[figaro69]

  What a bunch of crap.

hehehe!

 

[NinjaHamster]

  When a product is considered to be the "ne plus ultra" of it's respective category and charges a significant premium then it would seem to be contradictory to state that it is the "best" of the dark and laid back category and that SQ needs to be accepted.  There is only one "best", regardless of any single persons subjective appraisal.  Now, how to describe what the "best" is is open to discussion, but it must contain many if not all of the agreed upon merits of headphones that are detailed in this extensive forum of knowledgeable users.  

Um, nobody has talked about the "best" of anything - whether dark, bright, low-cost or high-cost (which are all relative terms anyway).  Well, at least I haven't as I wouldn't be that lax with words - however, I will endeavour to use the word "best" within this post as you have introduced it as a concept (even though I abhor the lazy thought process this entails).  "Best" - Pfft !  In a subjective endeavour ?  
 
I certainly haven't said any particular sonic signature needs to be accepted, by anybody.
 
Read what I said again - slowly this time - so that you might make better sense of what I did say and may then be better equipped to address what has actually been stated.
 
If anyone purchases a headphone with the expectation (garnered from whence, I wonder?) that something which is more expensive (the "ne plus ultra" of its category) is the unequivocal "best" - or even will be more likely to have a sound signature that they personally like than a cheaper headphone also chosen at random - then they are labouring under a gross misapprehension.  Nobody should buy a component - especially an expensive component - without any form of research, unless they are prepared to accept the result/s of that lack of preparation as being their own responsibility (with full acknowledgement that this may not directly pertain to yourself; the LCD-2 and LCD-3 might have been presents given to you, for instance).
 
In general, if somebody says something is the "ne plus ultra" of anything, one might be inclined to do a little research before paying a high price for an item they know nothing about (or in this case potentially doing it twice - disliking an LCD-2 AND an LCD-3 ... two headphones which are reported to be very similar in sound signature).  Your mistake is believing that if something is the "ne plus ultra" of its category, it should have an entirely neutral sound - or a sound tailored to whatever you enjoy.  It doesn't work like that and you'll be wasting so much money if you continue to adopt this erroneous belief pattern.
 
Virtually every review of the LCD-2 and 3 that I have read acknowledges their "dark and laid back" nature, this is an opinion echoed every day within this very forum, and has been since these respective phones were released.  This leads me to wonder why anyone who views "dark and laid back" as being a "flaw" (it isn't necessarily - it is a type of sound; some will like it, some won't), would buy either of the LCD-2 or LCD-3, let alone both of them.  Read before you buy, and if anyone chooses not to do so, then I believe they should at least have the integrity to admit that it might not be these "ne plus ultra" and "high cost" phones which are to blame in not being neutral/enjoyable/to their taste.
 
Spending large quantities of money indiscriminately will never guarantee you of a sound presentation you like.  If it were that easy, well ... it's not that easy.
 
I should also mention (just as a pre-emptive warning), that buying an Abyss, or a Stax 009 will still entail some research despite them being even more expensive ... everything has a sonic signature, regardless of price, and if it is not a sonic signature you like, it won't help that they've cost you $5,000 ... just as the old LCD's are often considered "dark" phones, and the HD800's (also a "ne plus ultra" design) are often considered "bright" headphones, you may even find even the Orpheus doesn't fit your desired sonic presentation either.
 
PS.  It is not that the "dark and laid back" sound presentation of the Audeze is an unacceptable flaw which needs to be accepted:
 
"When a product is considered to be the "ne plus ultra" of it's respective category and charges a significant premium then it would seem to be contradictory to state that it is the "best" of the dark and laid back category and that SQ needs to be accepted".  
 
It is a sonic presentation (all components have 'em) which is neither flawed nor great - it just is.  Price has nothing to do with it (as I previously argued, but you appear to have misinterpreted). An expensive headphone is ALLOWED to be laid back, bright, dark, fast, liquid, bass light, bass heavy or whatever subjective terms you wish to apportion.  For many people the sonic presentation of the older Audeze phones (which have sold very well I believe) is NOT a flaw they are being forced to accept, it is a boon - one of the defining reasons to buy them.  If someone is unaware of their own sonic preferences before making a purchase, or is unprepared to read some reviews or check some forums for opinions then what chance do they have of purchasing something which will suit them ?  It will just be sheer luck.  However, the poor purchase decision/s shouldn't be blamed upon the headphones themselves (or their perceived "lacks") as tempting as it is to blame even incorporeal objects for our own mistakes.

