or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AUDEZE LCD XC - Page 9

post #121 of 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetalElvis View Post
 

 

Are these "high end speakers" in this analogy high end flat studio monitors or high end HiFi speakers?

 

Because high end HiFi speakers don´t sound like real life, but high end flat studio monitors do.

I own and have listened to many high end flat studio monitors and LCD-2/3 doesn´t sound anything like flat studio monitors. They sound muffled and scooped from the upper mids like I´ve said. That doesn´t mean that the flat studio monitors sound ear piercing in the upper mids, they just sound "real", unlike the LCD-2/3, which sound "not real" to me, but sound good still. Sometimes, actually quite often "not real" sounds better than "real". People have their own preferences and it´s subjective. Some like "not real" sound more, some like "real" sound more.

For instance, the high-end Audio technicas (i.e., Raffinato; ATH3000Anv) do not sound real to me, but I still love (particularly the ATH3000) the way they sound.  They sound euphonious (i.e., easy on the ears; seductive), but not "real" per se.

post #122 of 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesure View Post
 

 

The number of generalizations in that comment is staggering.  

 

FWIW, I love classical music...and can't listen to HD800's for more than 30 minutes.

 

I go to an occasional rock concert, and don't like 'Beats'.  

Funny enough, the new 2013 Beats are a definite step in the right direction over the cruddy old Beats.

post #123 of 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by figaro69 View Post
 

For instance, the high-end Audio technicas (i.e., Raffinato; ATH3000Anv) do not sound real to me, but I still love (particularly the ATH3000) the way they sound.  They sound euphonious (i.e., easy on the ears; seductive), but not "real" per se.

I really enjoyed the W3000s when I owned them, but the W5000s are among my least favourite "nasally" bass AWOL headphones I've ever had the displeasure to listen to. Different strokes for sure.

post #124 of 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

HD800s = HiFi speakers, LCD-3/X = natural. Flat studio monitors were not part of my discussion.

 

 

So you say "LCD-3 = natural". What does that exactly mean? Because to me they are far from "natural". I would say they are very "colored". To me high end flat studio monitors are natural. LCD-2/3 is far away from those.

post #125 of 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesure View Post
 

 

The number of generalizations in that comment is staggering.

 

FWIW, I love classical music...and can't listen to HD800's for more than 30 minutes.

 

I go to an occasional rock concert, and don't like 'Beats'.

In this world, everything is an overgeneralization...it's the way humans organize their thinking.  Of course, everyone knows there are exceptions.  There has to be a reason why people like the Beats and consider them (erroneously, of course) to be hi-fi.  Even millionaires (i.e., I can see basketball players listening to their beats) listen to them.

post #126 of 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetalElvis View Post
 

 

So you say "LCD-3 = natural". What does that exactly mean? Because to me they are far from "natural". I would say they are very "colored". To me high end flat studio monitors are natural. LCD-2/3 is far away from those.

They sound like real life...period. Watch a movie with them or music you're very familiar with and it just sounds so natural/real. Treble-heads however need not apply. :p

 

You keep bringing up flat studio monitors, sorry, but that's not part of the discussion. Maybe on another forum. As well, with the LCD-3s it's garbage in = garbage out. Under power them, or give them sub-standard sources, you'll hear what your system is giving you. I would say that they are not very coloured at all. They offer a dead flat FR from 2kHz down to 10Hz. The treble is shelved down to account for the very close proximity of the drivers to ones hears where the treble can cause un-natural reflections...heck, look at the SR007/SR009s, their treble is shelved back too for this reason. Their 30Hz square wave plots are the best I've seen. The LCD-X's 300Hz plots look really good and slightly improved over the LCD-3s.

post #127 of 2642

I've been spending time with the XC's on the Schiit M&G stack and find it to be an unattractive combo for me.  I wouldn't normally go out of my way to say this, except that in this case it might be helpful to some here.  With the M&G the XC's sound bright and edgy to me, the same way the HD800's do, but they retain much of the LCD bass character.  The midrange is very clean and tilts a little upward as well.  This combo might be the best ortho rig for treble heads.  

 

For my part, I prefer the XC's on the notoriously warm Lyr.  

 

Uberforst>Lyr>LCD-XC's=happy

 

Gungnir>Mjolnir>LCD-X's=VERY happy.

 

Uberforst>Lyr>LCD-X's=too thick and syrupy

 

Gungnir>Mjolnir>LCD-XC=too bright and piercing

 

YMMV

post #128 of 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetalElvis View Post
 

 

Are these "high end speakers" in this analogy high end flat studio monitors or high end HiFi speakers?

 

Because high end HiFi speakers don´t sound like real life, but high end flat studio monitors do.

I own and have listened to many high end flat studio monitors and LCD-2/3 doesn´t sound anything like flat studio monitors. They sound muffled and scooped from the upper mids like I´ve said. That doesn´t mean that the flat studio monitors sound ear piercing in the upper mids, they just sound "real", unlike the LCD-2/3, which sound "not real" to me, but sound good still. Sometimes, actually quite often "not real" sounds better than "real". People have their own preferences and it´s subjective. Some like "not real" sound more, some like "real" sound more.

