[doughead]

Thought I'd share my thoughts after burning-in my LCD-XC for more than 300 hours..
 
To be honest, I am (still) puzzled by the many differing views on the LCD-XC sound quality, from web reviewers as well as fellow owners. I've seen it rated as having "bass to die for" as well as being bass-light (not for rocking), and the treble was often mentioned as being smooth but I've also seen others saying they are bright. Well, after listening for myself (after extensive burn-in, whether one believe in its merits), I'd have to say that they are definitely not bass light. I think they have a very rich and weighty bass (when the music has it) and the bass has very good texturing and definition ("planar bass" I guess). But there is also no denying that the upper-mid (or lower treble) has a "squawky" character which makes female vocals and horns sound bright especially when played at high volumes. Why did Audeze choose to tune it that way stumps me! Perhaps they were trying to "improve" upon the LCD-2's rolled-off treble and narrow soundstage on a new LCD series headphone but I would think they have overdone it. Or perhaps its just a technical limitation due to its closed-back design and the compromises which the engineers have to make...
 
The irony is that I started off with the EL-8s and its for brightness reasons that I chose to sell it eventually. I wanted the LCD-2s but couldn't accept its "closed-in" sound and inherent darkness, although I'd have to say its only apparent for certain types of music/recordings. Then I was recommended the LCD-XC for its "great bass as well as being spacious sounding". Its closed-back design as well as its astonishingly easy-to-drive low impendence was the icing on the cake! Would I sell the LCD-XC for its brightness again? No, it has mellowed somewhat after extended burn-in and I found that it only occurs with certain recordings and is not an issue unless I'm playing at higher than normal volumes. Whatever cons it has (brightness + weight), the pros certainly outweigh them - very deep and textured/defined weighty bass, very spacious sounding (for a closed-back) and a full-bodied and meaty sound with excellent clarity, airiness and imaging (for a headphone). I would say the sound quality is so good that I consider it as my "second hifi setup" (to my home setup) and a portable one to boot!
 
The most surprising thing about its great sound quality is that I'm not even using high-end source components - a Hifiman HM-650 DAP and a Cayin C-5 portable headphone amp. In fact, I am amazed that I'm listening at '2.5' volume (max is 9!) on my Cayin amp and there are tons of headroom to spare! If I were to upgrade anything, it would be the amp and those that got my attention is the Triad Audio L3 (yes I'm a basshead and I prefer a portable amp), the Audeze Deckard (same family) or the Audio-Gd NFB-1 (I really want to go balanced!). Any thoughts on these 3 amps will be appreciated but I have to say I'm in no hurry to upgrade as the Cayin is doing superbly well for a low-cost headphone amp and a portable one at that.

 

[greenkiwi]

@doughead I've noticed about the same thing.  I have both the XC and 2 and spent quite a few listening sessions listening to both. At first, it always seemed that the XC had less bass.  Then I realized that it wasn't that the XC had less, just that it has more midrange and treble, this has the effect of making it appear that there is less bass.  
 
At the same time, the transparency level from the XC is on another level. The best simile I have is that listening to the LCD-2s was looking at art through museum glass.  The XC was like removing the glass.  So much more transparent.
 
As an aside, I am definitely interested to hear what the Ether C sounds like.

 

[x RELIC x]

@doughead
 I've noticed about the same thing.  I have both the XC and 2 and spent quite a few listening sessions listening to both. At first, it always seemed that the XC had less bass.  Then I realized that it wasn't that the XC had less, just that it has more midrange and treble, this has the effect of making it appear that there is less bass.  

At the same time, the transparency level from the XC is on another level. The best simile I have is that listening to the LCD-2s was looking at art through museum glass.  The XC was like removing the glass.  So much more transparent.

As an aside, I am definitely interested to hear what the Ether C sounds like.

The LCD-XC has elevated upper mids/lower treble compared to the ETHER C. The ETHER C has more upper bass/lower mids than the XC. Comparatively, the XC seems to portray detail easier and the ETHER C seems to have more punch. They're both very resolving and the driver speed is comparable. It's a flavour difference as they are both very capable. Both have tight controlled bass.

Keep in mind there is a lot of variation in LCD-XC frequency graphs from one pair to the other so others may hear it differently than I do. My pair is about -4dB less in the bass region than other graphs I've seen. ETHER headphones are reported to be better in unit to unit variation than the XC.

