Head-Fi.org › Forums › Meets, Get-Togethers, Factory Tours › Head-Fi Meet Impressions, Trade Show Reports, Factory Tours › CanJam at RMAF October 2013 Impressions Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CanJam at RMAF October 2013 Impressions Thread - Page 12  

post #166 of 353

only one pic from me as it didnt occur to me to take pics.  the awesome Abyss headphones through the Woo blocks sounded fantastic.  although the cans in the pic were connected to a different amp.  i had to hunt down their room in the hotel tower then stand in line, was worth it.   i spent a lot of time at the Audeze lot as well as Fostex with their awesome 900 closed cans which i hope to purchase.  their portable 'tube' amp was also interesting.  i did meet jude, i thought he'd be taller.  anyway, cheers gents. 

 

post #167 of 353

here we are talking about a 60 k set up here (exluding the cable used). If that does not sound good I do not know what can! 

post #168 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethan7000 View Post

Actually Woo had a Win8 tablet running JRiver in theater mode and I was highly impressed - fun way to choose your music and better than the Mac solutions most vendors used.

It wasn't intuitive to me, and my son had to help me change songs at the woo table.
post #169 of 353

1st set of 3 sets of pics, at just about a third of the total number of pics. Click any for a larger version. Oh and apologies to any people for any "bad" pics - I'm not a people photographer and prefer to shoot nature/landscapes or street/cityscapes. :p

 

Show banner out in the hotel lobby area

 

JH Audio returning to its envious spot of being the first vendor facing the entry doors

 

Sony table w/ only the MDR-1R (no other headphone models — I asked)

 

Schiit Audio table w/ Bifrost, Valhalla, Lyr, Gungnir, and Mjolnir

 

Peter Carini (Sales Manager) for Beyerdynamic USA

 

Jean-Philippe Fontaine, Export Sales Director for Focal, with the Spirit One, Professional, & Classic

 

Dan Clark of MrSpeakers with a fully occupied table

 

Michael Goodman, Managing Director of CEntrance

 

Head-Fi member CEE TEE, now of Ultimate Ears

 

HiFiMan's display area w/ Doug Leavy (2nd from left) (formerly of Westone)

 

Justin Wilson (Head-Fi username: justin w.), president (& sole designer) of HeadAmp

 

unknown representative @ Lake People / Violectric

 

Lyndsey and Hazel (left and right, respectively) @ RHA Audio

 

Philips USA's sales manager w/ Fidelio X1, L2, and M1 headphones

 

Final Audio Design's Pandora 6

 

Jimmy Moon (Head-Fi username: JmoonAK) of Astell & Kern

 

Tascam's mini-wall of headphones

 

The attractive ladies at Audeze


Edited by Asr - 10/25/13 at 12:49am
post #170 of 353
Many objects of desire on the Audeze stand!
post #171 of 353
hmm Violectric was there, anyone know any news whilst there? theres supposed to be an update to one of their optional DAC's coming out this year, as well as some new gear next year.
post #172 of 353
Quote:

unknown representative @ Lake People / Violectric

 

fdg himself, if i'm not mistaken, impressions on lcd3 and violectric pairing anyone?


 

Quote:

The attractive ladies at Audeze

more hi-end shots!

post #173 of 353

My written impressions are already fairly long and I'm not even halfway done yet, so it's going to be a while longer, especially with my current busy schedule. Will try to get everything done & posted by Friday (including the rest of the pics).

 

I'll just start with this for today and will post more as more is completed:

 

- Audeze LCD-XC and LCD-X (amp: ALO Studio Six, source: unknown): As previously said, I was able to get a relatively long amount of time, undisturbed, at the Audeze table on Sunday (about 20-30 minutes), so I pulled out my own LCD-2 r2 for a 3-way comparison.

 

The LCD-2 r2 was definitely sonically closer to the X, and farther from the XC, though all 3 did share a general similarity (the full mid-range and physically tactile sound). In fact, the LCD-2 was close enough to the X that I knew I didn't have enough time to even start comparing them. All I could tell was that there were a few minor differences, like slightly more treble & bass extension & quantity (at the extremes, not really in general) on the X and more "ease" to the sound. I know it's vague but the X sounded less tense than the 2. Certainly I'm sure that there were more differences between the X and 2, but I just didn't have enough time to explore them, as it would've required extended swapping and music that I was familiar with (there was no familiar music on Audeze's computer).

