[Hydrored]

Carbon fiber headband is an amazing add, i can now listen for hours. So happy I had to post

 

[cleandean]

Carbon fiber headband is an amazing add, i can now listen for hours. So happy I had to post

+1

 

[Bostyn]

Got the chance recently to test the 2016 versions and I find that the so-called improvements are not worth it for me.
I should've known better not to buy into the typical head-fi hyperoble.
Maybe the highs are a little smoother, maybe that's just confirmation bias—it's certainly not big enough of a chance to not doubt it.
 
What is beyond doubt, at least to my ears, is that the newer version misses some of the impact and visceral bass that made me fall in love with the x in the first place.
 
I'd stay clear if you don't have the chance to audition them and compare them yourself.

 

[rodgerdodger]

Got the chance recently to test the 2016 versions and I find that the so-called improvements are not worth it for me.
I should've known better not to buy into the typical head-fi hyperoble.
Maybe the highs are a little smoother, maybe that's just confirmation bias—it's certainly not big enough of a chance to not doubt it.

What is beyond doubt, at least to my ears, is that the newer version misses some of the impact and visceral bass that made me fall in love with the x in the first place.

I'd stay clear if you don't have the chance to audition them and compare them yourself.

That Bass slam is there... trust me.
Just eq it. Sucks that you have to as would be perfect if they didn't need to be.

I had a 6db+ low notch in my audio chain, changed it to 3db+ and its perfect... try doing that with other headphones that can't play bass like these and you will realise. I make drum n Bass and own brand spanking new 2016 drivers. I've had dt770s 880s 990s hd650s T1s lcd2fazor. None come remotely close to this. I've tried doing the same thing with all these and besides the lcd2 the rest just couldn't hack it.

 

[bosiemoncrieff]

idk, if they're making the bass more neutral I'd say good for them. They have enough trouble competing with HD800 for neutrality and soundstage, so why not iterate in that direction?

 

[TimeLord]

  idk, if they're making the bass more neutral I'd say good for them. They have enough trouble competing with HD800 for neutrality and soundstage, so why not iterate in that direction?

I would hope Audeze has enough sense to not try to make them sound like the HD800. My 2014 LCD-X has a lot less faults than my HD800. I would not call the HD800 neutral at all. It's a very bright headphone.
 
I still regularly listen to the LCD-X, not so much the HD800.

 

[bosiemoncrieff]

 
I would hope Audeze has enough sense to not try to make them sound like the HD800. My 2014 LCD-X has a lot less faults than my HD800. I would not call the HD800 neutral at all. It's a very bright headphone.
 
I still regularly listen to the LCD-X, not so much the HD800.

I'm beginning to see the difficulty of the word 'neutrality.' I'm inclined to think that it means 'my preferred amount of bass and treble' or 'the amount of bass and treble that my sub community deems neutral.' @DavidMahler declared HD800 the neutrality king in his epic battle of the flagships, and so I cite his opinion in lieu of asserting my own as regards judgments of neutrality. (Compared to K1000, for instance, HD800 is dark.) 
 
My point is just it wouldn't be death for Audeze to add a bit of air to aid instrument separation, a bit wider soundstage, and improved imaging capabilities. As I say, iteration, not revolution. And indeed, I see no reason for Audeze not to offer a range of sound signatures. HD650, after all, is diametrically opposed to HD800 sonically.

 

[TimeLord]

I'm beginning to see the difficulty of the word 'neutrality.' I'm inclined to think that it means 'my preferred amount of bass and treble' or 'the amount of bass and treble that my sub community deems neutral.' @DavidMahler declared HD800 the neutrality king in his epic battle of the flagships, and so I cite his opinion in lieu of asserting my own as regards judgments of neutrality. (Compared to K1000, for instance, HD800 is dark.) 

My point is just it wouldn't be death for Audeze to add a bit of air to aid instrument separation, a bit wider soundstage, and improved imaging capabilities. As I say, iteration, not revolution. And indeed, I see no reason for Audeze not to offer a range of sound signatures. HD650, after all, is diametrically opposed to HD800 sonically.

I see what you're saying. I have come around to understanding and agreeing with Tyll's opinion in his article on the Focal Utopia, Elear, and briefly on the Ether Flow. He basically says the new crop of headphones do not have any major faults. We would instead differentiate amongst them on subtle presentation choices.