 

This guy is onto something. Very recently I went to a high-end meet and I was impressed massively by the PMC speakers. This a company with professional products and studio heritage. Competing with these guys in the other rooms were top-end Wilson, top-end Focals ($180k) and a lot of others. I found the £25.000 PMC a smack in the face of others in terms of realism and they were indeed very neutral sounding. Treble can be airy, detailed, sparkly and with great presence without being too bright and bothersome (I am aiming at T1 and HD800s here in their stock forms and average experience, which is not particularly well tweaked for those headphones). 

 

It so happened the high-end headphones room was just 2 doors away from the PMC. The SR-009 sounded the closest to the PMC and surprisingly good (except for the soundstage but no headphones came close to high-end speakers). The LCD-3s sounded muddied and lacking top-end presence (I heard them on the Mjolnir and a Bryston DAC). I am glad hearing the LCD-X improved in these areas.


Edited by negura - 11/24/13 at 6:23pm
post #129 of 2642

It's kinda funny how someone who talks themselves up as an industry veteran would so drastically overgeneralize the differences between 'hi-fi speakers' and 'studio monitors.'

 

Oh well, I'm pretty over this.  

post #130 of 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by figaro69 View Post
 

...it's the way humans organize their thinking.  

 

Another massive generalization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by figaro69 View Post
 

There has to be a reason why people like the Beats and consider them (erroneously, of course) to be hi-fi.  Even millionaires (i.e., I can see basketball players listening to their beats) listen to them.

 

The basketball players are paid to wear them...and the fact that they wear them is a large part of why the public at large choose them...along with their availability at Best Buy etc.  

post #131 of 2642

Leesure those are interesting findings about the X vs XC out of the Mjolnir and Gungnir.  I think Purrin put the LCD-X out of the same combo and found them 'bright as edgy' like you found the XC out of them.

post #132 of 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

They sound like real life...period. Watch a movie with them or music you're very familiar with and it just sounds so natural/real. Treble-heads however need not apply. :p

 

You keep bringing up flat studio monitors, sorry, but that's not part of the discussion. Maybe on another forum. As well, with the LCD-3s it's garbage in = garbage out. Under power them, or give them sub-standard sources, you'll hear what your system is giving you. I would say that they are not very coloured at all. They offer a dead flat FR from 2kHz down to 10Hz. The treble is shelved down to account for the very close proximity of the drivers to ones hears where the treble can cause un-natural reflections...heck, look at the SR007/SR009s, their treble is shelved back too for this reason. Their 30Hz square wave plots are the best I've seen. The LCD-X's 300Hz plots look really good and slightly improved over the LCD-3s.

 

Sorry, but you are dead wrong.

 

LCD-2/3 are very very soft sounding = not real. Maybe you haven´t ever heard "true sound", that´s why you avoid discussing about flat studio monitors (in a well acoustically treated room). Seems like you just like the sound of LCD-3s, but have no clue about "real sound".

The SR-009 are more close to studio monitors, but even they have little softness (scoop) in the upper mids 2k - 4k (and a slight boost in the 1k), which makes them sound very nice. But the scoop in LCD-2/3 is just crazy. Don´t get me wrong, I like that sound sometimes and I can definitely understand why most people like that sound, but it´s far from "real".

 

p.s. I´m not a treble head.


Edited by MetalElvis - 11/24/13 at 6:36pm
post #133 of 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetalElvis View Post
 

 

Sorry, but you are dead wrong.

 

 

post #134 of 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

Leesure those are interesting findings about the X vs XC out of the Mjolnir and Gungnir.  I think Purrin put the LCD-X out of the same combo and found them 'bright as edgy' like you found the XC out of them.

 

A prime example of why I say everyone should listen and decide for themselves.  

post #135 of 2642
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetalElvis View Post
 

 

Sorry, but you are dead wrong.

 

LCD-2/3 are very very soft sounding = not real. Maybe you haven´t ever heard "true sound", that´s why you avoid discussing about flat studio monitors (in a well acoustically treated room). Seems like you just like the sound of LCD-3s, but have no clue about "real sound".

The SR-009 are more close to studio monitors, but even they have little softness (scoop) in the upper mids 2k - 4k (and a slight boost in the 1k), which makes them sound very nice. But the scoop in LCD-2/3 is just crazy. Don´t get me wrong, I like that sound sometimes and I can definitely understand why most people like that sound, but it´s far from "real".

 

p.s. I´m not a treble head.

You haven't mentioned anything that you've heard/owned...and I AM NOT DEAD WRONG...but rather I actually happen to have them all here on hand and my comments stand based on my in-home first hand experiences. Just because you don't agree...that's cool...but these comments are not kewel at all.   :rolleyes:  Have you read my comments on the design criteria for why someone would not treat headphones like speakers due to the proximity of the drivers to one's ears? Or the part where the treble shelving is similar on the SR007/SR009 as well for the same reason? So based on your comments, I'm dead wrong, so are leesure, Jude, Tyll, Skylab and many others...and only you are right? :gs1000smile:

 

So let me get this right, you are the source of what is real? :eek: And anyone disagreeing is wrong? :blink: 


Edited by MacedonianHero - 11/24/13 at 8:13pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum