[x RELIC x]

Just for clarity, didn't Tyll say in his breakdown of the Fazor tech that each LCD model has slightly different membranes with different traces for each model? Pretty sure this is the case.

 

[Sweetmeat]

Just for clarity, didn't Tyll say in his breakdown of the Fazor tech that each LCD model has slightly different membranes with different traces for each model? Pretty sure this is the case.

The LCD-X and LCD-XC use identical drivers I believe. The XC is 22 ohms and the 3 is 110 ohms. Also the 3 membrane is much lighter than the XC, it is the lightest of all Audeze drivers. The magnet structure is stronger on the 3 (although the XC is no slouch).
 
So even if the 3 did not require a break-in period, the XC may benefit from it, because it is a vastly different driver.

 

[x RELIC x]

The LCD-X and LCD-XC use identical drivers I believe. The XC is 22 ohms and the 3 is 110 ohms. Also the 3 membrane is much lighter than the XC, it is the lightest of all Audeze drivers. The magnet structure is stronger on the 3 (although the XC is no slouch).

So even if the 3 did not require a break-in period, the XC may benefit from it, because it is a vastly different driver.

Yeah, my bad on the material, but the traces are all different between each model.

From Innerfidelity:

"Driver Differences

I spent some time talking on the phone with Alex Rossen, CEO of Audeze, about the differences in drivers in the three models. Most of it, as you might guess, is proprietary information, but there are a couple of tid-bits I can share:

Diaphragm materials are slightly different in all models but the LCD-X and LCD-XC which use the same material.

The magnetic structure is similar on the LCD-3, LCD-X, and LCD-XC; the LCD-2 is substantially different.
Damping varies in each model.

The circuit design (the pattern of traces on the diaphragm) are all different. It's obvious from my conversation that this is a particularly interesting area of ongoing developement."

Read more at http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/audeze-lcd-x-fazor-and-fresh-listen-current-lcd-2-and-lcd-3-page-2#IfmYbuXcgcIawtSo.99

 

[Sweetmeat]

   
 
Things do improve. Dunno how long it took but the treble energy gets under control and the midrange gets a little less "shouty".

 
I concur. After 100 hours of play, including a 60-hour break-in period, the treble energy is beginning to subside.
 

The XC is known to have elevated upper mids which would offset the sense of presence in the bass. When I bought my pair the dealer made a point of mentioning the upper mids to me.

 
It is possible I am spoiled by the smooth presentation of the LCD-3. I need to remember I am listening to closed headphones, with all the associated disadvantages (and advantages).
 

Will burn-on make things better? No, I'm afraid. Maybe your perspective will change over time (not the sound) and you'll finally receive the XC's elegance.

 
The FR got a little better but you are right, it didn't change that much. I was badly in need of perspective: these are my work headphones and compared to other closed-backs, they sound freaking amazing. But they don't sound amazing on every song out there.

 

[musicbuff]

To those of you with experience with multiple Audeze headphones can you please tell me how you perceive the differences between the LCD 3 fazor version's bass, treble and detail retrieval vs the LCD XC's.  I want to get one or the other but which one wins depends on those three issues. 

 

[thomascrown]

I would also consider the comfort. Lcd xc are way heavier than the 3. 

 

[bfreedma]

  To those of you with experience with multiple Audeze headphones can you please tell me how you perceive the differences between the LCD 3 fazor version's bass, treble and detail retrieval vs the LCD XC's.  I want to get one or the other but which one wins depends on those three issues. 

 
Unless you need closed headphones, I would go for the 3s.
 
Having spent extensive time with both, I don't think there is anything that the XCs do better, though they are a little easier to drive.

 

[Dickies]

   
Unless you need closed headphones, I would go for the 3s.

+1
 

  To those of you with experience with multiple Audeze headphones can you please tell me how you perceive the differences between the LCD 3 fazor version's bass, treble and detail retrieval vs the LCD XC's.  I want to get one or the other but which one wins depends on those three issues. 

in terms of head to head the 3's are just a fraction better with detail and texture through all frequencies to my ear.
I do however enjoy that the x and xc have a bit more upper mid and treble presence vs the 3's, thats the biggest difference I hear overall.