 

[amham]

 

  When a product is considered to be the "ne plus ultra" of it's respective category and charges a significant premium then it would seem to be contradictory to state that it is the "best" of the dark and laid back category and that SQ needs to be accepted.  There is only one "best", regardless of any single persons subjective appraisal.  Now, how to describe what the "best" is is open to discussion, but it must contain many if not all of the agreed upon merits of headphones that are detailed in this extensive forum of knowledgeable users.  

Um, nobody has talked about the "best" of anything - whether dark, bright, low-cost or high-cost (which are all relative terms anyway).  Well, at least I haven't as I wouldn't be that lax with words - however, I will endeavour to use the word "best" within this post as you have introduced it as a concept (even though I abhor the lazy thought process this entails).  "Best" - Pfft !  In a subjective endeavour ?  
 
I certainly haven't said any particular sonic signature needs to be accepted, by anybody.
 
Read what I said again - slowly this time - so that you might make better sense of what I did say and may then be better equipped to address what has actually been stated.
 
If anyone purchases a headphone with the expectation (garnered from whence, I wonder?) that something which is more expensive (the "ne plus ultra" of its category) is the unequivocal "best" - or even will be more likely to have a sound signature that they personally like than a cheaper headphone also chosen at random - then they are labouring under a gross misapprehension.  Nobody should buy a component - especially an expensive component - without any form of research, unless they are prepared to accept the result/s of that lack of preparation as being their own responsibility (with full acknowledgement that this may not directly pertain to yourself; the LCD-2 and LCD-3 might have been presents given to you, for instance).
 
In general, if somebody says something is the "ne plus ultra" of anything, one might be inclined to do a little research before paying a high price for an item they know nothing about (or in this case potentially doing it twice - disliking an LCD-2 AND an LCD-3 ... two headphones which are reported to be very similar in sound signature).  Your mistake is believing that if something is the "ne plus ultra" of its category, it should have an entirely neutral sound - or a sound tailored to whatever you enjoy.  It doesn't work like that and you'll be wasting so much money if you continue to adopt this erroneous belief pattern.
 
Virtually every review of the LCD-2 and 3 that I have read acknowledges their "dark and laid back" nature, and that this is an opinion echoed every day within this very forum and has been since these respective phones were released.  This leads me to wonder why anyone who views "dark and laid back" as being a "flaw" (it isn't necessarily - it is a type of sound; some will like it, some won't), would buy either of the LCD-2 or LCD-3, let alone both of them.  Read before you buy, and if anyone chooses not to do so, then I believe they should at least have the integrity to admit that it might not be these "ne plus ultra" and "high cost" phones which are to blame in not being neutral/enjoyable/to their taste.
 
Spending large quantities of money indiscriminately will never guarantee you of a sound presentation you like.  If it were that easy, well ... it's not that easy.
 
I should also mention (just as a pre-emptive warning), that buying an Abyss, or a Stax 009 will still entail some research despite them being even more expensive ... everything has a sonic signature, regardless of price, and if it is not a sonic signature you like it won't help that they've cost you $5,000 ... just as the old LCD's are often considered "dark" phones, and the HD800 are often considered "bright" headphones (also a "ne plus ultra" design) you may even find even the Orpheus doesn't fit your desired sonic presentation either.
 
PS.  It is not that the "dark and laid back" sound presentation of the Audeze is an unacceptable flaw which needs to be accepted:
 
"When a product is considered to be the "ne plus ultra" of it's respective category and charges a significant premium then it would seem to be contradictory to state that it is the "best" of the dark and laid back category and that SQ needs to be accepted".  
 
It is a sonic presentation (all components have 'em) which is neither flawed nor great - it just is.  Price has nothing to do with it (as I previously argued, but you appear to have misinterpreted). An expensive headphone is ALLOWED to be laid back, bright, dark, fast, liquid, bass light, bass heavy or whatever subjective terms you wish to apportion.  For many people the sonic presentation of the older Audeze phones (which have sold very well I believe) is NOT a flaw they are being forced to accept, it is a boon - one of the defining reasons to buy them.  If someone is unaware of their own sonic preferences before making a purchase, or is unprepared to read some reviews or check some forums for opinions then what chance do they have of purchasing something which will suit them - it will just be sheer luck.  However, the poor purchase decision/s shouldn't be blamed upon the headphones themselves (or their perceived "lacks") as tempting as it is to blame even incorporeal objects for our own mistakes.