 

The XC really sounded like a closed headphone - quite closed-in (small-ish soundstage and more closed-in than the LCD-2), with a lot of bass quantity, enough that it reminded me of the LCD-3's high bass quantity. The bass was deep, thick, and forceful, much more than on the LCD-2, very satisfactory with the unfamiliar electronica on Audeze's computer. Very heavy- and full-sounding as well, and borderline aggressive/upfront, almost Audio-Technica AD2K-ish in its style. It was so upfront it almost didn't sound like an Audeze, it was more like my AD2K in that aspect.

 

For me the best way to describe the relationship between the 3 headphones: the XC was sort of DJ-ish-sounding with its bass and forwardness (and Alex of Audeze did actually use them later while DJ-ing the Saturday night beer social), the 2 was in-between with its relative neutrality, and the X was like a more refined, wider- & deeper-sounding version of the 2 with more "separation/diffusion" throughout. Informally, I'd say that those who want a clearer, more open-sounding Audeze might want to look into the X. I know that I'm already more interested in the X than the XC and will probably eventually buy one to fully check it out. It was also really classy-looking with the blue-grey aluminum enclosure.

 

A note on efficiency as well: both the X and XC were noticeably much more efficient than the 2. They were almost twice as efficient, requiring only about half as much turn on the volume knob to reach approximately the same volume level as the 2! I thought this was a welcome change for their amping requirements, as it makes them more easily driven by high-current solid-state low-Z amps like the HeadAmp Gilmore Lite (which I'm currently using, so that'd make me happy if I got an LCD-X).

 

The LCD-2 sounding like it was between them aside, I didn't think the X and XC were very similar-sounding. It'd be more accurate to say that I thought they were more unlike each other, with the X more neutral (similar voicing to the LCD-2 in that aspect) and the XC more skewed towards the bass and lower mid-range. Neither of them really improved the Audeze comfort level for me either - they were both still relatively heavy and bulky. IMO, anyone who finds the LCD-2/LCD-3 uncomfortable isn't going to get much more comfort from the X or XC.

 

Lastly, the X and XC weren't all that great to me either, and IMO are just more cases of vastly overpriced headphones and IMO should cost closer to half of what they do - like $1K or thereabouts at most. I oppose this trend of >$1K headphones mostly because I think it's crazy having to pay more than $1K for headphones unless they're discontinued! Neither was especially better-sounding than the LCD-2, and for the price difference I don't think it'd be unreasonable to expect an obvious sonic upgrade, but to me there was none.


Edited by Asr - 10/20/13 at 9:45pm
post #174 of 353

Interesting read. You seem very fair in your critique (maybe a touch of pessimism, but hey, you tried it and I didn't!)

 

As a previous owner of the LCD3, I was hoping to have an experienced member confirm that the LCD-X was indeed as special as it was made up to be so far; but your impression brings the glowing praise back down to earth a bit.

 

I had a very difficult time appreciating the Audez'e house sound when I had (and still have) the HD800/HE6. I believed the LCD-X may have possibly taken the HE6's spot, but I guess I really need to compare for myself now and not get lulled into buying them on release day!

 

At least your insight is keeping me sane and realistic about my spending :rolleyes:

 

Cheers!

post #175 of 353

Asr, could you possibly compare the LCD-XC and the AlphaDog?

post #176 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinocelt View Post

Asr, could you possibly compare the LCD-XC and the AlphaDog?
X10! This is going to be the big showdown of the winter for closed headphones. These 1st reviews will be crucial for many buyers.
post #177 of 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post

My written impressions are already fairly long and I'm not even halfway done yet, so it's going to be a while longer, especially with my current busy schedule. Will try to get everything done & posted by Friday (including the rest of the pics).

I'll just start with this for today and will post more as more is completed:

- Audeze LCD-XC and LCD-X (amp: ALO Studio Six, source: unknown): As previously said, I was able to get a relatively long amount of time, undisturbed, at the Audeze table on Sunday (about 20-30 minutes), so I pulled out my own LCD-2 r2 for a 3-way comparison.