 

[greenkiwi]

I would echo the sentiment... If you can go open... Go open. Only get closed if you need isolation.

 

[jlbrach]

I had the XC and sold them for the LCD-3F's....my original thought was that i wanted a closed back version because i had been used to the great isolation of my Shure 846...I quickly learned that although the XC and other closed back over the ear phones do isolate a bit the difference was minimal to me and it made more sense to buy the open backed versions.I can recommend the closed back versions if you have a wife or kids etc who dont want to hear your music leaking but the isolation isnt worth it as far as i am concerned if you have nobody around to bother.

 

[Sweetmeat]

I love the sound of the LCD-3F, they totally blow away the XC. But if I had to do it over again I'd probably go LCD-X, due to the fact that my LCD-3 has broken a number of times, resulting in many weeks without music and many dollars spent on shipping. Soon they will be out of warranty so I will need to pay for the repair as well. I'm not the only one:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/771760/how-many-times-have-your-lcd3-headphones-been-returned-to-audeze-for-servicing-rma

 

[bfreedma]

I love the sound of the LCD-3F, they totally blow away the XC. But if I had to do it over again I'd probably go LCD-X, due to the fact that my LCD-3 has broken a number of times, resulting in many weeks without music and many dollars spent on shipping. Soon they will be out of warranty so I will need to pay for the repair as well. I'm not the only one:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/771760/how-many-times-have-your-lcd3-headphones-been-returned-to-audeze-for-servicing-rma

Audeze starts a new 3 year warranty period after the driver repair, so you should still be under warranty coverage for some time. Not suggesting it's fun to be without the headphones but you shouldn't have to pay for the repair. If you contact them by phone, you should be able to have Audeze pay for shipping if you've needed multiple repairs.

Unfortunately, I speak from experience. Mine have been back four times. Frustrating, but haven't found headphones I like better than the LCD3s.

 

[RCBinTN]

I own the X and XC, and heard the 3F at a meet.  The X are the most reference - least coloration of the bunch.  The 3F sound really smooth with great bass, somewhat darker sound than the X.  The XC are totally different, brighter treble and rock-style bass slam, probably due to the closed construction.  They do not have the warm "Audez'e" house sound of the 3F or even the X.  Hope this helps.
 
Cheers -
RCB

 

[Sweetmeat]

Unfortunately, I speak from experience. Mine have been back four times. Frustrating, but haven't found headphones I like better than the LCD3s.

 
Me neither and that's why I kept them. But some guys, especially overseas where shipping costs can be hundreds of dollars, have replaced their LCD-3 with an LCD-X.
 
Right now I'm listening to my XCs on my home system, and I'm much more impressed by them: better midbass, more extended highs, and the midrange isn't blowing me away like at work. Everyone says the XCs don't scale so I'm a little surprised.
 
At home I use a CD transport (from CDs) and at work I source from my DX-90 digital output. Computers processors (like the one in my DX-90) are evil when it comes to sound quality in my experience. I would do anything to have a source that could play flac files and sound as good as my home CD transport.

 

[RCBinTN]

   
Me neither and that's why I kept them. But some guys, especially overseas where shipping costs can be hundreds of dollars, have replaced their LCD-3 with an LCD-X.
 
Right now I'm listening to my XCs on my home system, and I'm much more impressed by them: better midbass, more extended highs, and the midrange isn't blowing me away like at work. Everyone says the XCs don't scale so I'm a little surprised.
 
At home I use a CD transport (from CDs) and at work I source from my DX-90 digital output. Computers processors (like the one in my DX-90) are evil when it comes to sound quality in my experience. I would do anything to have a source that could play flac files and sound as good as my home CD transport.

 
+1 on the XC sound.  Excellent closed cans and easily driven.  I've heard many Head-Fiers describe them as the best closed can out there.  FWIW, I listen to both the X and XC on a regular basis. Love them both.