[reddragon]

  Interesting another planar, I bet that in 10 years from now there will be a lot of planar headphones. Now that manufacturers are making them cheaper and they are better than dynamics.

 
 
isnt that more of a personal preference?

 

[ethan7000]

From the CanJam thread:

My written impressions are already fairly long and I'm not even halfway done yet, so it's going to be a while longer, especially with my current busy schedule. Will try to get everything done & posted by Friday (including the rest of the pics).

I'll just start with this for today and will post more as more is completed:

- Audeze LCD-XC and LCD-X (amp: ALO Studio Six, source: unknown): As previously said, I was able to get a relatively long amount of time, undisturbed, at the Audeze table on Sunday (about 20-30 minutes), so I pulled out my own LCD-2 r2 for a 3-way comparison.

The LCD-2 r2 was definitely sonically closer to the X, and farther from the XC, though all 3 did share a general similarity (the full mid-range and physically tactile sound). In fact, the LCD-2 was close enough to the X that I knew I didn't have enough time to even start comparing them. All I could tell was that there were a few minor differences, like slightly more treble & bass extension & quantity (at the extremes, not really in general) on the X and more "ease" to the sound. I know it's vague but the X sounded less tense than the 2. Certainly I'm sure that there were more differences between the X and 2, but I just didn't have enough time to explore them, as it would've required extended swapping and music that I was familiar with (there was no familiar music on Audeze's computer).

The XC really sounded like a closed headphone - quite closed-in (small-ish soundstage and more closed-in than the LCD-2), with a lot of bass quantity, enough that it reminded me of the LCD-3's high bass quantity. The bass was deep, thick, and forceful, much more than on the LCD-2, very satisfactory with the unfamiliar electronica on Audeze's computer. Very heavy- and full-sounding as well, and borderline aggressive/upfront, almost Audio-Technica AD2K-ish in its style. It was so upfront it almost didn't sound like an Audeze, it was more like my AD2K in that aspect.

For me the best way to describe the relationship between the 3 headphones: the XC was sort of DJ-ish-sounding with its bass and forwardness (and Alex of Audeze did actually use them later while DJ-ing the Saturday night beer social), the 2 was in-between with its relative neutrality, and the X was like a more refined, wider- & deeper-sounding version of the 2 with more "separation/diffusion" throughout. Informally, I'd say that those who want a clearer, more open-sounding Audeze might want to look into the X. I know that I'm already more interested in the X than the XC and will probably eventually buy one to fully check it out. It was also really classy-looking with the blue-grey aluminum enclosure.

A note on efficiency as well: both the X and XC were noticeably much more efficient than the 2. They were almost twice as efficient, requiring only about half as much turn on the volume knob to reach approximately the same volume level as the 2! I thought this was a welcome change for their amping requirements, as it makes them more easily driven by high-current solid-state low-Z amps like the HeadAmp Gilmore Lite (which I'm currently using, so that'd make me happy if I got an LCD-X).

The LCD-2 sounding like it was between them aside, I didn't think the X and XC were very similar-sounding. It'd be more accurate to say that I thought they were more unlike each other, with the X more neutral (similar voicing to the LCD-2 in that aspect) and the XC more skewed towards the bass and lower mid-range. Neither of them really improved the Audeze comfort level for me either - they were both still relatively heavy and bulky. IMO, anyone who finds the LCD-2/LCD-3 uncomfortable isn't going to get much more comfort from the X or XC.

Lastly, the X and XC weren't all that great to me either, and IMO are just more cases of vastly overpriced headphones and IMO should cost closer to half of what they do - like $1K or thereabouts at most. I oppose this trend of >$1K headphones mostly because I think it's crazy having to pay more than $1K for headphones unless they're discontinued! Neither was especially better-sounding than the LCD-2, and for the price difference I don't think it'd be unreasonable to expect an obvious sonic upgrade, but to me there was none.

Asr's impressions are pretty much in line with mine, though I didn't hear a large difference between the XC and the other models.

 

[nicholars]

   
 
isnt that more of a personal preference?

 
Well yes I suppose but technically they are better than dynamics.

 

[TMRaven]

Thanks for some of the comparisons and impressions, looking forward to more.

 

[dryvadeum]

Well yes I suppose but technically they are better than dynamics.

Please explain...

 

[nicholars]

Please explain...

 
Probably the worlds best headphones are all orthodynamic....
 
LCD2/3, Hifiman HE500/HE6 etc.
 
Here are some advantages.....
 
Advantages of Planar Magnetic Drivers There are so many advantages to this type of driver in a headphone that I’m surprised it hasn’t caught on more. Let’s work our way down the list.
 
