Latest Thread Images

Audeze LCD-X
Dec 15, 2016 at 12:06 PM Post #8,716 of 12,748
thefitz said:
  OTL tube amps and 20 ohm loads seldom mix well
Click to expand...

Not at all sure where you get that, but...
 
I have the Shiite Asgard 2 AND the Ember 2. 
 
The Asgard 2 was retired after I heard the Ember 2. The Ember blows the Asgard out of the water.
 
The pairing of my LCD-X and Ember 2 is made in heaven. Yes, I'm sure I can spend $2000+ and have something better. But the price/value proposition is incredible and blows away the Asgard. 
 
And if you pick up the Ember 2, the ping to your wallet is so little that one day, if you really want to go for the last 5 - 10% of what's possible, then go for it. 
 
To me, everyday, I'm in sonic heaven with Ember 2. And if I want to vary the sound, I can change the tube and away I go. 
 
Plainly said... other amps may not be as good as the Ember 2, but the amp pairs incredibly well with the LCD-X.
 
Dec 15, 2016 at 12:09 PM Post #8,717 of 12,748
superu said:
  Not at all sure where you get that, but...
 
I have the Shiite Asgard 2 AND the Ember 2. 
 
Click to expand...

*facepalm* I read Valhalla 2 for some strange reason.
 
Dec 15, 2016 at 1:44 PM Post #8,718 of 12,748
I had chance listen after long time again Audeze LCD (owned LCD2 two years ago and had borrow LCDX one month at home last year) in shop two hours. Reason I was interest how Brooklyn DAC play with headphones. Mm I have to say I really like the sound of the Audeze. Strangely I found LCD3 more flat neutral dry than LCDX (really do not know what versions it was I guess LCD3 no fazor and LCDX version from 2015) and for this reason LCD3 had better feel losing from head when played. LCDX had some little colour which I do not know how to explain it but still their clean sound absorb you. LCDX is more extended(reverberation), more dynamic too than LCD3, also LCDX is a little more forward but if you listen music on lower volume(as me) maybe it can be small advantage. 
So LCD3 was against LCDX hollower and noticeable flat which I was surprised, reason could be Brooklyn and LCDX could have better synergy because it is easier drive.
GS2000e I listended only one song with them, sorry I did not get even chance them because I did not hear potencial, it was a little off in my opinion.
HE560 was very nice sounding, it sounded just normal and evidently narower, probably more truth sound. But I prefer more biger sound of Audeze and their natural focus on faithful feel. At the end different between LCDX and LCD3 was not big, both share base Audeze house sound. But because I felt LCDX is more dynamic from Brooklyn (probably better synergy) I would grab them.
 


 
Dec 15, 2016 at 3:00 PM Post #8,720 of 12,748
knopi said:
 
Strangely I found LCD3 more flat neutral dry than LCDX (really do not know what versions it was I guess LCD3 no fazor and LCDX version from 2015)
Click to expand...

Really? Maybe you got a defective one? Non fazors were known for their lushness and they almost retained it even after the Fazors. I'm not sure about the 2016 drivers though.
 
Dec 15, 2016 at 4:00 PM Post #8,721 of 12,748
carlosunchained said:
 
I wrote Valhalla 2, not your fault. I read before that Ember II was somewhat great with the Xs, @SuperU seems to throw flowers over it.
 
It was a bit biased question...
Click to expand...

Yes, I "throw flowers over it". I'd snuggle up to it in bed and buy it gifts even. I'm THAT happy with it. 
smily_headphones1.gif

 
And I haven't heard of anyone that isn't - nor have I read anyone saying that it is not a great pairing with the LCD-X.
 
The problem is, if you want to call it a problem, it doesn't have a huge price tag to equal it's performance. So some might look down their nose at it. But if you can "live" with a reasonably priced amp... if you can imagine incredible sound from an amp without spending a small fortune, then aim thee they attention in the direction of the Ember 2. Quick before you are suckered into buying a high priced amp (or even a medium priced one) believing that you "must have" a hugely priced amp to "do these cans justice". That just ain't so with the Ember.
 
They have tons of power, you can adjust every parameter easily, change the sound to what you want through the tubes and so much more. 
 
Now frankly, I've only tried 2 tubes. I asked the builder of the amp what he recommends based on his recommendations and bought both. One of them stood out to me. Done. End of that issue. I'm happy. The cost still blows me away. And every day, I have a smile on my face for 3 reasons... 1. The amazing, end game sound of the Ember. 2. The even more amazingly small amount of money it cost. And 3. Well, this one, my wife will be happy that I'm going to simply say... there are some things gentlemen just don't talk about. 
 
You still reading? Well, you aren't experiencing the sound I'm describing then. So make it happen. You will thank me. So will your wallet. If you have already parted with the money for the LCD-X's, this is a drop in the bucket in comparison.
 
Dec 15, 2016 at 6:05 PM Post #8,722 of 12,748
gamergtx260 said:
Yes. Had them both at one point. The LCD Xs are more flatter with a bump in the low end. The bass slam was the best in that price range, it had a very punchy, deep to the deepest lows. The vocals were a bit forward and so they sounded really nice. But that's about it, I hate to admit but I really didn't like them.

The LCD 4s are totally on a different level. If you liked the bass on the LCD X then you will say the Xs are nothing in the lows after listening to the LCD 4s. The bass is very very unique and I think only the 4s can produce such a marvelous low end. No contest here.

I would summarize it this way.
LCD 4 = bass of LCD X multiplied infinite times + a tad lesser creamier than the LCD 3 ( still very nice lush mids) + comparable treble to the X ( still has a lot of air )+ detail retrieval of the HD 800 + soundstage of the HD 800S + weight of LCD XC + vocals of the singer next to you ( honestly they have the best vocals I've ever heard in any audio producing equipment ). Looks like they took in the best of all worlds but I still had to return them just because of the weight and driver failures.
Click to expand...

 
Great posts and detailed comparisons, the table is over the top!  Very nice work.  Vielen Dank!
 
If you have a chance to audition the Ether Flow, I would enjoy your impressions on where they fit into the table.  My current line-up is the LCD-X, HD800 and Ether Flow.
 
I bought the Flow instead of the LCD-4, partly due to price but also I thought the LCD-4 wouldn't be a huge upgrade over the LCD-X.  Your comments now make me want to audition the 4.  They are super-expensive but perhaps, in the future, Audez'e will trickle-down the technology and roll out the LCD-X2 or the LCD-Y?  That would be a cool idea, IMO.
 
I've heard the LCD-3F and was not impressed.  I prefer the more neutral sound of the X (and the HD800).  I don't use any mods or EQ on any cans or any music.
 
BTW, my Bryston BHA-1 amp (along with the GMB) provides a nice quantity of bass with the HD800.  I heard the HD800S at a meet and didn't prefer them, to me they sounded like a dampened version of the HD800.  Maybe when I'm listening to the HD800, I become a treble head :).
 
Prosit,
RCB
 
Dec 16, 2016 at 6:56 AM Post #8,724 of 12,748
knopi said:
Yes I know I was surprised.
Hard to tell if LCD3 which I heard was defective one, had to test them longer time and at home..
Click to expand...

By any chance are they with the newer 2016 drivers? I would be worried then, cuz mine is on the way to Audeze for the upgrade :frowning2:
Did they lost their lushness from the previous versions?
 
Dec 16, 2016 at 11:19 AM Post #8,726 of 12,748
I alsodrive both my HD800's and my LCD X's with the IDSD Micro.  Both cans sound phenomenal with it, and it certainly has all the power and drive anyone could ever ask for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top