I counted the number of words in each of our replies, and YOU WIN, by a large margin!
 
Best Regards

 

[NinjaHamster]

Not a word count competition ! 

 

[figaro69]

  Um, nobody has talked about the "best" of anything - whether dark, bright, low-cost or high-cost (which are all relative terms anyway).  Well, at least I haven't as I wouldn't be that lax with words - however, I will endeavour to use the word "best" within this post as you have introduced it as a concept (even though I abhor the lazy thought process this entails).  "Best" - Pfft !  In a subjective endeavour ?
 
I certainly haven't said any particular sonic signature needs to be accepted, by anybody.
 
Read what I said again - slowly this time - so that you might make better sense of what I did say and may then be better equipped to address what has actually been stated.
 
If anyone purchases a headphone with the expectation (garnered from whence, I wonder?) that something which is more expensive (the "ne plus ultra" of its category) is the unequivocal "best" - or even will be more likely to have a sound signature that they personally like than a cheaper headphone also chosen at random - then they are labouring under a gross misapprehension.  Nobody should buy a component - especially an expensive component - without any form of research, unless they are prepared to accept the result/s of that lack of preparation as being their own responsibility (with full acknowledgement that this may not directly pertain to yourself; the LCD-2 and LCD-3 might have been presents given to you, for instance).
 
In general, if somebody says something is the "ne plus ultra" of anything, one might be inclined to do a little research before paying a high price for an item they know nothing about (or in this case potentially doing it twice - disliking an LCD-2 AND an LCD-3 ... two headphones which are reported to be very similar in sound signature).  Your mistake is believing that if something is the "ne plus ultra" of its category, it should have an entirely neutral sound - or a sound tailored to whatever you enjoy.  It doesn't work like that and you'll be wasting so much money if you continue to adopt this erroneous belief pattern.
 
Virtually every review of the LCD-2 and 3 that I have read acknowledges their "dark and laid back" nature, this is an opinion echoed every day within this very forum, and has been since these respective phones were released.  This leads me to wonder why anyone who views "dark and laid back" as being a "flaw" (it isn't necessarily - it is a type of sound; some will like it, some won't), would buy either of the LCD-2 or LCD-3, let alone both of them.  Read before you buy, and if anyone chooses not to do so, then I believe they should at least have the integrity to admit that it might not be these "ne plus ultra" and "high cost" phones which are to blame in not being neutral/enjoyable/to their taste.
 
Spending large quantities of money indiscriminately will never guarantee you of a sound presentation you like.  If it were that easy, well ... it's not that easy.
 
I should also mention (just as a pre-emptive warning), that buying an Abyss, or a Stax 009 will still entail some research despite them being even more expensive ... everything has a sonic signature, regardless of price, and if it is not a sonic signature you like, it won't help that they've cost you $5,000 ... just as the old LCD's are often considered "dark" phones, and the HD800's (also a "ne plus ultra" design) are often considered "bright" headphones, you may even find even the Orpheus doesn't fit your desired sonic presentation either.
 
PS.  It is not that the "dark and laid back" sound presentation of the Audeze is an unacceptable flaw which needs to be accepted:
 
"When a product is considered to be the "ne plus ultra" of it's respective category and charges a significant premium then it would seem to be contradictory to state that it is the "best" of the dark and laid back category and that SQ needs to be accepted".
 
It is a sonic presentation (all components have 'em) which is neither flawed nor great - it just is.  Price has nothing to do with it (as I previously argued, but you appear to have misinterpreted). An expensive headphone is ALLOWED to be laid back, bright, dark, fast, liquid, bass light, bass heavy or whatever subjective terms you wish to apportion.  For many people the sonic presentation of the older Audeze phones (which have sold very well I believe) is NOT a flaw they are being forced to accept, it is a boon - one of the defining reasons to buy them.  If someone is unaware of their own sonic preferences before making a purchase, or is unprepared to read some reviews or check some forums for opinions then what chance do they have of purchasing something which will suit them ?  It will just be sheer luck.  However, the poor purchase decision/s shouldn't be blamed upon the headphones themselves (or their perceived "lacks") as tempting as it is to blame even incorporeal objects for our own mistakes.