Planar Sound Wavefront --- In my opinion, this may be the most important characteristic advantage of Orthodynamic headphones. Standard dynamic drivers are fairly small and essentially operate as a point source of sound radiating a spherical section wavefront. When a spherical wavefront hits your ears it reflects on the outer ear in a geometrically different way than a planar wavefront. This causes the focusing of sound entering your ear to behave somewhat differently than it would normally. It is surmised that this disturbance of the reflective characteristics of your ear may inhibit normal localization of sound, and therefore disturb the audio image heard.
 
Headphones like the Stax electrostatics, AKG K1000 earspeakers, and Sennheiser HD 800 with it’s large ring-radiator, are known for their excellent audio imaging likely due to the more planar wavefront they present the ear. I find the imaging (such as it is on headphones) to be quite good on the latest crop of planar magnetic headphones, though possibly not quite as good as those mentioned above. My guess is that the high-end planar magnetic headphone makers (Audez’e and HiFiMAN) need to move the drivers a little forward and angle them back towards the ear to make improvements here.
Low Distortion --- Unlike dynamic drivers that are driven from the point at which the voice coil is attached (usually near the center), planar magnetic drivers are forced to move over their entire surface. This means they don’t suffer from modal break-up found on traditional drivers when the cone surface starts wobbling in undesirable ways at higher frequencies.
Large and Powerful Diaphragm --- Getting powerful, tight bass response is difficult for most dynamic headphones as the driver surface area is relatively small and would have to make large excursions to move the volume of air that good bass response requires. The force used in electrostatic drivers (the static force the makes your socks cling together out of the drier) is relatively weak compared to the electro-magnetic force in planar magnetic drivers. Electrostatic drivers have trouble delivering the horsepower needed for big bass notes. The large surface area of the planar magnetic driver coupled with the powerful drive of the electromagnetic force permits large amounts of air to be moved with authority. My experience with planar magnetic cans is that they offer the best bass response of any type of headphone.
Responsiveness --- The diaphragm in an Orthodynamic headphone is very light, and the electromagnetic force is very strong, so the ability for the signal to accelerate the diaphragm is very, very good. Like electrostatic speakers, planar magnetic headphones tend to sound very coherent and spacious.

 

[Jesterphile]

And here's the source: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/how-planar-magnetic-headphones-work-page-2 
 
--
 
You haven't really explained why they're 'technically superior', you've just copied an article by Tyll explaining their advantages (and disadvantages.)

 

[miceblue]

Yee and it's planar magnetic. Audeze's headphones are not owned by Yamaha.

Don't forget electrostatic headphones too. I prefer an entry STAX system over the LCD-2

 

[nicholars]

  And here's the source: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/how-planar-magnetic-headphones-work-page-2 
 
--
 
You haven't really explained why they're 'technically superior', you've just copied an article by Tyll explaining their advantages (and disadvantages.)

 
Hmmm well yes that is what I did, well observed.... I assumed this would be better than my own explanation.... If you google it or search on head-fi then there is a lot of information..... But basically planar can do things that dynamic headphones can't... open headphones with deep, low distortion bass (dynamics you either have closed headphones with powerful bass or open headphones which sound better but cannot do proper sub bass (planar can do both at the same time), very fast response, low distortion, better bass and mids, more linear sound as well as the advantages I just posted, overall a superior technology.... Which I expect we will see a lot more of in the future....

 

[nicholars]

Yee and it's planar magnetic. Audeze's headphones are not owned by Yamaha.

Don't forget electrostatic headphones too. I prefer an entry STAX system over the LCD-2

 
Pretty sure it is basically the same thing... Yes well supposedly STAX are the best headphones in the world but they are extremely expensive... Never heard them so I don't know...

 

[Jesterphile]

I don't think one technology is technically superior than the other; they all have advantages and disadvantages just have to find a set of cans that have disadvantages you can live with/don't care about.

 

[nicholars]

  I don't think one technology is technically superior than the other; they all have advantages and disadvantages just have to find a set of cans that have disadvantages you can live with/don't care about.

 
Not really though, objectively speaking... Planar is a superior technology to dynamic...

 

[TMRaven]

And on the other hand, the HD800 is one of the most well measured headphones-- if not the most well measured headphone-- on the market.  Too bad its coloration is that of a plateau'd treble region.
 
Planar Magnetics and Electorstats are dominating the high-end sector these days.  Seems like the second renaissance of Planar Magnetics.

 

[nicholars]

  And on the other hand, the HD800 is one of the most well measured headphones-- if not the most well measured headphone-- on the market.  Too bad its coloration is that of a plateau'd treble region.
 
Planar Magnetics and Electorstats are dominating the high-end sector these days.  Seems like the second renaissance of Planar Magnetics.

 
True but the HD800 still cannot do the bass that planars can.

 

[TMRaven]

Well I don't disagree with you there.