 

[Eide]

@doughead I have the EXACT same story as you. Started off with EL-8c and moved on to XC due to harsh sound around the 4k region. Unfortunately the XC had a bit of the same problem, but they have been getting smoother and smoother by the hours. Now I´v played them for around 500 hrs and I no longer need to EQ them to bring out the bass and lower the treble. For me they are the perfect phones to use in an open office environment. They isolate and sound great. Only issue is weight and they get a bit warm after an hour use. (Which only reminds me that I need to take a short break from listening anyways.)

 

[doughead]

@doughead
 I've noticed about the same thing.  I have both the XC and 2 and spent quite a few listening sessions listening to both. At first, it always seemed that the XC had less bass.  Then I realized that it wasn't that the XC had less, just that it has more midrange and treble, this has the effect of making it appear that there is less bass.  

At the same time, the transparency level from the XC is on another level. The best simile I have is that listening to the LCD-2s was looking at art through museum glass.  The XC was like removing the glass.  So much more transparent.

As an aside, I am definitely interested to hear what the Ether C sounds like.

Yes the LCD-2 has a "denser" sound because of its curtailed treble which makes it appear to have more bass than the XC. Ironically, when I did an A/B comparison between the two at the shop before deciding which to purchase, I actually heard the XC to have a thicker bass than the LCD-2(!). I suspect it's because I was using my own DAP and amp to audition, both of which leans to the warm side (the HM-650 is known for its rolled-off treble while the Cayin C-5 is known to adding warmth and body). After hearing Eide's comment that the edginess goes away after 500 hours of burn-in/usage, I'll be burning them in further from today onwards! Other than the upper mid/lower treble hump, they sound superb. Their closed-back design and low impedance is another reason they're keepers for me.

 

[doughead]

@doughead
 I have the EXACT same story as you. Started off with EL-8c and moved on to XC due to harsh sound around the 4k region. Unfortunately the XC had a bit of the same problem, but they have been getting smoother and smoother by the hours. Now I´v played them for around 500 hrs and I no longer need to EQ them to bring out the bass and lower the treble. For me they are the perfect phones to use in an open office environment. They isolate and sound great. Only issue is weight and they get a bit warm after an hour use. (Which only reminds me that I need to take a short break from listening anyways.)

Thanks! So glad to hear that, you just made me continue with the burn-in from today onwards! Incidentally now I remember another user Jwbrent saying the edginess was resolved at his 500 hours usage mark, so I'm really looking forward to that! Yes I agree that the weight can be felt, but the great sound (and low-force clamp) makes them worth it.

 

[Rynsin]

  Thought I'd share my thoughts after burning-in my LCD-XC for more than 300 hours..
 
To be honest, I am (still) puzzled by the many differing views on the LCD-XC sound quality, from web reviewers as well as fellow owners. I've seen it rated as having "bass to die for" as well as being bass-light (not for rocking), and the treble was often mentioned as being smooth but I've also seen others saying they are bright. Well, after listening for myself (after extensive burn-in, whether one believe in its merits), I'd have to say that they are definitely not bass light. I think they have a very rich and weighty bass (when the music has it) and the bass has very good texturing and definition ("planar bass" I guess). But there is also no denying that the upper-mid (or lower treble) has a "squawky" character which makes female vocals and horns sound bright especially when played at high volumes. Why did Audeze choose to tune it that way stumps me! Perhaps they were trying to "improve" upon the LCD-2's rolled-off treble and narrow soundstage on a new LCD series headphone but I would think they have overdone it. Or perhaps its just a technical limitation due to its closed-back design and the compromises which the engineers have to make...
 
The irony is that I started off with the EL-8s and its for brightness reasons that I chose to sell it eventually. I wanted the LCD-2s but couldn't accept its "closed-in" sound and inherent darkness, although I'd have to say its only apparent for certain types of music/recordings. Then I was recommended the LCD-XC for its "great bass as well as being spacious sounding". Its closed-back design as well as its astonishingly easy-to-drive low impendence was the icing on the cake! Would I sell the LCD-XC for its brightness again? No, it has mellowed somewhat after extended burn-in and I found that it only occurs with certain recordings and is not an issue unless I'm playing at higher than normal volumes. Whatever cons it has (brightness + weight), the pros certainly outweigh them - very deep and textured/defined weighty bass, very spacious sounding (for a closed-back) and a full-bodied and meaty sound with excellent clarity, airiness and imaging (for a headphone). I would say the sound quality is so good that I consider it as my "second hifi setup" (to my home setup) and a portable one to boot!
 
