[deafanddumb]

I"m not certain if you're being sarcastic here but if you're not aware David1961 does have some serious skills & guts to do some major aesthetic and comfort modding. Below is the Stax SR-009 mod he had done a highly commendable job on :-

http://www.head-fi.org/t/650947/mods-for-sr-009/90#post_9468870

If there's anyone who could do an XC mod, he's one I'd place my faith in.

Not at all, I'm a pretty open non judgemental kind of guy..I want to see His skills at play.

 

[David1961]

Doing what I did with my 009's might have taken some nerve, but there were no skill involved because it was pretty straight forward. I did have to work out the shape and size of the brackets needed to screw the headband to the 009's ear pieces, but once the two brackets were made (by an engineer I know, not me ) the rest was easy.
While I'm happy with that headband, I'm putting some 3M Di Noc carbon fibre wrapping around it to hopefully make it look better.

 

[figaro69]

When I got the SR-009, I did so for it's SQ, however because I didn't like it's headband, I did something about it, and in putting a new headband on, it didn't alter the SQ, but for me it made my 009's look very nice, and I'm doing something to that headband that'll make it look even better without sacrificing the SQ. Obviously the main priority in audio equipment is SQ , but if it's possible for it to look good aswell, that's what I'd sooner have. I've never heard the LCD-XC, and while I don't think it'll sound as good or better than the SR-009, I'm getting it to give me a different sound to listen to.
I'm also getting it for it's looks, but like the 009's, I'm not entirely happy with how the LCD-XC looks, which is why I'm going to do something that'll make the LCD-XC more pleasing to look at for me.

Understood.  We are on the same page.  As long as sound quality is first, the rest is just gravy.

 

[preproman]

Sorry if I missed it, but are there any comparisons with the XC and the Alpha Dog?  
 
In a closed headphone I like a balanced yet sort of intimate presentation, not to dark and not to closed in a la (LCD-2.2).  The Alpha Dogs does this really well for the price.  I sold the TH900 because over time the Mids was not up to par for the music I like to listen to them with (mostly female vocals).

 

[Dubstep Girl]

  Sorry if I missed it, but are there any comparisons with the XC and the Alpha Dog?  
 
In a closed headphone I like a balanced yet sort of intimate presentation, not to dark and not to closed in a la (LCD-2.2).  The Alpha Dogs does this really well for the price.  I sold the TH900 because over time the Mids was not up to par for the music I like to listen to them with (mostly female vocals).

 
closed version of HE-6!!!
 

 

[kurochin]

Preproman,
The XC's soundstage is, to my ears, more closed-in than any open Audeze. It's not a bad type of closed-in, per se. There's a nice kind of intimacy, but it does lack that extra bit of air you get with open cans (or even the TH900). The LCD-2 handles the small-room/intimacy balance better than the XC, imho. I guess that's the price you pay for better isolation. Not heard the Alpha Dogs yet, unfortunately.

 

[David1961]

After receiving the LCD-XC's today, I had a short time listening to them with both cables supplied, and out of the two cables I preferred the one with the 4 pin XLR.
I used the LCD's with my GS-Xmk2 and K-01 and SQ wise I'm very impressed, however it's very easy to tell that these are closed headphones.
While I'm happy with their SQ, the comfort is a different matter, the weight didn't bother me because they're not much heavier than my 009's, and the other day I listened to my 009's for 3 hours without a problem, the thing I don't like is the clamping, and because of that clamping, when I decide to use my LCD-XC's it won't be for long.
This clamping looks to be caused by what looks to be a spring system where the yokes attach to the ear pieces. However I read about this clamping before I bought them and with what I'm going to do, that clamping will be sorted out.
There are a couple of other things I'm not that impressed about and the first being isolation, to me they don't isolate that well, but obviously a lot better than the 009's, but I'm not that bother about their isolation because I've the UM Miracles.
The other thing I'm not impressed about are the leather ear pads, IMO they are not in the same class as the 009's, and because of that I might see about getting some 009 ear pads to used with my LCD-XC's. ( both the LCD-XC's and 009's ear pieces look to be of similar size )
The way I've got my headphone system setup, I can change from listening to my 009 / BHSE, to my LCD-XC / GS-Xmk2 in seconds, so it's going to be very easy to hear the difference.
Anyway, tomorrow I'm posting some photos of my LCD-XC's and also mention what mod I'm doing to them, but it should be easy to figure out what I'm doing.

 

[David1961]

My mistake, after looking at them again, it doesn't look there's a spring system between the yokes and ear pieces. It feels like it's coming the the headband, which is better for me.

 

[Dubstep Girl]

  Preproman,
The XC's soundstage is, to my ears, more closed-in than any open Audeze. It's not a bad type of closed-in, per se. There's a nice kind of intimacy, but it does lack that extra bit of air you get with open cans (or even the TH900). The LCD-2 handles the small-room/intimacy balance better than the XC, imho. I guess that's the price you pay for better isolation. Not heard the Alpha Dogs yet, unfortunately.

awww
 
the LCD-2 is closed in, but the intimacy produces a really nice in your head kinda sound i liked about them.

