[MarioD]

Hi there,
 
After a few months with these headphones I've decided to throw in here a brief comparison (don't want to bore anyone with endless blabber), as i think it may help people who are wondering which one to choose, but can't audition both at the same time and with the appropriate gear.
 
A quick word about my system:
 
Source - Modded Raspberry Pi 2 with linear power supply - WAV CD-audio rips on a 64GB flash stick - Linux ALSA core and MPD
 
DAC - Etheraudio Dac For Music 1 (PCM58 based with military 6N1P-EV tubes and ETO4 output caps)
 
Amp - DIY. With custom-wound output transformers with 4ohm, 20ohm and 300ohm taps. First stage: 6N1P-EV or Tungsram E80CC with EA tube voltage stabilizers. Last stage, military GU-50 or SRS-552N. Not sure about the max output power, but this is basically a speaker amp, so it's way more than enough to force any headphone to make you bleed to death through your ears.
 
Power Conditioner - Etheraudio PowerFilter
 
Wires - both headphones have exactly the same proprietary pulled high purity silver wires that suffer from no phase distortions, no ringing, etc. Nothing like the commercial stuff you can buy. (anyway, complicated matter, so let's just say the cables are the same and good enough
 
 
I'm not going to discuss comfort, build quality and such, as I only care about the sound. In terms of sound reproduction my reference is my speaker based system, which has been developed for years and has undergone countless upgrades; and to my ears it has excellent tonal accuracy, dynamics and most of all clarity.
 
So how do these headphones compare to each other?
 
It's not a difficult task, really. LCD-X gives you a better octave to octave extension, despite a rolloff at the extreme high frequencies. It's got a lot better sound clarity. In terms of tonal balance HD800 is spot on in the mids, but it lacks upper treble extension relative to the lower treble and upper mids and hence lacks a bit of sparkle, LCD-X is very close to my reference system, but it can sound just a bit thin in the lower midrange. Base-wise LCD-X wins hands down. In terms of dynamics HD800 wins hands down. To my ears LCD-X compresses pretty hard. They seem to sound best at one particular volume level. As a dynamic headphone HD800 has got the general "punch" and "strike", which LCD-X doesn't have. It's got the swing
and compresses only when you push it hard. I'm not going to discuss soundstage, because when I try to compare to my speaker system I truly get depressed about the headphones. HD800 gives you more out-of-the-head feeling, sort of artificial spacious presentations, etc; whereas LCD-X is right into your ears. Despite this though HD800 gives me more of a mono-sound feeling, because it has less clarity than LCD-X. HD800 is a well designed headphone, but I feel the neodymium magnet lets it down. Just as any other dynamic headphone or dynamic speaker transducer i've owned - they all have an annoying and tiresome edginess to the sound, which is particularly evident in the treble. Yet HD800 is the best among all dynamic phones. Interestingly, the neo magnets seems to work well in planars. Go figure... that's beyond my knowledge. And those angled transducers... boy, oh, boy... it looks like only Stax know how to get it right.
 
 
Verdict: Both LCD-X and HD800 are great headphones (or equally bad, depending on how you look at it). (What a helpful review, huh?!)
 
 
Final note: LCD-X seems to be better suited to reproduction of modern recordings than HD800. You know, unfortunately there's only so much classical or (well recorded) instrumental music you can listen to before you get bored to death. With the new music made today I discover creativity mostly in electronic music, where dynamics hardly matter; and low profile instrumental performers, whose recordings are usually compressed to the very top. Also, if you intend to listen to music for many ours a day, LCD-X is the better choice for it's sound clarity. Sound distortion is what gives you headaches after a listening session, therefore sound clarity is of paramount importance to me personally.
 
Well, I hope my review was of any use to anyone out there.
 

 

[mindbomb]

Imo, the audeze has perfect bass while the sennheiser has perfect soundstage. An analogy to displays - the audeze is like a TV with perfect blacks, but the sennheiser has the larger display size.

 

[MarioD]

Call me mad, but I don't think HD800 projects instruments correctly into space. It's nothing like how my speakers project everything like a holograph into space. I don't think any headphone can do that. HD800 create something like an artificial/virtual scene around the head, which is very impressive at first. It's due to the design of the capsules I think. The LCD-X's sound picture feels deeper and higher to me and the sound is coming directly from the drivers, no reflections, etc. Really tough to explain with words, especially by someone who's English is not his native language
 
Don't bash me, please! I like my HD800 too

 

[TMRaven]

I do agree that the X has a very deep image.  That seems to be a trait of open planars in general I've found.  Unfortunately, it has very poor width in its image compared to other headphones, and especially the HD800.  The width of the image the HD800 gives off made me spoiled, and made other headphones sound constricted to my ears.