Neutral (I'll use that word) upstream gear, meaning amps and DACs that do not add better bass response or clean up treble harshness, etc., would be the sought after tools. Today we play games trying to fix one fault (such as HD800 6k Hz peaks, harshness, and lack of bass response or LCD-X lack of sufficient treble response) by using another fault (a darker or brighter amp or various tubes that add euphonic distortion).

The Utopia is leading us in that direction. If I had to define neutralit, I'd say go listen to the Utopia. All the regions of frequency response are represented equally. It's not bright, or dark, or mid-centric: It's neutral.

My earlier comment regarding the HD800 vs the LCD-X represents my preference on what faults I consider to be better than other faults. I welcome the day when manufacturers of headphones, amps, and DACs cannot create TOTL gear with major faults or in other words, neutral.

 

[rodgerdodger]

I see what you're saying. I have come around to understanding and agreeing with Tyll's opinion in his article on the Focal Utopia, Elear, and briefly on the Ether Flow. He basically says the new crop of headphones do not have any major faults. We would instead differentiate amongst them on subtle presentation choices.

Neutral (I'll use that word) upstream gear, meaning amps and DACs that do not add better bass response or clean up treble harshness, etc., would be the sought after tools. Today we play games trying to fix one fault (such as HD800 6k Hz peaks, harshness, and lack of bass response or LCD-X lack of sufficient treble response) by using another fault (a darker or brighter amp or various tubes that add euphonic distortion).

The Utopia is leading us in that direction. If I had to define neutralit, I'd say go listen to the Utopia. All the regions of frequency response are represented equally. It's not bright, or dark, or mid-centric: It's neutral.

My earlier comment regarding the HD800 vs the LCD-X represents my preference on what faults I consider to be better than other faults. I welcome the day when manufacturers of headphones, amps, and DACs cannot create TOTL gear with major faults or in other words, neutral.

can Utopia produce Sub Bass?

 

[TimeLord]

can Utopia produce Sub Bass?

One of the interesting things about bass response that I have found in headphones like the HD800 is the type of music one listens to drastically affects the quantity of bass that is reproduced. If someone is listening to a bass guitar or cello, the bass response of the HD800 is good. If however someone is listening to EDM, then there is a woeful lack of bass. This, I believe, is what leads to the drastically different perceptions of the HD800 where some listeners report adequate bass response and others finding the bass response to be anemic. I listen to a wide genre of music; unless I'm listening to classical or jazz, there is too much missing from the HD800 for me.
 
The LCD-X works well with most genres of music where it is able to reproduce very good mids combined with plunging bass. Where it fails, happens to be exactly where the HD800 excels. Classical and jazz are not the LCD-X's strong suits.
 
The Utopia absolutely produces sub bass. When I'm listening to the Utopia, I don't feel like I am missing bass like I do listening to the HD800 and that opinion carries across all genre of music. In direct comparison, the LCD-X does have more bass, but the Utopia's bass is more controlled, precise, and balanced across the frequency response. You won't feel like you're missing bass when listening to the Utopia.

 

[rodgerdodger]

I see what you're saying. I have come around to understanding and agreeing with Tyll's opinion in his article on the Focal Utopia, Elear, and briefly on the Ether Flow. He basically says the new crop of headphones do not have any major faults. We would instead differentiate amongst them on subtle presentation choices.

Neutral (I'll use that word) upstream gear, meaning amps and DACs that do not add better bass response or clean up treble harshness, etc., would be the sought after tools. Today we play games trying to fix one fault (such as HD800 6k Hz peaks, harshness, and lack of bass response or LCD-X lack of sufficient treble response) by using another fault (a darker or brighter amp or various tubes that add euphonic distortion).

The Utopia is leading us in that direction. If I had to define neutralit, I'd say go listen to the Utopia. All the regions of frequency response are represented equally. It's not bright, or dark, or mid-centric: It's neutral.

My earlier comment regarding the HD800 vs the LCD-X represents my preference on what faults I consider to be better than other faults. I welcome the day when manufacturers of headphones, amps, and DACs cannot create TOTL gear with major faults or in other words, neutral.

 
I think in order to measure neutrality it needs to be done directly against a songs freq analysis then matched against how the headphones produce that song, done across a broad spectrum of songs. This would give consumers a greater insight into the headphones without even listening to them.
 
