I hope to write a more detailed comment later, but I would like to register for 'the camp' of those that, firstly, prefer XC over any other LCDs, and secondly, those that call XC 'the Audeze' for the ones who don't prefer Audezes due to their dark sound signature.
As a HD800 enthusiast for many years, I would like to share my notes on XCs:
Having listened to the XC side-by-side against LCD-X many times, I clearly prefer this closed version even though I often admit that LCD-X has a more coherent overall sound. XC's highs are really melting -- 'hot as hell', since its highs shine above 10kHz and not on the upper midrange (for example, HD800 does the opposite). The incoherence is that, the highs are hot whereas the rest of the frequency range does not always realistically fit alongside these melting highs. In my opinion, this is because the highs are ultra-transparent, when the rest of the sound is quite thick and physical.
Even though it seems like a negative point, I think it accidentally brings XC a very special advantage, which I think makes it the most enjoyable phone I have ever come across:
- the soundstage is very well-focused due to its closed nature, yet never narrow thanks to the sense of wide extension emanating from the easy-going highs,
- the highs are amazingly detailed and crispy, and yet never piercing as T1 and sometimes HD800 have been. This is due to the overall thickness and liveliness of the sound in XC (i.e. a little midbass hump and the meaty planar sound of Audezes),
- in my opinion, the mids are the best (I feel LCD-X to be a little veiled and HD800s to be a little recessed).
Overall, this guy really pulls me into the music with its not-necessarily-coherent sound signature. When I want a coherent sound to analyze a music, I go to my clinical option, which is HD800. When I want to listen to music, and sadistically enjoy it, I prefer XC. For me, LCD-X could not find any room between the two.