[zeiter]

No, this one is in Edmonton. The one in Vancouver is called headphone Bar, and I got my LCD-2 from them. Excellent service . Guy's name is Travis.

Is this Dealer in Vancouver?
I'm strongly considering buying a set of Xs from them.. Sounds like their customer service is good

~~No, this one is in Edmonton. The one in Vancouver is called headphone Bar, and I got my LCD-2 from them. Excellent customer  service, no question . Contact name is Travis.

 

[jibzilla]

.

 

[groovyd]

At least one of them is browsing this site and trying to avoid the bad reputation... that is good to see.  I thought there was some law about manufacturers being required to accept purchased returns of their products regardless of the dealer for defective merchandise.  Has something to do with protecting consumers for this sort of pointing the finger endless loop thing.

 

[paradoxper]

No need to worry. Audez'e boasts the best Customer Service around.

 

[xsankar]

Zeiter, Please PM me your headphone serial number and I will look into this today. 

 

[zeiter]

  Zeiter, Please PM me your headphone serial number and I will look into this today. 

PM sent. Thanks

 

[DairyProduce]

That CS 

 

[zeiter]

Sent info to Sankar, at Audeze, and I'm returning them with dealer paying return shipping. I'll post later in few days the outcome if they're defective( which I'm sure they are, they can't be so inferior to the LCD-2 or LCD-3).

 

[commtrd]

Audeze always seems to attempt to provide exemplary customer service. Quite admirable in combination with really great products. Still infatuated with my LCD3s.

 

[xsankar]

  >> My experience with Audeze customer support was completely the opposite.  Maybe their popularity is getting to their heads...

I hope not. Maybe if you catch us on a bad day, our replies may be delayed, but we will definitely get back to you. 
At Audeze we are very well aware of our roots and how much the Head-Fi community has contributed. We do take customer service seriously and want all our customers to be happy with our products and will do whatever it takes to keep them happy. Unfortunately with dealers, international shipping/customs etc, there are some annoying processes we have to deal with.  

 

[zeiter]

I just shipped the headphones back to be checked, and dealer agreed to handle the return shipping charges ( after somebody from Audeze contacted him ) THANK YOU Audeze. So everything looks Ok, and going in the right direction for now. My issue from beginning was never that nobody replied, on the contrary I called and was lucky to talk to somebody on support. I was frustrated that I was trying to explain my SQ problem, and the agent was explaining to me how sensitive and loud the X are compared to the 3, and how many db more, etc.... It's like we were on different waves. Then another frustration,  when Audeze refused to handle return shipping charges ( I know it's clear on their warranty info that customer pays back return, and Audeze pays to return them back, and it's the case with every other manufacturer for warrant issues ) but in my case, I received them not satisfactory from beginning, which means they were not properly checked before leaving factory, so why should they cost me another $100 to have them replaced or fixed ?  I have not used them yet by then, and even after using them for 80 hours, they remained in that condition. Third frustration, when I offered to return them if that's the way they are built ( I hope that is not the case ), and there's nothing wrong with them  them since we're only 14 days and within the 30 days Audeze policy,   and was denied that as they were not purchased directly from Audeze , but from an authorized Audeze  dealer who definitely would not take them as they were a special non stocked order item ( and he specified non returnable ). I was disappointed after explaining to the agent that I was a loyal customer with the third product from them within a year, but that did not make any difference. Just to clarify something, I purchased the LCD-2  a year ago and love them,  ( they're my son's now )then got the LCD-3 and love them even more. So  it's not like I'm some Sennheiser HD800 fan who received the X and di not enjoy the Audeze house sound,  it's the LCD-X  within same family, and to not like it ( compared to the 2 & the 3 ), and heard by two other people besides me, I am surprised. BTW I had the HD800 for few weeks last year, and sold them before getting the LCD-2 and was much happier with the Audeze. Not putting the HD800 down, just my personal taste. And I just received the TH900 two months ago,  kept them for two weeks, and then sold them before getting the LCD-X. TH-900 were great also  but not for my listening style , witch acoustics and vocals, and did not like the U frequency curve. I`ll post the outcome when I get more updates. I wasted some money on these headphones, but I`m the person who has to listen in person to the HP and decides if I like them or not. Yes I`ll read about them before, but I`m the final judge for me I guess like most people.

 

[mbrennwa]

I did a comparison of the LCD-X, LCD-2 and LCD-3 in a local shop yesterday. I ran the LCDs off my Linnenberg u:c:a MK2 DAC/HeadAmp using a MacBook with Audirvana software. The LCD-2 was a shop demo, so it was probably broken in fairly well. The LCD-X was broken in specifically for the test by playing music over night. The LCD-3 was fresh out of the box, not broken in. I first listened to the LCD-2, then the LCD-X, then the LCD-3. I did my best to adjust the volumes after changing from one LCD to another in order to compensate for sensitivity differences of the LCDs.
 
Here's what I found (spoiler alert: my findings are somewhat different from the mainstream):

Going from LCD-2 to LCD-X: The LCD-X had more drive and ‘speed’ than LCD-2. The LCD-X sounded brighter and therefore (objectively) more balanced than the LCD-2, but that was not important to me (I don't mind the somewhat dark presentation of the LCD-2 at all). In fact, the LCD-X sounded a wee bit harsh compared to the LCD-2. ’S’ sounds sometimes sounded like ‘Z’. For instance, this was very obvious with the famous Christy Baron / Ain’t no Sunshine track.
 
