New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AUDEZE LCD XC - Page 3

post #31 of 1563
Okay in summary we now have a 1:1 between TH900 and XC biggrin.gif
Loevhagen preferred XC and I read one post from a user said TH900 is better because airier more open sounding.
Personally I decided to buy the Th900 and to use my Signature Pro further when I want maximum isolation and sound quality. Both attributes cannot be beat by other headphones IMO.
post #32 of 1563
From what limited time I've spent with the XC - still burning in - it's really an apples vs oranges thing. Very different presentations. Those that enjoy the TH900's sound won't be giving them up. Fans of the Audeze house sound might prefer the XC. My listening impressions will come after a few days.
post #33 of 1563
Regarding the weight of the LCD-XC. I've looked on the Audeze website, and the weight given is 650g. My SR-009's with the new headband weighs 630g and even though I don't think I've a strong neck, I could quite easily wear my 009's for several hours. I am considering eventually getting either the LCD-XC or TH-900, but for me the weight wouldn't be a factor.
post #34 of 1563
I've decided I'm going to be placing an order for either the LCD-XC or TH-900. I got to hear the TH-900 at a head-fi meeting in 2012 but the amp being used wasn't the GS-Xmk2, and that's the amp I'll be using with which ever headphone I end-up going for.
I prefer the look of the LCD-XC ( Bubinga wooden cups ), but does anyone know which of the two headphones does the GS-Xmk2 drive best.
post #35 of 1563
Quote:
Originally Posted by David1961 View Post

I've decided I'm going to be placing an order for either the LCD-XC or TH-900. I got to hear the TH-900 at a head-fi meeting in 2012 but the amp being used wasn't the GS-Xmk2, and that's the amp I'll be using with which ever headphone I end-up going for.
I prefer the look of the LCD-XC ( Bubinga wooden cups ), but does anyone know which of the two headphones does the GS-Xmk2 drive best.

 

Head-Fier Frank I is working on a review of the GSX MkII and next week I'm loaning him my XC's for w while.  I know he owns TH900's.  I'd give him a few days to a week after that and he might be able to give you very specific answers to that question.


Edited by leesure - 11/22/13 at 4:51am
post #36 of 1563
Thank you leesure.
post #37 of 1563
It would be nice if the Alpha Dogs will join the battle between XC and TH900. Just for fun. smily_headphones1.gif
post #38 of 1563

Live notes as I'm listening and comparing between the two XC  & TH-900. Note I'm not going to talk about FR 'cos I think it's quite obvious that the TH-900 is somewhat U shaped whereas the XCs have more forward mids (although I'm still not certain if I call the XCs neutral yet). So I'd agree with kurochin's comment that it's really eventually apples to oranges. If one likes the TH-900 signature would probably stick to that whilst Audeze folks would probably stick to XCs. Note I did pick up Loevhagen's comment on switching but I also noted that he mentioned he didn't use his TH-900s for quite a long time.

 

Setup is iMac Audirvana Plus -> Invicta v1.0 -> Studio 6 :-

 

- Soundstage: TH-900 sounds more open, spacious with room for instruments to breath

- Imaging: Same TH-900 conveys depth easier than the XC

- Speed: XC seems to keep up with faster tracks (Hiphop, Pop, R&B). By comparison the TH-900 seems a little laggier

- Isolation: XC isolates more than the TH-900

- Leak: XC leaks less but does leak a little still. TH-900 leaks more

    (sorry attachments in m4a format only)

    XCTH900Leak.zip 276k .zip file

- Resolution: Due to (1) I do find the XC a little congested so it's been hard to pick up its resolution capabilities by comparison to the TH-900

 

After this I'm sending the XCs to Currawong who has the X and compare between the two.

post #39 of 1563
With regards to imaging and soundstage, The TH-900 does seem to convey stuff in a more symmetrical fashion, with regards to width, height and depth. Maybe more depth than height. Sort of feels like you're at a club standing on a DJ console that's perched higher than the dancefloor, closer to the lights. The LCD-XC seem to convey greater height, but width-wise feels more boxed-in in comparison. More like you're sitting on the floor or couch in a private home-theater room that has a reasonably high roof/ceiling. This might mean the XC conveys more detail in the upper regions. Might open up as they get more playtime though.

Musically, to my ears, compared to the LCD-2.2, the XC sounds a bit flat. Might be preferable if you seek a more linear sound, but (at the moment) they lack that single-minded pugnacious character that made the 2.2 sound special and (imho) epitomized the Audeze sound. Even the LCD-3 doesn't compare to the 2.2 in that regard, despite being a better headphone overall. The XC is definitely less veiled/muffled compared to the 2.2 though. I reckon these new driver designs offer a much more unveiled, crystalline presentation when compared side-by-side to previous Audeze models.
Edited by kurochin - 11/23/13 at 2:17am
post #40 of 1563
Even though I've not heard either the LCD-XC or TH-900 with my GS-Xmk2, I've decided I'm going for the LCD-XC. I'm doing this because I prefer the look of the LCD-XC over the TH-900, and also I like the idea of a detachable cable.
There is something else I plan on doing with the LCD, which I wouldn't be able to do with the TH-900.
post #41 of 1563
Thread Starter 

I've had these for about 24 hrs now and my initial impressions remain.

Some more thoughts.

Comfort: For some strange reason these are more comfortable even though they're heavier than the LCD3s. The microsuede is softer than the leather on my 3s so much so that sometimes, the tips of my ears touch the drivers inside. There's a nice snugness to these and I could easily wear them for 5 hours continuously.