Tyll etc could do this with measurements, 5 songs 5 different genres the freq analysis of the songs vs the freq response of the headphones, not that hard to do eg
 

 

[CCXR594]

   
I think in order to measure neutrality it needs to be done directly against a songs freq analysis then matched against how the headphones produce that song, done across a broad spectrum of songs. This would give consumers a greater insight into the headphones without even listening to them.
 
Tyll etc could do this with measurements, 5 songs 5 different genres the freq analysis of the songs vs the freq response of the headphones, not that hard to do eg
 

 
A good idea in theory, but the standard headphone frequency response measurement using white noise or a sine wave sweep is more telling since all frequencies are represented equally, whereas in most songs, not every frequency is hit. This lets us see exactly how well the headphones can reproduce the given frequencies.
 
Doing the measurement on a song by song basis would lead to funny weighting, and also, how would you measure the frequency response curve of a song? Add up the relative loudness of every frequency at every second to create a cumulative graph?

 

[rodgerdodger]

Its easy to capture frequency response of any song using apps like Ozone. Its extremely useful
 
you set it to capture
play song through completely or segment of a song,
it averages and present the frequency response of the song as i pictured above, just like an FR graph for headphones.
 
Its commonly used in mastering etc when you want visual representation of a song or for a/b comparison.
 
Also used to room calibration.
 
You snapshot a song played within your DAW
you then sit in your studio listening position with a dynamic mic.
Play the song you took a snapshot off through your speakers/sub and snapshot that from the mic.
 
You then know how to adjust your sub speaker placement to match to how the frequency response of the song actually is.
 
I don't know if the sweeping method is entirely ideal, im no expert on how they measure but, presume they do not simultaneously have sine or tone at all frequencies. You will never listen to headphones like this.
 
To put another way, if i play a really bassy song on say cheaper beyerdynamics the bass will drown out the highs (either driver limitation or acoustics within enclosure) If i play the same bassy song on Audeze there will be more bass but, the highs will remain untouched. You would see this in a matching of a songs freq analysis vs headphones playback analysis.
 
If someone wants to donate me all flagship headphones, measuring equipment, ill come up with a far better standard for neutrality and guideline to a headphones sound signature
 
1 jazz song, 1 Rock song, 1 EDM song, 1 orchestral song, 1 Metal song, 1 Banjo Battle song

 

[CCXR594]

Sweeping and white noise both produce the same results, with sweeping possibly being more accurate since only one frequency is being played at any given time, being easier for the diaphragm to cope with. White noise would be more representative of the stresses put on the transducer while playing back or recording the complex sounds present in most music. 
 
Cool that Ozone has a feature like that, which solves the how question, but why still remains. I dont understand how tuning to a specific song yields any advantages over using white noise, especially for monitoring, when you want to hear exactly what is in the recording, and not the coloration of the speakers/cans let alone coloration from the last piece you tuned to.
 
One super easy way to do a direct comparison on a song by song basis would be to just play back the file through whatever speaker or headphone is being tested, and record with an absurdly flat responding mic (like the DPA 4006) and then run a comparison on the two files to find the deviation percentage.
 
But, this conversation is better suited for a producing/general forum instead of derailing this thread.

 

[rodgerdodger]

  Sweeping and white noise both produce the same results, with sweeping possibly being more accurate since only one frequency is being played at any given time, being easier for the diaphragm to cope with. White noise would be more representative of the stresses put on the transducer while playing back or recording the complex sounds present in most music. 
 
Cool that Ozone has a feature like that, which solves the how question, but why still remains. I dont understand how tuning to a specific song yields any advantages over using white noise, especially for monitoring, when you want to hear exactly what is in the recording, and not the coloration of the speakers/cans let alone coloration from the last piece you tuned to.
 
One super easy way to do a direct comparison on a song by song basis would be to just play back the file through whatever speaker or headphone is being tested, and record with an absurdly flat responding mic (like the DPA 4006) and then run a comparison on the two files to find the deviation percentage.
 
But, this conversation is better suited for a producing/general forum instead of derailing this thread.

 
ahhaha underail underail
 
One thing i have noticed is despite the marketing of easy to drive for lcd-x, you do need an amp,
 
was just using audio interface at first and was testing some reece bass solo'd i was trying to get into a mix, noticed distortion kicking in once i pumped the volume, first thoughts were oh crap they are faulty, quickly plugged them into, my speaker matrix, same thing happening oh crap, got out my m-stage hpa2 and problem solved. Could go well past the volume i was getting the distortion at before, actually couldn't hit distortion without deafening myself