New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AUDEZE LCD XC - Page 5

post #61 of 1711
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Currawong View Post
 

I'm getting the Studio Six back too, which I'm looking forward to. 

 

The prototype closed-backed models had quite a small soundstage so I don't imagine the XCs will be any different.

Yes, the sounstage is pretty small but it doesn't feel congested.

Excellent front/back depth. Width could have been better.

Again, no feeling of congestion, though.

Obviously, IMHO :smile: 

post #62 of 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by DefQon View Post
Yeh I'm hoping the X is right for me. It really is hard for me to look for the right dynamic or planar after having spent so long living with electrostats in this house.

 

If you're referring to the Stax OII MKI by "electrostats", then I for one think the LCD-X would be most up your alley. It was the closest-sounding Audeze to the OII MKI that I've heard.

 

Btw, you seem very impatient in your questions about the TH900 vs XC vs X, are you in a particular hurry to buy any of them? If not, I suggest waiting until more Head-Fiers have bought them and can report on them, otherwise you're essentially asking just a few people who've posted about them so far. The XC and X have just barely come out and I doubt a lot of people have bought them yet. Right now it's more likely that there are far more people like you who are waiting to read impressions than those who actually own a pair. Give it a few months for aggregate opinion to form on the XC and X.

 

There's also another upcoming dynamic that's going largely unmentioned in the High-End forum right now, the AKG K812....

post #63 of 1711

On Black Friday (this week, 11/29) I will open sign-ups to demo the Audeze LCD-X and Audeze LCD-XC with no charge or deposit required. Each demo will be limited to 12 participants, and you can only sign up for one of them. Due to the value of the headphones I will reserve the right to be selective about which members can participate, and they must be in the United States. Instructions will be posted at midnight (EST) on 11/29 in the first post of this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/645941/headamp-headphone-demos-audeze-lcd-x-and-lcd-xc-sign-up-on-black-friday

HeadAmp Audio Electronics - home of the Pico and Gilmore amps.  Now with Audeze, Fostex, HiFiMAN, Sennheiser, and STAX.
Find us at www.HeadAmp.com

Reply
post #64 of 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post
 

 

If you're referring to the Stax OII MKI by "electrostats", then I for one think the LCD-X would be most up your alley. It was the closest-sounding Audeze to the OII MKI that I've heard.

 

Btw, you seem very impatient in your questions about the TH900 vs XC vs X, are you in a particular hurry to buy any of them? If not, I suggest waiting until more Head-Fiers have bought them and can report on them, otherwise you're essentially asking just a few people who've posted about them so far. The XC and X have just barely come out and I doubt a lot of people have bought them yet. Right now it's more likely that there are far more people like you who are waiting to read impressions than those who actually own a pair. Give it a few months for aggregate opinion to form on the XC and X.

 

There's also another upcoming dynamic that's going largely unmentioned in the High-End forum right now, the AKG K812....

Not just the Mk1's which were not mine but mainly my Omega's and a plethora of Lambda models, all come and gone and just this year the 009 although that was just a 30-40 minute listen when I gave the Abyss some discredit then eventually hearing it (bad for the price). 

 

Yeah given that I have a soft spot for Audeze although they are just 'ok' for the price in comparison to other TOTL/unobtanium headphones I've owned and heard, I guess you can say I'm sort of impatient I have nothing against weight and comfort of the existing LCD model's so these factors won't bug me, what bugged me with the LCD2 and 3 was the soundstage and treble, the mids was wonderful (esp the rev.1's) and the bass was great, but I always felt that treble took a deep dive below a notch or too and soundstage was sub-par this literally produced this wall of bass due to the low-end dominance and pretty much overpowering on any music I listened to with the slightest bit of bass, be it instrumental, classical, metal or electronica.

 

Yeah I'm not holding the K812 in well regards as well given that some early impressions say they are just a short fall behind the HD800's while sold at the same price. This and I don't respect with the rebadging AKG has been doing with the K7XX series, using the same drivers in a different coloured housing and model number and increasing the premium. Supposedly Sennheiser is releasing another flagship status dynamic (according to Nomax).

 

I hear Sennheiser and Hifiman (HEAudio) will be releasing electrostats in the near future so I'm keeping an open eye for anything new.

 

Then theres the Oppo and prototype Fostex planars that are coming out next year.

 

With 2014 around the corner I think it's going to be a hectic year.

post #65 of 1711
great to see another high-end closed can on the market. like defqon i'm keen to see how it stacks up against the th900.
post #66 of 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurochin View Post
 

 

The are some sub-categories where the LCD-XC is competitive, mainly mid/upper bass layering and instrument placement/separation, but with regards to quantity, slam, decays, bloom, reverb, TH-900 pretty much walks it. It just goes lower. Possibly personal preference, but I've never quite gelled with the way planars cut the delays short or the way they dither note decays. The LCD-XC also gives the impression of having more of the bass (actually, this applies to all it's frequencies) in front of you, while the TH900 is more enveloping, more "from the gut" in that regard.

