TMRaven
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Posts
- 7,327
- Likes
- 1,087
That cable looks pretty ugly with the XC.
I've done the new headband for my LCD-XC, [ which is virtually the same as the one I did on my 009's, the brackets are different on this one though ] but because the heads on the screws I'm using to attach the yokes to the LCD's ear pieces are too thick, I'm unable to fix the new headband to my LCD's ear pieces. So I've taken some of those screws to the engineer that did the brackets, for him to thin down those screw heads.
Sorry about the poor photo quality, but they were taken in artificial light.
Because I've only guessed at how wide the brackets needed to be, I may need to have some more done wider, but I'll find that out tomorrow after I've attached the headband to my LCD-XC's ear pieces.
Once I've got my LCD-XC to fit comfortably, I'm seeing about having the brackets and screws done in black to match the rest of the headband.
I just got my LCD-XC a few days ago after listening to the LCD-2's for a few weeks (having jumped at that Back Friday / Cyber Monday deal) and wanted to create an account to offer my thoughts:
They are heavy but have not been uncomfortable on my ears in any way.
They seem to be more "unforgiving" of source material than the LCD-2s are
The bass is very enjoyable and seems to have more presence than in the LCD-2s
I am finding the slightly lower impedance a benefit as I move from one source to another frequently
I can clearly hear people moving around in the recording space on several of my favorite classical tracks that I have noticed with my Grado RS-2's but I feel like I am in the room actually seeing these people shift in their chairs and occasionally suppress a cough or other noise. At one point on one of the tracks I can hear someone walking softly across a part of the room - something that I have never heard before - even with the Grados
In a perfectly quiet room with a headphone amplifier, I would probably prefer the LCD-2s on most of my classical music - For rock /pop I would use the LCD-XC
In any situation short of the ideal one above - the LCD-XCs will allow me to listen everywhere I want to be and from a wider range of available devices.
I know it is far from ideal etc. But the Iphone will drive the LCD-XC to plenty of volume even for softer classical passages (I know this is not ideal but I often want to listen in far from ideal situations ((cooking, riding in the car, at work)) I say the Iphone specifically - I find all the windows tablets, android tablets, android phones, even most computers will not provide the level of output that allows me to enjoy dynamic classical music with most headphones other than earbuds - rock and pop yes - classical no.
I apologize for my newness to the world of higher end audio but I hope some of my observations might help inform others and I want to share how much I am enjoying these products and thank you to this community for helping me make these acquisitions.
I didn't find this to be the case at all w/ my rigs.
I need to dump my open cans and go closed/low leak but am on the fence as to whether I go XC or the ciem route.
We weren't playing the reality game. We're playing the read the freq resp game I do not own the XC, just the 3. I need to dump my open cans and go closed/low leak but am on the fence as to whether I go XC or the ciem route.
Looking forward to those XC impressions. Comparisons between the LCD X and LCD 3 are most welcome (although its closed vs open design). Would be good to find out if the XCs are essentially the X with a closed design or if there are any voicing differences.
Since this is essentially a portable headphone, at least for me, I'd like to know which portable amps work best.
Thus far the impression I get from reading earliest reviews is it's less darker than the LCD3s, so should pair well with the RSA 71B.
The 3s have great synergy with the iQube V2. Not so great with the 71B.
So I've been going back and forth with the X's and XC's. I'm coming to the conclusion that both are excellent headphones, but they are more cousins than siblings.
Incredibly well balanced from top to bottom.
Originally Posted by Loevhagen /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Have been listening on my XCs - and they render my TH-900 not to be used. The U-shaped sound of the TH-900 is a big no-no for me, now that I have the more "linear" XCs.
Originally Posted by AnakChan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Live notes as I'm listening and comparing between the two XC & TH-900. Note I'm not going to talk about FR 'cos I think it's quite obvious that the TH-900 is somewhat U shaped whereas the XCs have more forward mids (although I'm still not certain if I call the XCs neutral yet). So I'd agree with kurochin's comment that it's really eventually apples to oranges.
Originally Posted by Oregonian /img/forum/go_quote.gif
So any XC owners can comment on the bass compared to a TH900 or Denon ?
Leesure, when you say the X wins outright in bass, but the XC has bass in truckloads, do you mean to say that you like the more balanced bass of the X but the XC has a lot more of it in general? If so that might not be a bad thing for a lot of us.
I don't think it's 'more' bass with the XC. I think they're about the same amount and depth, but the X is more natural...and yes, perhaps more balanced. They both have lots of deep bass, the X is just more realistic, IMO.
Originally Posted by TMRaven /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I just want to know how the bass of the two compare in more tangible terms-- which one has longer decay, more quantity, more slam etc. Realism is a bit ambiguous. Actually scratch slam, I've seen that interpreted a thousand different ways as well.
Funny enough, the new 2013 Beats are a definite step in the right direction over the cruddy old Beats.
^ I never understood the notion of closed not being able to compete with open.
If they do have that same 'acoustic optimizer' slot as the Denon 2/5/7 series I'd consider them semi-open as well.
i personally would not buy the XC because its heavier than TH-900, isn't as good looking, and probably a little harder to drive. I would look weird at work wearing XC's too
From what I understand, the bass is actually less on the XCs than the LCD2/3s.
I'm not so sure about that - but I'll do a side-by-side w/ my LCD-3!!
I'm working on a video review of both cans (dependant on not having my kids interrupt me).
Have a look at my (adjusted) graph, where I matched the bass response of both graphs together, instead of at 1kHz, which is what HeadRoom does.
The deep bass is on the left, behind the "HeadRoom" of the logo. Mids are around (?) the 1kHz area.
Notice the gap between the X in red and XC in blue in the middle of the HeadRoom headphone logo. That's mid/upper bass (Edit and lower mids there. So the XCs with the same music sound a bit thinner with some music. I wouldn't call it "less bass" as such because it depends on the music.
Plus - I got to hear the prototype of the X (they didn't even tell me what it was called, don't think it had a name at that point)
months before it came out. And when I heard it I honestly thought I was hearing the next evolution in the Audeze sound
I just got mine, and they are wonderful. From what I remember of the T5ps, the XCs have a fuller body and don't sound as sterile. Their bass is not as nice as the LCD-3s, but it is great for acoustic and classical music. I am looking forward to getting my pico!
No one should forget that the headphone is just one piece of equipment at the end of a long path. If your other equipment is very good, it will make any headphone you try (within reason) sound better and, in the process, narrow the differences between them to some degree.