[DefQon]

  This question has been addressed several times in this thread and the LCD-X thread.

Not in this thread it hasn't which is why I'm asking the question, theres only been some brief impression comparison from SHAZADA between the TH-900 and the XC which was in demand by posters on the first page. Which yet again there hasn't been any in depth discussion on the differences of sound staging other than it sounds wide for a closed headphone and nothing much on treble.

 

[Zoom25]

Bass extension, sub bass/mid bass impact - TH900 vs XC?

 

[leesure]

Not in this thread it hasn't which is why I'm asking the question, theres only been some brief impression comparison from SHAZADA between the TH-900 and the XC which was in demand by posters on the first page. Which yet again there hasn't been any in depth discussion on the differences of sound staging other than it sounds wide for a closed headphone and nothing much on treble.

Really?

http://www.head-fi.org/t/691151/audeze-lcd-xc/15#post_9995756

 

[DefQon]

Really?

http://www.head-fi.org/t/691151/audeze-lcd-xc/15#post_9995756

Says nothing about how the XC or X compares to the LCD2 and 3, add onto that especially the treble and soundstage. All I've been getting from various posters and sources is that the X is more neutral or brighter sound sig take on the LCD2/3 with its different house sound, the XC has a big soundstage for a closed headphone or more so how it compares to the TH-900 because they are both closed form factor. I would like somebody who owns or can compare all the LCD's all at once as to how the new stuff performs, initial impressions where people rave about a headphone is not what I'm looking as the con's start revealing itself later on as users get more experience with the headphone. (Looks at purring/Tyll's direction).
 
Forgot to add, did Audeze stop providing the FR graph for X and XC owners?

 

[leesure]

Says nothing about how the XC or X compares to the LCD2 and 3, add onto that especially the treble and soundstage. All I've been getting from various posters and sources is that the X is more neutral or brighter sound sig take on the LCD2/3 with its different house sound, the XC has a big soundstage for a closed headphone or more so how it compares to the TH-900 because they are both closed form factor. I would like somebody who owns or can compare all the LCD's all at once as to how the new stuff performs, initial impressions where people rave about a headphone is not what I'm looking as the con's start revealing itself later on as users get more experience with the headphone. (Looks at purring/Tyll's direction).

Forgot to add, did Audeze stop providing the FR graph for X and XC owners?

First off, I think you're trolling. I base thus on your initial comments slamming Audez'e's offerings in an Audez'e thread. I doubt you're really interested in the performance of the XC, and and praise I give them will be dismissed as hype.

That said, I will take your request at face value and offer my impressions.

As I stated in the comment to which I linked, the X does represent a huge leap forward over the performance of the LCD-2 in both midrange openness and treble extension and neutrality, BUT I think the XC's upper midrange and treble tilt even more toward the bright side. They are more similar in treble performance to the HE-6 than to the LCD-2/3. They don't have the treble grain that I find disturbing in the HD800, but they do tilt more in that direction than anything I've heard from Audez'e to date. Careful amp matching will be needed to avoid them getting too bright if you are sensitive to that, IMO. I prefer them on a warmer amp, but then I don't share your opinion of the darkness of the treble of the earlier Audez'e offerings.

As to soundstage, I find them to be reasonably wide with a more up-front presentation and decent height. They are not going to compete with the HD 800's for depth. They do, however, present pinpoint placement of instruments and voices within that soundstage with good dispersion across the stage...not just three blobs.

Since it seems you take issue with others' impressions and have specific questions and concerns, my suggestion for you is to try them for yourself and decide if they are good for you or not.

 

[leesure]

As far as frequency graphs, owners can get theirs online from Audez'e. It's not in the box.

 

[DefQon]

First off, I think you're trolling. I base thus on your initial comments slamming Audez'e's offerings in an Audez'e thread. I doubt you're really interested in the performance of the XC, and and praise I give them will be dismissed as hype.
 

Why do you think I'm trolling? I've owned over 4 pairs of LCD2's (rev.1's and rev.2's) and still currently own a modded rev.1, heard and auditioned the LCD3's from last year (if different to this years batch) extensively both at A2A and on my system from loaned pairs, what makes you think I'm slamming Audeze because I have some sort of hate towards them, I should be thought as a fanboy instead?
 
If I wasn't interested in the XC I wouldn't come in here and seriously ask how these fair against the old Audeze offerings because it's by fact the treble and sound staging on the LCD2,3 is not so great (refer to the FR) and subjectively for me.
 
