New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AUDEZE LCD XC - Page 103

post #1531 of 1711

You are comparing this implementation

 


 to this

 

 

The implementation matters more than the DAC chip IMHO. ;) . Apologies for OT.


Edited by punit - 7/11/14 at 3:49am
post #1532 of 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by punit View Post
 

You are comparing this implementation

 


 to this

 

 

The implementation matters more than the DAC chip IMHO. ;) . Apologies for OT.

I realize that. And it is indeed a misleading conclusion on my part. The thing is, I felt the sound was on the thinner side so I told myself I'd stay away from the Sabre. I've since been reading about how the implementation matters so I could be wrong. But if you read the information on the Audio GD site, there is always this statement that if one prefers a slightly warmer sound, one should opt for the WM chips. 

post #1533 of 1711

I had a go with iBasso DX90 DoP -> HUGO -> LCD-XC. (since I have HUGO)

Yes, its audio heaven.

 

After which I tried other (Grado GS, HD800..etc), i threw them back, thinking I need to reset my brains (and ears) a bit before listening to others. It is just not as "forward" in your face, and dynamic as the LCD-XC.

 

Than I tried LCD-X.....

XC has much better bass response on HUGO than X.

However, X has a very beautiful tingle and sweetness to the highs. It is very hypnotising. For bass, X has some missing parts, but not so much as to make a huge diff from XC.

post #1534 of 1711

I concur on the sounds of difference DACs. Sabre is more precise, thus giving it a more "harsh feel" especially the highs. (faster as well)

For WM, its warmth and slower thus more "musical". This depends on tastes.

 

My experience with DX90 (dual Sabre) and my Audio-gd WM version is quite different. I would say, depends on genre, I could than decide on the DAC I would like to use.

post #1535 of 1711

For HUGO, you should go Coax if possible. (or USB). Optical max out at 192.

Coax and USB max at 384.

post #1536 of 1711

So I've heard from someone that the LCD-XC is a 90%-as-good version of an LCD-X.  They explained that it's basically an LCD-X, with a back on it, which is why it is just slightly dearer than an LCD-X (to cover the cost of the bubingas), but by closing it in, you lose a bit of quality/detail/whatever in the process, and that they are just trying to cater for the closed headphone market.  That's why it's called an LCD-XC, not an LCD-C - indicating that it's a closed LCD-X, not an entirely different product.

 

Would like to hear people's opinion on this matter - weather they agree or weather they think it should have maybe been called the LCD-C because it's just as different from the other Audeze 'phones as the LCD 2, 3 and X.  Is people's main reason for buying the XC the fact that they're closed, or are they your genuine favourite from the Audeze lineup.

post #1537 of 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulder01 View Post
 

So I've heard from someone that the LCD-XC is a 90%-as-good version of an LCD-X.  They explained that it's basically an LCD-X, with a back on it, which is why it is just slightly dearer than an LCD-X (to cover the cost of the bubingas), but by closing it in, you lose a bit of quality/detail/whatever in the process, and that they are just trying to cater for the closed headphone market.  That's why it's called an LCD-XC, not an LCD-C - indicating that it's a closed LCD-X, not an entirely different product.

 

Would like to hear people's opinion on this matter - weather they agree or weather they think it should have maybe been called the LCD-C because it's just as different from the other Audeze 'phones as the LCD 2, 3 and X.  Is people's main reason for buying the XC the fact that they're closed, or are they your genuine favourite from the Audeze lineup.

I had the 2.2, and now have the 3 and the XC. To me each offered something slightly different. The 2.2 was more about slam, the 3 to me is the most neutral of the, well, 3 cans, and the XC offers the right combination of bass, that good-to-die for midrange and smooth top end. Isolation is not an issue for me as I don't use the XC outside of the house. 

post #1538 of 1711

But in comparison to the LCD-X?

post #1539 of 1711
m
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulder01 View Post

But in comparison to the LCD-X?

Have not heard the X. Where I live, demoing is non-existent.
post #1540 of 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulder01 View Post
 

But in comparison to the LCD-X?

 

Better bass impact. More in quantity. A lil smaller in sound stage. Better isolation.

post #1541 of 1711
Curious to know what the frequency graphs of other XC's look like.

Here's mine.



Bass feels light in general, but I love the detail.
post #1542 of 1711

MY XC graph.

post #1543 of 1711

Does one just email Audeze with your serial number to get that?

post #1544 of 1711

Yes. Previously Audez'e would ship the graph along with the HP (if you bought it directly from the company). Nowadays, you write to them with the serial number.

post #1545 of 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenkiwi View Post

Does one just email Audeze with your serial number to get that?

Yup, now get it and post it! biggrin.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum