, HE-6, TH-900, Alpha Dog, etc, I want the ideal match for that majority.

 

If the majority is rock/metal/alternative, you can't go wrong with the LCD3; it should be #1 on your list. If most of your material is well mastered/recorded (which I'd really doubt for a lot of rock), then the HE6 would be my choice.

As for the LCDX, well, that I couldn't tell you! But by early indications, the LCD3 still has the upper edge on resolution and texture, especially in the bass through the mids, plus the bass is already very well defined and more than sufficient imo. The LCD3's are the flagship for a reason you know :wink_face: 


Edited by dleblanc343 - 11/6/13 at 5:39pm
post #807 of 5010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post

I think a well driven he-6 will be better than lcdx as well but im not sure, they sound so different... And theyre very different headphones overall. The he-6 being hard to drive and the lcdx being very efficient for a planar

I'm not going agree with this. I'd take a T1/WA2 over a " well driven HE-6" and I'd take the LCD-3/X over them either the T1 or HE-6 (oh wait...I did already :p). YMMV of course. :o

 

These LCD-X headphones are picking up where they left off last night...impressing the bejezus out of me. Very clean and transparent headphones. I'm going to have to say that these image better than the LCD-3s...and their quickness and instrumental separation is outstanding. After a little Mozart and Mahler with them, they are really well suited for this genre. Something I really didn't totally feel with the LCD-3s (though I don't really listen to classical music much FWIW).

post #808 of 5010
Headphone that is suitable or metal should have very good speed, enough slam, good sound separation, good treble and have some bite of guitar sound.

Lcd-x is more suitable than lcd3 because better speed, better treble, pretty good sound separation, enough slam, have more bite of guitar and less veil (although lcd3's vocal has better resolution).

But the best would be He6 because it has the best speed. IMHO of course. cool.gif
Edited by chirawatf - 11/6/13 at 6:52pm
post #809 of 5010
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirawatf View Post

.....

But the best would be He6 because it has the best speed. IMHO of course. cool.gif

Too much treble and not enough slam IMHO. :ph34r: 

 

But I can concur that the LCD-X are outstanding for metal. That said, I'm more of an old school metal fan (Metallica, Sabbath, etc...).

post #810 of 5010
^ ^ Yeh, how to tame He6 treble is another story. smily_headphones1.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum