[Shaka]

Thanks again for all the advice. I'm making a list of all the ams and dacs you guys use and will start to check them all out and hopefully I'll find a suitable solution soon.
In the meantime, I'm trying to run the lcd3's as much as possible.
 
cheers,
 
Shaka

 

[FrankCooter]

Check out the Metrum and the Audio Note dacs. Both fit well with LCD signature.  Both are European companies, so hopefully you can find a dealer for a demo.

 

[Shaka]

  Check out the Metrum and the Audio Note dacs. Both fit well with LCD signature.  Both are European companies, so hopefully you can find a dealer for a demo.

 
Frank, thanks very much for this info. I hadn't heard of Metrum before. I've spent an hour or so looking at their DACs and reading online reviews/comments. I'm really impressed with what I've read so far. The Octave Mk II sounds like a pretty good product and in my sort of price bracket.
 I'm going to try and get a demo of this just as soon as I'm in a position to buy something.
 
cheers,
 
Shaka

 

[Dubstep Girl]

i got toe hear the LCD-X at the chicago meet and wanted to post some impressions for those LCD-3 owners considering the X.
 
i got to compare LCD-3, LCD-X, LCD-2r2, LCD-2r1 on the Master 8, the GSX MK2, and the Mjolnir/Gungnir stack. it was nice having all the audeze's there.
 
anyways, the LCD-X are great, but its up to you to decide. i felt the LCD-X was more like an upgrade to the LCD-2. the LCD-X definitely had the audeze warmth, it was slightly darker and more neutralish like the LCD-2, but not as dark. the treble is better on LCD-X, its not as colored. and its nothing like the LCD-3, the LCD-3 seemed just a tiny tiny bit more resolving, but its too close to call, mostly, the LCD-3 is smoother, bigger soundstage, slightly leaner in a way i think. but very similar. the LCD-3 is creamy, smooth, more colored, and lighter on the bass than the LCD-X, but more resolving (slightly), and liquidy. 
 
the LCD-X goes more towards the LCD-2 sound. being more neutral as in more treble and less dark and closed in. theres no congestion, but the soundstage is smaller than the LCD-3. the bass, its awesome! its more than the LCD-3, its like the LCD-2 bass, but deeper and more extended. in some ways, i prefer the X and am considering it. its that magic middle i wanted, that more forward, more slam, more attack, less creamy sounding LCD-3, but i also really like how good the LCD-3 sounds, wider, more smooth, more liquid, so "yummy" as Tyll describes it.
 
anyways, its too close to call. i think the LCD-3 is still the flagship, but i kinda like the bass of the LCD-X more, it hits harder with that similar slam and sound of the LCD-2. the LCD-X is much more like the 2 than the 3, but they're all so similar, definitely the same house sound.
 
now as for the rev 1..... its more forgiving, but its also less resolving and a step below the others. it sounded great on the mjolnir/gungnir though. i know people rave about this combo, i think it suits the LCD-2 better than the LCD-3 or LCD-X but thats just imo.
 
anyways, if you are a LCD-3 owner. the X is great, but its too close that its not worth selling the 3 probably unless you like the slightly more LCD-2-esque presentation and are willing to trade some of the LCD3's liquidity and spaciousness for the extra bass and slightly more forward/punchy sound of the LCD-2. performance-wise, the LCD-X isn't better, the LCD-3 isn't better. i prefer both in different ways since they overlap. i like the LCD-3s overall refinement more, but i like the energy bass and neutrality (as in colorations, not neutral as in freq response) that the LCD-X carries. i am thinking of owning both, but they're too close sounding that i feel that i'd be happy with either one. and it'd be silly to own both.


 

 

[magiccabbage]

  i got toe hear the LCD-X at the chicago meet and wanted to post some impressions for those LCD-3 owners considering the X.
 
i got to compare LCD-3, LCD-X, LCD-2r2, LCD-2r1 on the Master 8, the GSX MK2, and the Mjolnir/Gungnir stack. it was nice having all the audeze's there.
 
anyways, the LCD-X are great, but its up to you to decide. i felt the LCD-X was more like an upgrade to the LCD-2. the LCD-X definitely had the audeze warmth, it was slightly darker and more neutralish like the LCD-2, but not as dark. the treble is better on LCD-X, its not as colored. and its nothing like the LCD-3, the LCD-3 seemed just a tiny tiny bit more resolving, but its too close to call, mostly, the LCD-3 is smoother, bigger soundstage, slightly leaner in a way i think. but very similar. the LCD-3 is creamy, smooth, more colored, and lighter on the bass than the LCD-X, but more resolving (slightly), and liquidy. 
 
the LCD-X goes more towards the LCD-2 sound. being more neutral as in more treble and less dark and closed in. theres no congestion, but the soundstage is smaller than the LCD-3. the bass, its awesome! its more than the LCD-3, its like the LCD-2 bass, but deeper and more extended. in some ways, i prefer the X and am considering it. its that magic middle i wanted, that more forward, more slam, more attack, less creamy sounding LCD-3, but i also really like how good the LCD-3 sounds, wider, more smooth, more liquid, so "yummy" as Tyll describes it.
 
anyways, its too close to call. i think the LCD-3 is still the flagship, but i kinda like the bass of the LCD-X more, it hits harder with that similar slam and sound of the LCD-2. the LCD-X is much more like the 2 than the 3, but they're all so similar, definitely the same house sound.
 