 

[gevorg]

Headroom posted LCD-X and LCD-XC measurements:

 

[figaro69]

After receiving the LCD-XC's today, I had a short time listening to them with both cables supplied, and out of the two cables I preferred the one with the 4 pin XLR.
I used the LCD's with my GS-Xmk2 and K-01 and SQ wise I'm very impressed, however it's very easy to tell that these are closed headphones.
While I'm happy with their SQ, the comfort is a different matter, the weight didn't bother me because they're not much heavier than my 009's, and the other day I listened to my 009's for 3 hours without a problem, the thing I don't like is the clamping, and because of that clamping, when I decide to use my LCD-XC's it won't be for long.
This clamping looks to be caused by what looks to be a spring system where the yokes attach to the ear pieces. However I read about this clamping before I bought them and with what I'm going to do, that clamping will be sorted out.
There are a couple of other things I'm not that impressed about and the first being isolation, to me they don't isolate that well, but obviously a lot better than the 009's, but I'm not that bother about their isolation because I've the UM Miracles.
The other thing I'm not impressed about are the leather ear pads, IMO they are not in the same class as the 009's, and because of that I might see about getting some 009 ear pads to used with my LCD-XC's. ( both the LCD-XC's and 009's ear pieces look to be of similar size )
The way I've got my headphone system setup, I can change from listening to my 009 / BHSE, to my LCD-XC / GS-Xmk2 in seconds, so it's going to be very easy to hear the difference.
Anyway, tomorrow I'm posting some photos of my LCD-XC's and also mention what mod I'm doing to them, but it should be easy to figure out what I'm doing.

A potential problem is that they are so heavy, that somehow reducing the clamping pressure may make they fall or slip easily from position.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Well I've been listening to them for a bit tonight (arrived today) and just some initial impressions...
 
1.) They look outstanding! Simply beautiful headphones. The photos don't really do them justice. The Bubinga wood looks outstanding.
2.) Yes they are heavier than either the LCD-3s or LCD-X, but on my head the differences are pretty small (though noticeable). Overall though, the comfort is about the same.
3.) Sound wise, they certainly are right up there with some of the best imaging for closed headphones that I've owned/heard in terms of air/space. Locating players in the sound stage is also very good; looks like the Fazor design is really helping in that area. The LCD-X / LCD-3 are a bit better, but they're open headphones, so not really a fair comparison. I'll try my TH-900s later and report back. But they are better at imaging over the AT W3000ANV, Ultrasone Ed.8, (previously owned both) and beyer T5p from what I can remember and based on my notes.
4.) Make no mistake about it, they have retained the Audeze sound with amazingly deep and textured bass, luxurious mids and treble that is never strident. They do have more bass than the LCD-3/X, not by much, but it's there. The treble seems a bit more forward than any Audeze headphone I've heard yet. But again, make no mistake about it, the HD800s, they are not! As mentioned, they have retained the Audeze naturalness of their other great headphones.
 
So far, colour me impressed.  

 

[DarknightDK]

  Well I've been listening to them for a bit tonight (arrived today) and just some initial impressions...
 
1.) They look outstanding! Simply beautiful headphones. The photos don't really do them justice. The Bubinga wood looks outstanding.
2.) Yes they are heavier than either the LCD-3s or LCD-X, but on my head the differences are pretty small (though noticeable). Overall though, the comfort is about the same.
3.) Sound wise, they certainly are right up there with some of the best imaging for closed headphones that I've owned/heard in terms of air/space. Locating players in the sound stage is also very good; looks like the Fazor design is really helping in that area. The LCD-X / LCD-3 are a bit better, but they're open headphones, so not really a fair comparison. I'll try my TH-900s later and report back. But they are better at imaging over the AT W3000ANV, Ultrasone Ed.8, (previously owned both) and beyer T5p from what I can remember and based on my notes.
4.) Make no mistake about it, they have retained the Audeze sound with amazingly deep and textured bass, luxurious mids and treble that is never strident. They do have more bass than the LCD-3/X, not by much, but it's there. The treble seems a bit more forward than any Audeze headphone I've heard yet. But again, make no mistake about it, the HD800s, they are not! As mentioned, they have retained the Audeze naturalness of their other great headphones.
 
So far, colour me impressed.  

 
I see that you now have the LCD3, LCDX and LCDXC. Which one is your all-round favorite if you can only keep one? 

 

[MacedonianHero]

   
I see that you now have the LCD3, LCDX and LCDXC. Which one is your all-round favorite if you can only keep one? 

 
Tough call. The LCD-XC fill the need for when I need isolation (wife, kids...sister-in law who just moved into town) and they are one of the very best I've heard in that regard. Between the LCD-3 and LCD-X, my LCD-X review kinda summaries my thoughts:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd-x/reviews/9976

 

[Currawong]

I've been reaching for the XCs lately when listening. I do like the more forward (but not too forward) mids. The bass still comes across as needing to be stronger for where the bass line is best where prominent, but with acoustic music I'm enjoying them a lot. The strong peak in the mids I'm finding makes them very good with classical. I feel asleep in my chair the other evening listening to The Devil's Trill playing at moderate volume.
 
Given their serious lack of isolation, I can't help thinking a pair of LCD-3s with that FR and the fazer (?) system wouldn't be the best overall, for me at least.