I also think you're overdoing it for yourself with you thinking I'm dismissing your early praise as hype, which I'm not implying but is generally the case around these boards. People get excited and jump on hype wagons praise the headphone, give it some days later you may start to see the said headphones up for sale, people changing there impressions to one other than the initial positive one they posted. It happens.
 
I generally keep an open mind when it comes to new headphones (other than Monster products), if I was trolling, I would've come in here and given the finger to the impressions posted here and dismissed all you guys as hyped up Audeze lunatics or audiophools. 
 
I would like to see some FR graphs posted from early owners.

 

[leesure]

Why do you think I'm trolling? I've owned over 4 pairs of LCD2's (rev.1's and rev.2's) and still currently own a modded rev.1, heard and auditioned the LCD3's from last year (if different to this years batch) extensively both at A2A and on my system from loaned pairs, what makes you think I'm slamming Audeze because I have some sort of hate towards them, I should be thought as a fanboy instead?

I would like to see some FR graphs posted from early owners.

Gosh, I dunno...comments like "It's not good when the mids, lows and highs are all great but no treble and sound staging with it sounding sucked out and shelved."

You toss your opinions out as facts and dismiss those who disagree...those are the hallmarks of someone trolling, in my experience.

I have offered you my initial impressions. Feel free to accept them or disregard them. As I said, listen for yourself and decide based on your own ears, not mine.

Have a pleasant evening.

 

[vcoheda]

is the cable termination on the LCD-XC the same as the LCD2. basically, if I have an aftermarket cable for my LCD2, can I use it on the XC.

 

[leesure]

is the cable termination on the LCD-XC the same as the LCD2. basically, if I have an aftermarket cable for my LCD2, can I use it on the XC.

Yes.

 

[kurochin]

  Bass extension, sub bass/mid bass impact - TH900 vs XC?

 
The are some sub-categories where the LCD-XC is competitive, mainly mid/upper bass layering and instrument placement/separation, but with regards to quantity, slam, decays, bloom, reverb, TH-900 pretty much walks it. It just goes lower. Possibly personal preference, but I've never quite gelled with the way planars cut the delays short or the way they dither note decays. The LCD-XC also gives the impression of having more of the bass (actually, this applies to all it's frequencies) in front of you, while the TH900 is more enveloping, more "from the gut" in that regard.
 
It's the mids and highs where the XC comes more alive, to my ears. Partially thanks to their speed, which is impressive. More on that later.
 
Disclaimer: I'm a basshead, so there's probably some bias here. For example, what some listeners categorize as "controlled", I might simply call "lacking". Neutrality lovers might possibly see those as XC advantages, though it's still far from being a neutral headphone. Like I said, it's apples vs oranges.

 

[Currawong]

DefQon: My LCD-3s had what I think is the problem you were complaining about. I put it down to the big dip at 4kHz. Maybe I just kept getting veiled pairs, who knows. Anyhow, the LCD-X have less of the Audeze "dark" sound that bugged me with some music. 

 

[DefQon]

  DefQon: My LCD-3s had what I think is the problem you were complaining about. I put it down to the big dip at 4kHz. Maybe I just kept getting veiled pairs, who knows. Anyhow, the LCD-X have less of the Audeze "dark" sound that bugged me with some music. 

 
Thanks a lot Amos, that is what I was hoping for with these new Audeze headphones, the X is sounding very promising at the moment as it sounds like a "more cleaner" or non veiled sounding LCD2/3. 
 
To clear up for those was wondering what I was saying is that on the LCD2 and 3's that I have heard, there treble can be a bit too murky sounding with the slightly congested soundstage on complex or multilayered music, it almost comes off as a bit too laid back and veiled sounding with the bass, mids and highs on first row, it sounded as if the soundstage was a bit lost and the treble was on the second row a little lack of transparency due to the incoherency of the sound aspects.
 
Anakchan also has advised in his post that you'll be getting his XC for comparison against the X you have, so hopefully this gives another tick in my wanted list.

 

[Currawong]

I'm getting the Studio Six back too, which I'm looking forward to. 
 
The prototype closed-backed models had quite a small soundstage so I don't imagine the XCs will be any different.

 

[DefQon]

Yeh I'm hoping the X is right for me. It really is hard for me to look for the right dynamic or planar after having spent so long living with electrostats in this house.