now as for the rev 1..... its more forgiving, but its also less resolving and a step below the others. it sounded great on the mjolnir/gungnir though. i know people rave about this combo, i think it suits the LCD-2 better than the LCD-3 or LCD-X but thats just imo.
 
anyways, if you are a LCD-3 owner. the X is great, but its too close that its not worth selling the 3 probably unless you like the slightly more LCD-2-esque presentation and are willing to trade some of the LCD3's liquidity and spaciousness for the extra bass and slightly more forward/punchy sound of the LCD-2. performance-wise, the LCD-X isn't better, the LCD-3 isn't better. i prefer both in different ways since they overlap. i like the LCD-3s overall refinement more, but i like the energy bass and neutrality (as in colorations, not neutral as in freq response) that the LCD-X carries. i am thinking of owning both, but they're too close sounding that i feel that i'd be happy with either one. and it'd be silly to own both.


 

great impressions, it clears up a lot especially knowing that you owned the 2 and 3. The lcdx could be in the pipeline for me but i wish there was an option to get one with wooden cups, i don't much like the metal ones. 

 

[citraian]

What about the Master8? How does it compare with the GS-X?

 

[preproman]

Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
the LCD-3 is smoother, bigger soundstage, slightly leaner in a way i think. but very similar. the LCD-3 is creamy, smooth, more colored, and lighter on the bass than the LCD-X, but more resolving (slightly), and liquidly. 

 
Does this mean the X has more weight to the notes?  I never thought the LCD-3s were lean.  Is the treble on the X harsh or etched in any way by it being less smooth?
 
What area is the LCD-3 more resolving at - in the treble, mids, bass?

 

[Dubstep Girl]

yes the LCD-X has more weight. due to the bass, its more like an LCD-2 in many aspects.
 
there is no harshness or etchedness like the LCD-2. its more LCD-3 like in the treble because the treble is better. theres more of it but its not etched. just its not smoothed out either. its more neutral.
 
i find the LCD-3 to be the HD 650, and the LCD-X to be the HD 600. thats the best analogy i can think of. i posted some more impressions in the LCD-X thread. and answered some questions to clarify. i'll try and keep my LCD-X talk there so more people can see it. just wanted to point it out here since i know many LCD-3 owners are dying to know whether they should sell their LCD-3 or not. i don't think they should unless they hear the LCD-X and decide if they prefer that presentation of the Audeze house sound better. 
 
as for resolution, it overlaps, the treble is simmilar. the LCD-X is more forward like LCD-2, you might hear some things more. the LCD-3 is more laid back and smooth, you might hear some things less. the LCD-X has more bass slam and body like the 2, its also slower though, that will change it as well.
 
its close enough i think neither really pulls out ahead.
 
the LCD-3 just has a sort of magic to it with its smoothness and large soundstage that make it the "flagship" still. the LCD-3 still though, sometimes leaves me wanting a little more bass, or more engagement, the LCD-X is there, but it also loses some of that magic the LCD-3 has. its really hard to decide. i don't even know myself if i wanna get the X. ideally i'd have both. but they're also too close to decide on. the bass on the X i really enjoy though, its more LCD-2 like and that was the thing i loved most of the 2s.

 

[CanDude]

  and it'd be silly to own both.


 

 
Then I'm silly! 

  Unfortunately it will be a couple of weeks before I get my LCD-X.

 

[Dustandshadow13]

I've been listening to my LCD-3s for a week now and I find myself impressed yet let down at the same time. Some of my music sounds incredible, but some of it sounds messy.

The stuff that sounds a mess is a lot of the newer metal that I like. It seems like all I am hearing are the mids and no treble. I would like to assume it is just the mastering but I am not sure.

 

[magiccabbage]

Anyone tried the EF6 with LCD3? I'm thinking of maybe purchasing it for planars. 

 

[nigeljames]

The Master-6 is better amp IMO than the EF-6, especially for an headphone with the tonal balance of the LCD's.
 
Unless you want a laid back, relaxing and slightly distant sound, based on my experience when I compared the EF6 to the Master-6.

 

[Kiont]

I've been listening to my LCD-3s for a week now and I find myself impressed yet let down at the same time. Some of my music sounds incredible, but some of it sounds messy.

The stuff that sounds a mess is a lot of the newer metal that I like. It seems like all I am hearing are the mids and no treble. I would like to assume it is just the mastering but I am not sure.

 
Not sure if applies to what you listen to, but I would say most of the new stuff nowadays is mastered to be heard using iPod headphones or something like that while being streamed.
 
The "newest" thing I listen to is Linkin Park and yes, most of it (IMO) sounds "messy" through the LCD-3.

 

[philo50]

  Anyone tried the EF6 with LCD3? I'm thinking of maybe purchasing it for planars. 

I use the EF-6 for both the HE-6 and LCD-3's....it does a wonderful job with both. It also sounds great with higher impedance dynamics like the T1 and HD-800's. Sounds good but not optimal with lower impedance phones. The EF-6 doesn't get the love it deserves IMO...

 

[Dubstep Girl]

might not have the volume range for HE-6 that people like me might need.
 
quiet recordings or loud listeners, i don't think its the best choice. also the EF-6 costs as much as a good speaker amp (like those awesome first watt amps everyones talking about 

)