The LCD-2 r2 was definitely sonically closer to the X, and farther from the XC, though all 3 did share a general similarity (the full mid-range and physically tactile sound). In fact, the LCD-2 was close enough to the X that I knew I didn't have enough time to even start comparing them. All I could tell was that there were a few minor differences, like slightly more treble & bass extension & quantity (at the extremes, not really in general) on the X and more "ease" to the sound. I know it's vague but the X sounded less tense than the 2. Certainly I'm sure that there were more differences between the X and 2, but I just didn't have enough time to explore them, as it would've required extended swapping and music that I was familiar with (there was no familiar music on Audeze's computer).

The XC really sounded like a closed headphone - quite closed-in (small-ish soundstage and more closed-in than the LCD-2), with a lot of bass quantity, enough that it reminded me of the LCD-3's high bass quantity. The bass was deep, thick, and forceful, much more than on the LCD-2, very satisfactory with the unfamiliar electronica on Audeze's computer. Very heavy- and full-sounding as well, and borderline aggressive/upfront, almost Audio-Technica AD2K-ish in its style. It was so upfront it almost didn't sound like an Audeze, it was more like my AD2K in that aspect.

For me the best way to describe the relationship between the 3 headphones: the XC was sort of DJ-ish-sounding with its bass and forwardness (and Alex of Audeze did actually use them later while DJ-ing the Saturday night beer social), the 2 was in-between with its relative neutrality, and the X was like a more refined, wider- & deeper-sounding version of the 2 with more "separation/diffusion" throughout. Informally, I'd say that those who want a clearer, more open-sounding Audeze might want to look into the X. I know that I'm already more interested in the X than the XC and will probably eventually buy one to fully check it out. It was also really classy-looking with the blue-grey aluminum enclosure.

A note on efficiency as well: both the X and XC were noticeably much more efficient than the 2. They were almost twice as efficient, requiring only about half as much turn on the volume knob to reach approximately the same volume level as the 2! I thought this was a welcome change for their amping requirements, as it makes them more easily driven by high-current solid-state low-Z amps like the HeadAmp Gilmore Lite (which I'm currently using, so that'd make me happy if I got an LCD-X).

The LCD-2 sounding like it was between them aside, I didn't think the X and XC were very similar-sounding. It'd be more accurate to say that I thought they were more unlike each other, with the X more neutral (similar voicing to the LCD-2 in that aspect) and the XC more skewed towards the bass and lower mid-range. Neither of them really improved the Audeze comfort level for me either - they were both still relatively heavy and bulky. IMO, anyone who finds the LCD-2/LCD-3 uncomfortable isn't going to get much more comfort from the X or XC.

Lastly, the X and XC weren't all that great to me either, and IMO are just more cases of vastly overpriced headphones and IMO should cost closer to half of what they do - like $1K or thereabouts at most. I oppose this trend of >$1K headphones mostly because I think it's crazy having to pay more than $1K for headphones unless they're discontinued! Neither was especially better-sounding than the LCD-2, and for the price difference I don't think it'd be unreasonable to expect an obvious sonic upgrade, but to me there was none.
The Audeze XC thread is crying out for such feedback. Could you add there too? Thanks.
post #178 of 353
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post

My written impressions are already fairly long and I'm not even halfway done yet, so it's going to be a while longer, especially with my current busy schedule. Will try to get everything done & posted by Friday (including the rest of the pics).

I'll just start with this for today and will post more as more is completed:

- Audeze LCD-XC and LCD-X (amp: ALO Studio Six, source: unknown): As previously said, I was able to get a relatively long amount of time, undisturbed, at the Audeze table on Sunday (about 20-30 minutes), so I pulled out my own LCD-2 r2 for a 3-way comparison.

The LCD-2 r2 was definitely sonically closer to the X, and farther from the XC, though all 3 did share a general similarity (the full mid-range and physically tactile sound). In fact, the LCD-2 was close enough to the X that I knew I didn't have enough time to even start comparing them. All I could tell was that there were a few minor differences, like slightly more treble & bass extension & quantity (at the extremes, not really in general) on the X and more "ease" to the sound. I know it's vague but the X sounded less tense than the 2. Certainly I'm sure that there were more differences between the X and 2, but I just didn't have enough time to explore them, as it would've required extended swapping and music that I was familiar with (there was no familiar music on Audeze's computer).

