[MacedonianHero]

 
Those statements are kind of at odds--aren't they? If Audeze has designed a new generation driver, doesn't it stand to reason that it's superior to the LCD-3 driver? What would be the point of a completely redesigned driver that doesn't sound quite as good as one they already manufacture? Audeze isn't claiming they found a way to increase production and lower costs like HiFiMan did with a simplified HE-400 driver. The LCD-X is close to the same price point as the LCD-3.

"new generation" are your words.....

 They could have been redesigned to give them a different sound, or cost them down, or make them lighter, or....
 
The HE-500s are a "new generation" with more efficient drivers compared to the HE-6s...but yet the HE-6s are still the better headphones.

 

[kkcc]

Those statements are kind of at odds--aren't they? If Audeze has designed a new generation driver, doesn't it stand to reason that it's superior to the LCD-3 driver? What would be the point of a completely redesigned driver that doesn't sound quite as good as one they already manufacture? Audeze isn't claiming they found a way to increase production and lower costs like HiFiMan did with a simplified HE-400 driver. The LCD-X is close to the same price point as the LCD-3.

I don't really find them contradicting.

The unsaid thing is that they may, or may not be also using this redesigned driver for LCD3, or this resigned driver actually came as a result from their works on fixing and improving the LCD3 driver since its launch 2 yrs ago. My LCD3 from Mar2012 definitely don't sound like my later one from Jul this year. We did see a trend of later batches LCD3 to sound brighter, less veiled than initial/earlier ones, which also collaborated with the LCD-X's more studio/reference tuning. It seemed audeze's intention is to fine tune the LCD3 more to "audiophile" liking and LCD-X to "industry" liking, and which one sounds "better" would likely be entirely subjective as they would be technically on par. Of course audeze claimed a "breakthrough" as late as this July on their R&D but it isn't inconceivable the breakthrough is based upon all their experiences accumulated until that point where they systematically apply all new tricks in their driver production and boom - the redesigned driver.

My gut feeling is they will still sound very very alike with the current LCD3, with the key difference on the wood trim aesthetics. Which added extra cost and justifying the "flagship" status as the most expensive model in the lineup. LCD-X would be the better bang-for-the-sound choice.

 

[cizx]

 
Those statements are kind of at odds--aren't they? If Audeze has designed a new generation driver, doesn't it stand to reason that it's superior to the LCD-3 driver? What would be the point of a completely redesigned driver that doesn't sound quite as good as one they already manufacture? Audeze isn't claiming they found a way to increase production and lower costs like HiFiMan did with a simplified HE-400 driver. The LCD-X is close to the same price point as the LCD-3.

No, they're not at odds.  They could have engineered it to be cheaper, sacrificing some sound quality compared with the LCD-3, to reach a different segment.  They made it more neutral to appeal to professionals, not audiophiles. 

 

[Dubstep Girl]

  No, they're not at odds.  They could have engineered it to be cheaper, sacrificing some sound quality compared with the LCD-3, to reach a different segment.  They made it more neutral to appeal to professionals, not audiophiles. 

 

 

[cizx]

not only audiophiles.

 

[Barry S]

  "new generation" are your words.....

 They could have been redesigned to give them a different sound, or cost them down, or make them lighter, or....
 
The HE-500s are a "new generation" with more efficient drivers compared to the HE-6s...but yet the HE-6s are still the better headphones.

Well, they are a new generation driver-- I suppose they could be inferior, but nothing really points to that.  I thought I saw the weight of the LCD-X posted as comparable, but I could be mistaken--they might be lighter. They could be easier/less expensive to manufacture and Audeze ends up with a better margin--because they're not passing along any savings as far as I can tell. Maybe the genesis was a specialized driver design to tune the XC's closed design and they liked the flavor in an open design, too. I also think they've been continuing research on the planar magnetic design and would want to incorporate improvements.
 

I don't really find them contradicting.