The most surprising thing about its great sound quality is that I'm not even using high-end source components - a Hifiman HM-650 DAP and a Cayin C-5 portable headphone amp. In fact, I am amazed that I'm listening at '2.5' volume (max is 9!) on my Cayin amp and there are tons of headroom to spare! If I were to upgrade anything, it would be the amp and those that got my attention is the Triad Audio L3 (yes I'm a basshead and I prefer a portable amp), the Audeze Deckard (same family) or the Audio-Gd NFB-1 (I really want to go balanced!). Any thoughts on these 3 amps will be appreciated but I have to say I'm in no hurry to upgrade as the Cayin is doing superbly well for a low-cost headphone amp and a portable one at that.

 
I've got the LCD-XC, LCD-3C, and EL-8C right now and I'm definitely going to sell the EL-8s soon -- they're clearly inferior to the LCD-XCs. I think myself and several other people thought that the EL-8Cs were "missing something" in the high mids/low highs.
 
I don't know about categorizing the LCD-XCs as "bright" -- I've heard it described as "a hint of brightness", but some reviews say that the treble is "delicate" and don't mention brightness at all. I've seen them described as "visceral and raw", or here on Head-Fi as "pure, clean, and very well-detailed" and not U-shaped/fun.
 
You mentioned that this "squaky" quality only happens with female vocals at very high volumes -- I'd say I primarily listen to female vocals, but perhaps I don't listen at as high of volume as you suggest. I'll give it a try later today. While I haven't witnessed the same diversity of reviews that you have (this is the first time I've heard of the LCD-XCs being over-bright), perhaps this is a case of classic Audeze QC/driver matching issues...
 
It does look like the FR charts give some evidence for the brightness theory.

 
It looks like the LCD-XCs overtake even the DT 880s for a small bit in the 1000-2000K range, and again briefly beyond the 10K+ range. But there are also places were the LCD-XC line dips below the HD 650s... Hard to interpret.

 

[x RELIC x]

It all depends on the pair you get. Here's the graph for my pair and compared to my other cans they are bright.

 

[Stereolab42]

My XCs still have some edginess starting in upper-mid and going up; it also comes across as "graininess". Relatively minor flaw to me, but may bother others more.

 

[shonoob]

Hey guys, can you please help a potential newbie buyer out.  I am currently on the fence about getting either the LCD-X or LCD-XC.  I have listend to Audeze's before, and done quite a lot of research, and I have decided upon these two headphones.  My intensive purposes for the headphones is to have a fairly neutral all around sound, as well as clarity, and my main use for the headphones will be to mix and master music in a DAW. 
 
So my question is simply;  What are the pro's and con's of the LCD-X and LCD-XC?  Which one do you guys recommend?  Which will be more suitable for mixing music in a family household in my room?
 
I suppose the answers will be biased towards the XC since this is an XC thread after-all, but please give me an objective point of vew if possible! 
 
Thank you so much! I really really appreciate your input!!

 

[Sweetmeat]

I haven't heard the X but an open headphone is generally more accurate than a closed headphone if your situation permits it. Others will disagree, but I consider the XC to be a compromise, albeit a very good one. I don't know if it is due to being closed but the XC has an upper midrange bump that is not present in the X according to many fine ears. However if you must have a closed headphone you can't go wrong with the XC.

 

[shonoob]

 
I haven't heard the X but an open headphone is generally more accurate than a closed headphone if your situation permits it. Others will disagree, but I consider the XC to be a compromise, albeit a very good one. I don't know if it is due to being closed but the XC has an upper midrange bump that is not present in the X according to many fine ears. However if you must have a closed headphone you can't go wrong with the XC.

 
Is there a huge difference in sound between the LCD-X and LCD-XC? I want the LCD-X sound, but certain times I feel I want the sound to be more isolated.

 

[Sweetmeat]

If you're looking for isolation the XC is your best choice in the Audeze line. I'm afraid I'm not qualified to define the differences between the X and XC.

 

[Lohb]

The LCD-XC has elevated upper mids/lower treble compared to the ETHER C. The ETHER C has more upper bass/lower mids than the XC. Comparatively, the XC seems to portray detail easier and the ETHER C seems to have more punch. They're both very resolving and the driver speed is comparable. It's a flavour difference as they are both very capable. Both have tight controlled bass.

Keep in mind there is a lot of variation in LCD-XC frequency graphs from one pair to the other so others may hear it differently than I do. My pair is about -4dB less in the bass region than other graphs I've seen. ETHER headphones are reported to be better in unit to unit variation than the XC.

Thanks. How does the sub-bass compare on both closed planars ?

 

[x RELIC x]

Thanks. How does the sub-bass compare on both closed planars ?

As you can see on my graph it dips slightly after 50 Hz but nothing that I notice much. The ETHER C is more linear and has more punch in the lower regions to my ears.