[tamleo]

  The treble issue with the LCD-X is what I would consider minor and not on the scale of the stock HD800. We are talking about some edginess to horns, snares, upper end of female vocals, etc. Whereas with the HD800, the more marginal quality pop recordings, especially the remasters or stuff from the early 80s, are totally unlistenable to me.
 
My main issue with the LCD-X is that it isn't as cohesive of the LCD-2/3: Once I adjust to the presentation of say the LCD2.2 or a good LCD3, those headphones never fail to put a smile on my face regardless of recording, even the marginal ones. The LCD-X, with the its thinner, less tactile mids, splash of mid-treble, doesn't make me smile as consistently. Occasional, there's even a What.
 
Again, just nitpicking. I do find that the LCD-X is pretty good once I get accustomed to its sound. The LCD-X does have some very good technicalities such as speed, clarity, precision; but once I move back to the LCD-2/3 or even HE-500 (jerg/modular pads), I say to myself, "Ahhh, that's more right."
 
For those who are confused, expect the LCD-X to continue to generate more disparate opinions if the SD meet was any indication.

I have the LCD-2. Your posts really make me comfortable Thanks

 

[Devarika Woulf]

So, to basically sum up what we've all learnt so far...makes sense!

 

 

[dan.gheorghe]

  So, to basically sum up what we've all learnt so far...makes sense!

 

 
=)) 
 
Look at what arrived today for review :
 

 

[negura]

It's probably also a statement from Audeze that "these are really close to the LCD-3s but not quite the flagship". Whether people agree with that in the end or not that's something else.

 

[RCBinTN]

   
Perhaps I should have clarified... I'm interested in people's first initial impression upon listening.  As in their gut emotional response within the first few seconds.  Just trying to take a different approach from other people's x versus y comparison.

Here's my initial, very low-tech, impression of the LCD-X after listening for three hours last Friday...
 
I ordered my LCD-X from www.audeze.com on October 27.  They were delivered today, November 1.
 
Initial impressions...comparing to Ultrasone ED-8.  The LCD-X are my first open cans, I don't have any other open cans to compare with the LCD-X.
1. Heavy and not comfortable on the head.
2. Have to remove the cables to store the cans in the travel case.
3. Great sound and sound stage - the sound easily beats the ED-8 in all respects.
 
I listened to a wide range of familiar music...Alan Jackson, Queen, Yes, Mozart, Jeff Beck, Led Zeppelin, Adele, Journey, Beatles, Bela Fleck, Billy Cobham, SRV.  The LCD-X sound better than the ED-8 on all.  I was more impressed with the male voices than the female voices.  The sound seems more impressive on music that has a wide tonal range, like jazz, instead of pure rock.
Great bass, wide soundstage, nice mids and treble.  I hear music that I've never heard before.  I am impressed so far.
 
Simple comments, but I wanted to share my experience.
 
All the best -
RCBinTN

 

[RCBinTN]

  When I read comments about certain headphones sounding good with all recordings, that suggests to me it lacks transparency. The headphone is coloring everything that comes through it. In some cases, that means poor recordings will sound more listenable. But it also means that excellent recordings will not sound as glorious as they should. The phone is pulling both good and bad recordings toward a compromised middle. The HD800 is highly transparent. That is why I love it. Transparency is also why I previously shied away from Audeze headphones, because they mellowed everything out. From what I heard about the X and its supposedly more neutral/transparent voicing, I thought it might be more to my tastes than Audeze's other phones. So far, based on a few days of listening, I think Audeze probably succeeded (although comfort is not even close to the HD800). The X is not as transparent as my HD-800. But it is close. And the X has a colorful tone that is a nice change from the HD800. I have especially enjoyed how piano and vocals sound on the X as compared to the HD800.
 
Many of you are eager to know how the X compares to the LCD 2 or LCD 3. I don't think Audeze was aiming at people who like/love the 2 or 3. I think Audeze was trying to create a new audience for its products by offering a phone that appeals to people who previously had chosen not to get either the 2 or the 3, in favor of perhaps the HD800, or the T1.

+1  Well written.

 

[SMG52]

In case you haven't seen this review yet:
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-nsc-audeze-lcd-xc-review-1800-headphones-20131103,0,5110462.story?page=1

 

[sbradley02]

http://stereos.about.com/od/portableandpersonalaudio/ss/Audeze-LCD-XC-Headphone-Measurements_2.htm
here you go.

Thanks!
Isolation is what I was looking for, quite good but not exceptional. It is in line with the Ultrasone Signature Pro and Fostex TH-900 both of which Headroom lists as noise blocking.

 

[sbradley02]

  Going to guess that the LCD-3 / LCD-XC is going to be the best combo to own.  If I could have gotten an all wood LCD-XC I wood have! (would/ wood.... get it? yeah that was pretty bad lol 

 )   Was planning on a th-900 originally but I don't think they have warranty in the states.

http://www.headphone.com/headphones/fostex-th-900.php

 

[TMRaven]

Isolation numbers look a bit better than the TH900, more in-line with the Audio  Technica M50.  It gets down to around 30db of isolation at 5khz, whereas M50 is around 35db of isolation at 5khz.  The TH900 is only 20db of isolation at 5khz. 
 
I'm cross-refferencing the inner-fidelity measurements with these though, which isn't the best example.  Only real way to know how they compare is if IF measures the XC.

 

[sbradley02]

  Isolation numbers look a bit better than the TH900, more in-line with the Audio  Technica M50.  It gets down to around 30db of isolation at 5khz, whereas M50 is around 35db of isolation at 5khz.  The TH900 is only 20db of isolation at 5khz. 
 
I'm cross-refferencing the inner-fidelity measurements with these though, which isn't the best example.  Only real way to know how they compare is if IF measures the XC.

Good points. I think HeadRoom will post measurements though when they get theirs in hand.
The comparison that will matter most to me is against my Thunderpants for which there is no data, so will need to compare in person.

 

[RCBinTN]

  In case you haven't seen this review yet:
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-nsc-audeze-lcd-xc-review-1800-headphones-20131103,0,5110462.story?page=1

You have to be a subscriber to access that info in the Chicago Tribune.

 

[Saiya-Jin]

I don't think anyone has provided any impression with Metal music, anyone had the chance to listen to some on their lcd-X ?
 
I tried researching about whether Audeze's are even good for Metal, which is what I mostly listen to, but I seem to get conflicting arguments, mostly about the lcd-3.
 
The lcd-X also seem to be a lot easier to power than the lcd-2/3, but to what extent ?.  I currently only have a Schiit Asgard 1 which I use to run my Grado PS500.  Would I get decent/acceptable sound out of that with the lcd-x until I can upgrade to a Mjolnir (or equivalent) ?
 
Thanks

 

[PuffyElvis]

Interesting increase in frequency between the 1 kHz and 4 kHz on the XC.  Makes me wonder if they sound bright over time or just natural...
 
Great link by the way, thanks!

 

[Focker]

  You have to be a subscriber to access that info in the Chicago Tribune.

 
Just give them a fake email...takes two secs