 

It's the mids and highs where the XC comes more alive, to my ears. Partially thanks to their speed, which is impressive. More on that later.

 

Disclaimer: I'm a basshead, so there's probably some bias here. For example, what some listeners categorize as "controlled", I might simply call "lacking". Neutrality lovers might possibly see those as XC advantages, though it's still far from being a neutral headphone. Like I said, it's apples vs oranges.

 

Thanks. Sounds like a discussion between my D2000 and LCD-3. I spend 90% of my time between those two, so I've learned to go back and forth between these two and not feel a lack of bass. I've adjusted to both of their bass response, but still for something like movies I'll go for D2000 due to the "more from the gut" as you described it. Whereas for music mostly, it's LCD-3.

 

Even though LCD-X has more isolation than TH900, I likely won't be using either when travelling, so these are going to be for home mainly. So isolation doesn't have much influence in my decision. Now the efficiency of the TH-900 is really appealing though. What I love about D2000 is that I can take it anywhere, even directly off of the macbook pro jack and still make it sound good. With LCD-3, I'm tied down. I don't want to keep moving my speaker amp just for the LCD-3. I hear that the LCD-XC is more efficient than the previous ones, but I doubt it'll sound really good without a proper desktop amp.

 

Honestly, even when sound leakage isn't a problem, I sometimes prefer the presentation of closed headphones over open, especially for movies. Although using D2000 or TH-900 as a closed headphone isn't the best example since they barely isolate and aren't really sealed. Hence the big soundstage. sigh

post #67 of 1711

Leesure, when you say the X wins outright in bass, but the XC has bass in truckloads, do you mean to say that you like the more balanced bass of the X but the XC has a lot more of it in general?  If so that might not be a bad thing for a lot of us.

post #68 of 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

Leesure, when you say the X wins outright in bass, but the XC has bass in truckloads, do you mean to say that you like the more balanced bass of the X but the XC has a lot more of it in general?  If so that might not be a bad thing for a lot of us.

I don't think it's 'more' bass with the XC. I think they're about the same amount and depth, but the X is more natural...and yes, perhaps more balanced. They both have lots of deep bass, the X is just more realistic, IMO.
post #69 of 1711

That doesn't help me much.  :frown:

post #70 of 1711
What are you looking for, TMRaven? A closed headphone with neutral/balanced presentation? Something like an Alpha Dog, maybe?
post #71 of 1711

I just want to know how the bass of the two compare in more tangible terms-- which one has longer decay, more quantity, more slam etc.  Realism is a bit ambiguous.  Actually scratch slam, I've seen that interpreted a thousand different ways as well.


Edited by TMRaven - 11/24/13 at 8:06am
post #72 of 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

That doesn't help me much.  :frown:

 

Hey, sorry.  Would you rather I use ambiguous 6moons style ramblings to try to express in words what you need to hear to know?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

I just want to know how the bass of the two compare in more tangible terms-- which one has longer decay, more quantity, more slam etc.  Realism is a bit ambiguous.  Actually scratch slam, I've seen that interpreted a thousand different ways as well.

 

Then listen to a pair.  If you're in the US, Justin at HeadAmp is loaning a dozen pairs of each out.  Or rent them from the Cable Company.  Don't rely on others' impressions...and them complain that their impressions aren't adequate for your specific needs. 

post #73 of 1711

Yes I'll be trying to get a pair of XC to listen to from Justin at headamp, but unfortunately I won't be able to hear the X alongside it as well.  I'm not trying to be an ass about dismissing other people's impressions because they don't fit my needs, but I do wish some were broken down a bit more simply with more comparable terminology.  Hopefully it's as far away from 6moons style as possible!  In this case you can say one presentation of the bass is more real than another, but what about it makes it more realistic?


Edited by TMRaven - 11/24/13 at 8:19am
post #74 of 1711
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

Yes I'll be trying to get a pair of XC to listen to from Justin at headamp, but unfortunately I won't be able to hear the X alongside it as well.  I'm not trying to be an ass about dismissing other people's impressions because they don't fit my needs, but I do wish some were broken down a bit more simply with more comparable terminology.  Hopefully it's as far away from 6moons style as possible!  In this case you can say one presentation of the bass is more real than another, but what about it makes it more realistic?

 

FWIW, I simply don't know how to express the differences in words.  Listened to both, I don't feel like one has MOAR bass than the other,  I feel like they both go about as low as the other.  I do feel like the upper bass bleeds into the lower midrange a little bit on the X's which, when paired with a warm amp, can make them sound thick.  Likewise, with a bright amp, the XC's can sound thin.  Well recorded kick drums and upright bass just have a more detailed timbre on the X's.  I'm sure it is a combination of attack and decay, but when trying to pinpoint it, it can be elusive. Something about the X's sounds 'right' while the XC's sound less 'right'.  I wouldn't call them 'one note'-ish, but neither would I call them as natural as the X's. 

 

If I wake in the middle of the night with the right combination of words to sum it up better, I'll make a beeline for the tablet.  Until then, that's all I got.

post #75 of 1711

Ok thanks.

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