Fully agree.  The reason why I never bought the LCD-3s even though people generally raved about them is due to the fact that they were laid back and dark-sounding, which is a sound signature I don't particularly care for given that I listen to Classical music almost exclusively and I need a good amount of treble.  Even though I don't particularly care for such a sound signature, that does not in any way mean that I don' t consider the LCD-3 to be one of the best headphones in the world...they are indeed one of the best, just not for me.

 

[redstar]

Can somebody re-cap on what works best with the LCD-X
 
From my reading, I am under the assumption of the following;
 
Burson Conductor
Woo WA7
Mjolnir
SPL Phonitor

 

[Frank I]

I been listening all day yesterday and today with the LCD X on the WA5 and it by far the very best Audeze headphone I have heard to date. This headphone has a bigger sound stage and better defined bass than the other headphones and is not warm or syrupy.   There is more air than other model from the Audeze line and this is a true reference caliber headphone.

 

[figaro69]

  Can somebody re-cap on what works best with the LCD-X
 
From my reading, I am under the assumption of the following;
 
Burson Conductor
Woo WA7
Mjolnir
SPL Phonitor

Add the Grace 902/903 to the list!

 

[figaro69]

  I been listening all day yesterday and today with the LCD X on the WA5 and it by far the very best Audeze headphone I have heard to date. This headphone has a bigger sound stage and better defined bass than the other headphones and is not warm or syrupy.   There is more air than other model from the Audeze line and this is a true reference caliper headphone.

Heed Frank I's words of wisdom and the truth shall set you free!!!

 

[musikaladin]

After I received the LCD-X I started burn-in and listening via my HDVD-800:
 

 
In the beginning I was quite happy with it, but...

 

 

 

 
I find the LCD-X is in the Ultrasone ED-10 category a huge failure, the X has one of the poorest midrange like a void where all details are lost

when u say details - is it mostly in the higher frequency rather than mid range ?
u   lost me here .....

thinker wrote "(...) midrange (...) where all details are lost." that's quite clear, isn't it?

Frankly along burn-in, let's say between 50 and 70 hrs, my LCX-X became rather "un-defined" in the midrange as well, and I already started to get nervous. Then suddenly the midrange kind of re-adjusted itself practically from one day to another, and since that they sound wonderfully transparent. I am now at approx. 200 hrs and I hope it remains like that. I only experienced similar effect in the 1980s with Jecklin Float electrostatic phones which reacted very sensitive on changes of temperature and/or humidity. I remember some others were also reporting about similar effects with different electrostatic speakers and phones. In this case the effect would be independent of burn-in and could reappear at any time. Still, the LCD is not an elecrostatic phone, so I guess ( hope) it should be rather free of such reactions to changing external conditions.

Anyway, I do not know what caused it, but I will observe....

 
Luckily things remained stable from here. But still, since that I developed a feeling that there must be more... hard to say what it was, the bass was full and well defined, treble and mid range well resolved and never fatiguing or aggressive. Just around the lower mid range somehow something wasn't quite right. Not that it wasn't transparent, it rather was kind of too soft, quilted; but that was really really hard to identify and describe, because anything around this affected bandwidth was doing so well. Sometimes I even doubted whether I fantasize... Still, after I started recognizing this effect once, it was then permanently disturbing me very much. After several weeks with the LCD-X in combination with the HDVD-800 I also found the sound a little dry / sterile.
 
So I decided to try something else. I tried two more solid state amps both with interesting, but not really satisfying results. Then I connected the LCD-x directly to the speaker jacks of my little Shanling MC-30 (2 x 3W) (I used it that way before with my K-1000, so I just needed to connect the LCD-X to the K-1000's "speaker-to-4-pin-balanced-cable"). I put on Yello, The Touch, Friday Smile... indeed it was a Friday, and I smiled...
There it was. All of it.
Grande Mamamia...
 

1. Low Range: Alternating pressure fields...
2. Mid Range: Things happening around me...
3. High Range: If air could burn, I guess it would sound like this... (that was just what came to my mind when I heard it first, but surely one could also understand "burning air" as a reference to the distinguished Plasma-Tweeters...)
4. Dynamics: Lifelike
5. Transparency: All frequency-ranges perfectly clear.
6. Fun Factor: Hoooray

 
That could have been a happy end if there wasn't...
 