 

Fit & Finish: Absolutely gorgeous looking. I've owned the L3000s and if those were the Rolls Royce, these are certainly nothing less than the Bentleys. The microsuede smells like the interior of a spanking brand new car. Yes, it actually does!

 

OK. Now that we've got the extraneous out of the way lets get down to how they sound.

 

The highs: Sweet. That's one word which keeps coming to mind. Sweet. Quite a bit more extended than the 3s. There is absolutely no shrillness or even a hint of harshness. This was one area where I thought the LCD-XCs easily beat the LCD3s

 

The mids: Very clean and neutral. No sibilance with female vocalists, which for me is very important. Brightness I can endure, sibilance, absolutely not. Male vocals sound real and natural.

Here the 3s take the cake, although the XCs aren't far behind. Just that the softness, the delicacy, which I get from the 3s, is missing.

 

The bass: Theres a heft to it which is missing in the 3s. Better slam and a nice punchy feeling to it. Only the texture is still better on the 3s. 

Maybe it's because the XCs are faster. 

 

The LCD3s are a great pair of headphones, my personal favorite and the fact that these come very close and infact are better in certain aspects, speaks volumes about the LCD-XCs. 

 

I think we've got a winner here.

 

Thats it for now, more later with photos...:smile:

post #42 of 1563
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAHZADA123 View Post

I've had these for about 24 hrs now and my initial impressions remain.
Some more thoughts.
Comfort: For some strange reason these are more comfortable even though they're heavier than the LCD3s. The microsuede is softer than the leather on my 3s so much so that sometimes, the tips of my ears touch the drivers inside. There's a nice snugness to these and I could easily wear them for 5 hours continuously.

Fit & Finish: Absolutely gorgeous looking. I've owned the L3000s and if those were the Rolls Royce, these are certainly nothing less than the Bentleys. The microsuede smells like the interior of a spanking brand new car. Yes, it actually does!

OK. Now that we've got the extraneous out of the way lets get down to how they sound.

The highs: Sweet. That's one word which keeps coming to mind. Sweet. Quite a bit more extended than the 3s. There is absolutely no shrillness or even a hint of harshness. This was one area where I thought the LCD-XCs easily beat the LCD3s

The mids: Very clean and neutral. No sibilance with female vocalists, which for me is very important. Brightness I can endure, sibilance, absolutely not. Male vocals sound real and natural.
Here the 3s take the cake, although the XCs aren't far behind. Just that the softness, the delicacy, which I get from the 3s, is missing.

The bass: Theres a heft to it which is missing in the 3s. Better slam and a nice punchy feeling to it. Only the texture is still better on the 3s. 
Maybe it's because the XCs are faster. 

The LCD3s are a great pair of headphones, my personal favorite and the fact that these come very close and infact are better in certain aspects, speaks volumes about the LCD-XCs. 

I think we've got a winner here.

Thats it for now, more later with photos...smile.gif
Would love to see the photos with the micro suede. Unfortunately, I'm the UK the first few months of orders will only be delivered on the standard leather and burbinga wood. Lucky U S A again!
Edited by deafanddumb - 11/23/13 at 5:38pm
post #43 of 1563
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHAHZADA123 View Post
 

I've had these for about 24 hrs now and my initial impressions remain.

Some more thoughts.

Comfort: For some strange reason these are more comfortable even though they're heavier than the LCD3s. The microsuede is softer than the leather on my 3s so much so that sometimes, the tips of my ears touch the drivers inside. There's a nice snugness to these and I could easily wear them for 5 hours continuously.

 

Fit & Finish: Absolutely gorgeous looking. I've owned the L3000s and if those were the Rolls Royce, these are certainly nothing less than the Bentleys. The microsuede smells like the interior of a spanking brand new car. Yes, it actually does!

 

OK. Now that we've got the extraneous out of the way lets get down to how they sound.

 

The highs: Sweet. That's one word which keeps coming to mind. Sweet. Quite a bit more extended than the 3s. There is absolutely no shrillness or even a hint of harshness. This was one area where I thought the LCD-XCs easily beat the LCD3s

 

The mids: Very clean and neutral. No sibilance with female vocalists, which for me is very important. Brightness I can endure, sibilance, absolutely not. Male vocals sound real and natural.

Here the 3s take the cake, although the XCs aren't far behind. Just that the softness, the delicacy, which I get from the 3s, is missing.

 

The bass: Theres a heft to it which is missing in the 3s. Better slam and a nice punchy feeling to it. Only the texture is still better on the 3s. 

Maybe it's because the XCs are faster. 

 

The LCD3s are a great pair of headphones, my personal favorite and the fact that these come very close and infact are better in certain aspects, speaks volumes about the LCD-XCs. 

 

I think we've got a winner here.

 

Thats it for now, more later with photos...:smile:

Nice impressions...now I really wanna hear a pair. :o

post #44 of 1563

Does this or the X exhibit the mediocre sound staging and treble the LCD2's and 3's have? It's not good when the mids, lows and highs are all great but no treble and sound staging with it sounding sucked out and shelved.

post #45 of 1563
Quote:
Originally Posted by DefQon View Post
 

Does this or the X exhibit the mediocre sound staging and treble the LCD2's and 3's have? It's not good when the mids, lows and highs are all great but no treble and sound staging with it sounding sucked out and shelved.

This question has been addressed several times in this thread and the LCD-X thread.

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