The XC really sounded like a closed headphone - quite closed-in (small-ish soundstage and more closed-in than the LCD-2), with a lot of bass quantity, enough that it reminded me of the LCD-3's high bass quantity. The bass was deep, thick, and forceful, much more than on the LCD-2, very satisfactory with the unfamiliar electronica on Audeze's computer. Very heavy- and full-sounding as well, and borderline aggressive/upfront, almost Audio-Technica AD2K-ish in its style. It was so upfront it almost didn't sound like an Audeze, it was more like my AD2K in that aspect.

For me the best way to describe the relationship between the 3 headphones: the XC was sort of DJ-ish-sounding with its bass and forwardness (and Alex of Audeze did actually use them later while DJ-ing the Saturday night beer social), the 2 was in-between with its relative neutrality, and the X was like a more refined, wider- & deeper-sounding version of the 2 with more "separation/diffusion" throughout. Informally, I'd say that those who want a clearer, more open-sounding Audeze might want to look into the X. I know that I'm already more interested in the X than the XC and will probably eventually buy one to fully check it out. It was also really classy-looking with the blue-grey aluminum enclosure.

A note on efficiency as well: both the X and XC were noticeably much more efficient than the 2. They were almost twice as efficient, requiring only about half as much turn on the volume knob to reach approximately the same volume level as the 2! I thought this was a welcome change for their amping requirements, as it makes them more easily driven by high-current solid-state low-Z amps like the HeadAmp Gilmore Lite (which I'm currently using, so that'd make me happy if I got an LCD-X).

The LCD-2 sounding like it was between them aside, I didn't think the X and XC were very similar-sounding. It'd be more accurate to say that I thought they were more unlike each other, with the X more neutral (similar voicing to the LCD-2 in that aspect) and the XC more skewed towards the bass and lower mid-range. Neither of them really improved the Audeze comfort level for me either - they were both still relatively heavy and bulky. IMO, anyone who finds the LCD-2/LCD-3 uncomfortable isn't going to get much more comfort from the X or XC.

Lastly, the X and XC weren't all that great to me either, and IMO are just more cases of vastly overpriced headphones and IMO should cost closer to half of what they do - like $1K or thereabouts at most. I oppose this trend of >$1K headphones mostly because I think it's crazy having to pay more than $1K for headphones unless they're discontinued! Neither was especially better-sounding than the LCD-2, and for the price difference I don't think it'd be unreasonable to expect an obvious sonic upgrade, but to me there was none.
Asr, I quoted this into the XC thread. Your impressions are pretty much in line with mine.
post #179 of 353
Thanks for the impressions! Im looking forward to hearing the lcd-x in a couple weeks!
post #180 of 353
Quote:
I oppose this trend of >$1K headphones mostly because I think it's crazy having to pay more than $1K for headphones unless they're discontinued!

 

Hmmm...I oppose the trend of increasing expense in everything, but that's not how it works.  They are free to price their goods where they feel is best, and you are free to decide to buy them or not.  I'd love to limit the price of all cars to $20K, I think it's crazy having to pay more than that for a car.  But I still want Mercedes, BMW, Bentley etc in the marketplace...can you arrange that?

 

I also think it's crazy to pay $65,000 for a pair of speakers or $25K for an amp.  So I don't buy them.  That doesn't mean I want companies to stop making them or pricing them there...having the state of the art available regardless of price tends to drive innovation down to their less expensive options as well.  I get that you didn't find the difference to be significant enough to justify the price difference, so vote with your wallet! 

 

There are lots and lots of sub $1K headphones on the market.  If you don't feel the price of the $1K+ 'phones is worth it, then don't buy them.  But to say that you don't like the trend because you just don't wanna have to pay more than an arbitrary price seems childish.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Meets, Get-Togethers, Factory Tours › Head-Fi Meet Impressions, Trade Show Reports, Factory Tours › CanJam at RMAF October 2013 Impressions Thread