 

LCD-X is not difficult to drive. At 96 dB/SPL any decent portable amp can drive it.

I wouldn't agree at all... Yes efficiency is high, but that doesn't mean that it's easy to drive, at least if you consider sound-quality more relevant than sound-pressure.
Quite interesting how the LCD-X discussion changed here on headfi along the months, starting with "easy to drive" to more recent discussions where it becomes clear that the LCD-X actually is quite picky concerning the amp... I just hit a sound-jackpot with one of my tube amps' speaker output (3W). Just some minor issues to solve, some humming, need a little resistor network there...

 
 
Now the resistor-network is here, and the background noise is gone.
 
I use the the Hifiman Adapter, it's resistors are just fine for this combination (be careful, it might not be feasible at all for the LCD-X in combination with other / stronger amplifiers).
 

 
It is the little black box in the rear between the MC-30 and the turntable. I also bought some new tubes for the MC-30. After burn-in my initial sound impressions can be reconfirmed, I cross checked with:
 

1. Bob James & Earl Klugh / Cool, whole CD
2. Beasty Boys / The Sound from Way out!, whole LP
3. SOAD / Mesmerize, Revenga
4. The Shins / Port of Morrow, The Rifle's Spiral
5. The The / Mind Bomb, Good Morning Beautiful
6. Van Morrison / No Guru no Method no Teacher, whole LP
7. Faithless / To all new Arrivals, whole CD
8. Jazz at the Pawnshop, whole LP
9. La Folia whole CD

 
You see it is really hard to just pick single songs, once I started listening I mostly finished the whole CD / LP.
 
I don't want to go into detailed sound descriptions here, because it sounded so great to me that it simply defies any description.... at least with my limited means of verbal expression.
That's it.
 
Then, just to relax a little after a long and hard listening day ... Yello again, this time Pocket Universe, Magnetic... and Yello is essentially putting it in a nutshell:
 
"... Magnetic, Energetic and... Beauuutiful..."
 
Cheers!

 

[MIBViking]

I`m waiting on a new DAC/Headamp from Apl hifi (Alex Peychev) which I think will crush my Mytek+Taurus combo

 

[Sanlitun]

  Can somebody re-cap on what works best with the LCD-X
 
From my reading, I am under the assumption of the following;
 
Burson Conductor
Woo WA7
Mjolnir
SPL Phonitor

 
Questyle CMA800R.

 

[Focker]

Was really looking forward to firing up my Little Dot I+ to see how it got along with the Xs, but was a bit disappointed. Might be the output impedance thing, I dunno, but the Xs sound much better with the Meier Jazz and Classic. I do sometimes like a little tube flavor with my headphones, though, so I'm hoping my Yaqin tube buffer will be the solution. I've had great results with the buffer in play previously, but I need to upgrade the tubes...still have it in stock configuration. 
 
I'm really impressed with how beautiful the Xs sound with Jan's amps, though...I"m usually more of a tube guy, but I just love Jan's SS amps. 
 
Anyone else using a tube buffer in the path? 
 
I'm also really eager to see the ZO3 when they come out with it...really eager to try that with the Xs. 

 

[Asr]

Can somebody re-cap on what works best with the LCD-X  
From my reading, I am under the assumption of the following;
 
SPL Phonitor

 
Who said the LCD-X works well with the SPL Phonitor? Its listed maximum power output @ 32 Ohms (+10 Ohms from the LCD-X's 22 Ohm impedance) is 360 mW. On their Web site, Audeze recommends an amp that can output 1-4W. It's clear from those figures that the SPL Phonitor is completely incapable of properly driving the LCD-X.

 

[Tony1110]

Who said the LCD-X works well with the SPL Phonitor? Its listed maximum power output @ 32 Ohms (+10 Ohms from the LCD-X's 22 Ohm impedance) is 360 mW. On their Web site, Audeze recommends an amp that can output 1-4W. It's clear from those figures that the SPL Phonitor is completely incapable of properly driving the LCD-X.

Think he might mean the Phonitor 2 which is supposed to be optimised for low-impedance headphones.

I'm unsure about the power output so I couldn't say whether it'd be any good for orthos.