Going from LCD-X to LCD-3: The LCD-3 sounds warmer than the LCD-X. The tonal balance is somewhere in between LCD-2 and LCD-X (again, not an important point for me). The LCD-3 sound has more air, the presentation is more relaxed and light-footed at the same time. The LCD-3 retains the 'speed' of the LCD-X, but lacks the the tendency for harshness observed with the LCD-X.

Further tests (switching between the three headphones) confirmed the above impressions. Overall, I preferred the LCD-2 and LCD-3 over the LCD-X, especially when it comes to 'listening fatigue' when listening for a long time (more than an hour or so). The LCD-2 sounds lame compared to LCD-3 (ok, that's a gross exaggeration). Music shines more with LCD-3, has more glow, emotion, and expression. With the LCD-3 I felt closer to the musicians than with the LCD-2.
 
In conclusion, the tonal balance of the LCD-X may be better than with the LCD-2 in 'objective' HiFi terms (if that exists). However, I would not be happy with the LCD-X in the long term due to it's tendency for harsh 'S' sounds. From the three LCDs, I clearly preferred the (not yet broken-in!) LCD-3. This conclusion may have rather negative effects on my wallet.
 
Cheers
mbrennwa

 

[kkcc]

I did a comparison of the LCD-X, LCD-2 and LCD-3 in a local shop yesterday. I ran the LCDs off my Linnenberg u:c:a MK2 DAC/HeadAmp using a MacBook with Audirvana software. The LCD-2 was a shop demo, so it was probably broken in fairly well. The LCD-X was broken in specifically for the test by playing music over night. The LCD-3 was fresh out of the box, not broken in. I first listened to the LCD-2, then the LCD-X, then the LCD-3. I did my best to adjust the volumes after changing from one LCD to another in order to compensate for sensitivity differences of the LCDs.

Here's what I found (spoiler alert: my findings are somewhat different from the mainstream):

.....

From the three LCDs, I clearly preferred the (not yet broken-in!) LCD-3. This conclusion may have rather negative effects on my wallet.

Cheers
mbrennwa

------

Well you are not alone in your preference. I share most of what you describe maybe except I feel LCD2 to be a lot less transparent than the X and 3 and I rank it a class lower. Between the X and 3, it is more of a preference as you described - faster leaner slightly brighter sound vs lusher smoother slightly warmer sound. A less mentioned aspect is the the X is easier to drive and would sound better with lesser amps or even portables. I need to stop demo'ing or reading a out the X else I would breakdown soon to own both.

 

[eantala]

  I did a comparison of the LCD-X, LCD-2 and LCD-3 in a local shop yesterday. I ran the LCDs off my Linnenberg u:c:a MK2 DAC/HeadAmp using a MacBook with Audirvana software. The LCD-2 was a shop demo, so it was probably broken in fairly well. The LCD-X was broken in specifically for the test by playing music over night. The LCD-3 was fresh out of the box, not broken in. I first listened to the LCD-2, then the LCD-X, then the LCD-3. I did my best to adjust the volumes after changing from one LCD to another in order to compensate for sensitivity differences of the LCDs.
 
Here's what I found (spoiler alert: my findings are somewhat different from the mainstream):

Going from LCD-2 to LCD-X: The LCD-X had more drive and ‘speed’ than LCD-2. The LCD-X sounded brighter and therefore (objectively) more balanced than the LCD-2, but that was not important to me (I don't mind the somewhat dark presentation of the LCD-2 at all). In fact, the LCD-X sounded a wee bit harsh compared to the LCD-2. ’S’ sounds sometimes sounded like ‘Z’. For instance, this was very obvious with the famous Christy Baron / Ain’t no Sunshine track.
 
Going from LCD-X to LCD-3: The LCD-3 sounds warmer than the LCD-X. The tonal balance is somewhere in between LCD-2 and LCD-X (again, not an important point for me). The LCD-3 sound has more air, the presentation is more relaxed and light-footed at the same time. The LCD-3 retains the 'speed' of the LCD-X, but lacks the the tendency for harshness observed with the LCD-X.

Further tests (switching between the three headphones) confirmed the above impressions. Overall, I preferred the LCD-2 and LCD-3 over the LCD-X, especially when it comes to 'listening fatigue' when listening for a long time (more than an hour or so). The LCD-2 sounds lame compared to LCD-3 (ok, that's a gross exaggeration). Music shines more with LCD-3, has more glow, emotion, and expression. With the LCD-3 I felt closer to the musicians than with the LCD-2.
 
In conclusion, the tonal balance of the LCD-X may be better than with the LCD-2 in 'objective' HiFi terms (if that exists). However, I would not be happy with the LCD-X in the long term due to it's tendency for harsh 'S' sounds. From the three LCDs, I clearly preferred the (not yet broken-in!) LCD-3. This conclusion may have rather negative effects on my wallet.
 
Cheers
mbrennwa

very helpful obsevations.  I was very close to pulling the trigger on a X but decided to hold back for a bit to get more feedback as some of the intitial reviews were a bit too much over the top.  I see alot of others who are also echoing your findings. 

 

[mbrennwa]

  very helpful obsevations.  I was very close to pulling the trigger on a X but decided to hold back for a bit to get more feedback as some of the intitial reviews were a bit too much over the top.  I see alot of others who are also echoing your findings. 

 
Don't assume that your taste is equal to mine. If you're in the mood of spending big money for an LCD, try to arrange a test and decide for yourself.