The unsaid thing is that they may, or may not be also using this redesigned driver for LCD3, or this resigned driver actually came as a result from their works on fixing and improving the LCD3 driver since its launch 2 yrs ago. My LCD3 from Mar2012 definitely don't sound like my later one from Jul this year. We did see a trend of later batches LCD3 to sound brighter, less veiled than initial/earlier ones, which also collaborated with the LCD-X's more studio/reference tuning. It seemed audeze's intention is to fine tune the LCD3 more to "audiophile" liking and LCD-X to "industry" liking, and which one sounds "better" would likely be entirely subjective as they would be technically on par. Of course audeze claimed a "breakthrough" as late as this July on their R&D but it isn't inconceivable the breakthrough is based upon all their experiences accumulated until that point where they systematically apply all new tricks in their driver production and boom - the redesigned driver.

My gut feeling is they will still sound very very alike with the current LCD3, with the key difference on the wood trim aesthetics. Which added extra cost and justifying the "flagship" status as the most expensive model in the lineup. LCD-X would be the better bang-for-the-sound choice.

 
Yes, Audeze, has made some versioned and running changes to their drivers.  The Audeze goal is making the best possible planar magnetic drivers. Using the X driver in the LCD-3 doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't they just sell the LCD-3 with two different shell choices like the LCD-2?
 

  No, they're not at odds.  They could have engineered it to be cheaper, sacrificing some sound quality compared with the LCD-3, to reach a different segment.  They made it more neutral to appeal to professionals, not audiophiles. 

Sacrificing sound quality to make a studio reference headphone?  Why?  Especially when the cost is so close.

 

[DairyProduce]

I think the biggest issue is that its pricing is so similar to the LCD-3, especially after you take into account the cost of the zebrano wood...

 

[MacedonianHero]

I think the biggest issue is that its pricing is so similar to the LCD-3, especially after you take into account the cost of the zebrano wood...

Not really. The NRE for a new product is always higher and that equals higher costs ( new tooling, moulds, etc...). And wrt the zebrano wood, if you look at the Sveiking headphone stands, it's one of the cheaper options there.

 

[wuwhere]

  No, they're not at odds.  They could have engineered it to be cheaper, sacrificing some sound quality compared with the LCD-3, to reach a different segment.  They made it more neutral to appeal to professionals, not audiophiles. 

 
Really? I seriously doubt that.

 

[AmbientK]

Observing what have been released so far, it look like the $1k - $2k range is well covered. Wood housing is a signature that they've build their first two products on. Awaiting the option for the LCD-XC with glossy mahogany or macassar wood.
 

 

[Sweden]

If they managed to cut down some of the weight from the 2s and 3s it would almost be worth it buying them for a premium for that reason. If they could improve soundstage and treble it would be ever better.
Pretty silly that a headphone should weigh over a lb in 2013. I don't have too high hopes it will be a substantial decrease in weight however, and those closed ones look to weigh 2 lb.

 

[alota]

well...today begins the waltz of listening impressions

 

[dan.gheorghe]

 
Those statements are kind of at odds--aren't they? If Audeze has designed a new generation driver, doesn't it stand to reason that it's superior to the LCD-3 driver? What would be the point of a completely redesigned driver that doesn't sound quite as good as one they already manufacture? Audeze isn't claiming they found a way to increase production and lower costs like HiFiMan did with a simplified HE-400 driver. The LCD-X is close to the same price point as the LCD-3.

The point would be efficiency and the possibility of including it in closed headphones. However we shall see, actually hear )

 

[Dopaminer]

 
Those statements are kind of at odds--aren't they? If Audeze has designed a new generation driver, doesn't it stand to reason that it's superior to the LCD-3 driver? What would be the point of a completely redesigned driver that doesn't sound quite as good as one they already manufacture? Audeze isn't claiming they found a way to increase production and lower costs like HiFiMan did with a simplified HE-400 driver. The LCD-X is close to the same price point as the LCD-3.

I think they may be doing the marketing strategy that Apple has used so successfully: increasing spec with each new model, but decreasing price as well.  I wouldn`t be surprised at all if the x outperforms the 3....   
 
On another topic, those closed versions are already mentally occupying a space on desk and burning a hole in my wallet.

 

[arnaud]

  I think they may be doing the marketing strategy that Apple has used so successfully: increasing spec with each new model, but decreasing price as well.  I wouldn`t be surprised at all if the x outperforms the 3....   

 
Humm, I think you haven't been here long enough to witness the price evolution with all the generations... It started as a bargain, then became fair before it went overboard (IMO) and maybe now is recalibration time.