 

[headnail]

I think it's quite difficult to point out shortfalls in the given headphone segment (premium) but I do find the sound of the lcd-x more pleasing to my ears, hd800 have an amazing soundstage....unfortunately with certain music it just does not sound realistic....electronic music is a whole different story thou

 

[Jeb Listens]

Hi Mario, 
 
A very helpful and concise review - thanks.  You got down into it with no messing around - and I like that.    You also have a beautiful looking system - so clean.  What variety of wood have you used for the casing ?
 
I'm currently using the LCD-2Fs and feel like the Xs might be calling my name eventually.  I just wondered if you have been able to spend any time with the LCD-2Fs or the LCD-3Fs ?
 
Regards, 
 
Jeb. 

 

[MarioD]

I think it's quite difficult to point out shortfalls in the given headphone segment (premium) but I do find the sound of the lcd-x more pleasing to my ears, hd800 have an amazing soundstage....unfortunately with certain music it just does not sound realistic....electronic music is a whole different story thou

 
That's exactly how I should have put it. LCD-X is more pleasing to my ears too. HD800 has a huge and very entertaining soundstage, but to my ears LCD-X has audibly less distortion, particularly obvious in the high frequencies, hence the deeper imaging. IMHO HD800 creates the impression of being so detailed, because of the lifted upper mids/lower treble, but in doing so it masks the extreme treble completely. Contrary to what others are reporting, I don't find the HD800 sibilant at all. I hear no excessive "hissing" ("ssss" or "shhhh"), unless I run it by an off-the-shelf cheap amps and dacs. I would say it's liquid smooth, but not as transparent as the LCD-X. Considering the HD800 cost me 40% less than the LCD-X, I would say it's a good deal.

 

[MarioD]

  Hi Mario, 
 
A very helpful and concise review - thanks.  You got down into it with no messing around - and I like that.    You also have a beautiful looking system - so clean.  What variety of wood have you used for the casing ?
 
I'm currently using the LCD-2Fs and feel like the Xs might be calling my name eventually.  I just wondered if you have been able to spend any time with the LCD-2Fs or the LCD-3Fs ?
 
Regards, 
 
Jeb. 

 
Hi Jeb,
 
Thanks. I appreciate your kind words. I'm glad you like my system, I have invested some serious amount of time and money into it. I've only used oak wood, as I love it. The casings are all different but with oak wood front panels that I've made. The Etheraudio dac is in its standard case, but I have removed the original front panel and replaced it with oak wood to match my other boxes.
 
I currently own LCD-2Fs. My opinion of this phone changed profoundly after my left driver died suddenly. The new drivers are certainly better, which would indicate a serious unit-to-unit quality fluctuations. With the old transducers the sound quality was mediocre compared to both HD800 and LCD-X. The new ones are closing the gap a bit, but HD800 and LCD-X are still far ahead, so is LCD-3F. The difference between the 2 and the X is pretty big. However, YMMV as you know.  I'm running currently at home the LCD-2F with a DIY TDA1541A dac with 2x Signetics NE5532 from the early 80's for the output stage and I'm really enjoying it.
 
Cheers,
Mario

 

[HiFiChris]

Also owning both, I can say that both have their strengths and weaknesses without going into detail and I wouldn't say one of them is better than the other.
What I like about the LCD-X is its tactile bass body, though the HD 800's bass has got the better speed.

If I could keep only one of them, it would probably be the HD 800, but that's just personal preference.

 

[MarioD]

Yes, I'd say it depends on what you want. IMO HD800 is better for dynamic recordings. Especially for classical music it sounds less constrained. I would suggest the perception of fast low end is due to the HD800 having better dynamics.

 

[HiFiChris]

I'd rather say the perception of better dynamics is due to the faster/drier bass which is also why high end IEMs beat both of them in terms of bass accuracy and dynamics, but I don't want to argue about that as perception differs from person to person and different people have got different preferences.

Oh, one more thing I really like about the LCD-X is that it is rather forgiving with old and bad recordings though it has got a very high resolution. I guess it is mainly because of the sounding.

 

[Jeb Listens]

Mario - that's a great help.  I think the use of the wood gives a classic look to audio equipment, but using modern oak panels like that also imparts a clean, simple and contemporary feel to it.  A really nice balance.
 
Thanks for the thoughts on the LCD-2F & LCD-Xs.  I'm looking forward to giving the X a go in the near future - it sounds like it will be a good step up.  There's a big difference in price since here in the UK i've been able to grab the LCD-2Fs for £750 retail, while the LCD-X seem to be consistently £1400, so it's nearly twice the price  -   a very big step up in terms of an investment, and of course once you decide to spend that kind of money, relatively speaking, it's just a short hop to the LCD-3s !  Demos will be the order of the day.  
 
 
Cheers, 
 
Jeb.

 

[MarioD]

I'd rather say the perception of better dynamics is due to the faster/drier bass which is also why high end IEMs beat both of them in terms of bass accuracy and dynamics, but I don't want to argue about that as perception differs from person to person and different people have got different preferences.

Oh, one more thing I really like about the LCD-X is that it is rather forgiving with old and bad recordings though it has got a very high resolution. I guess it is mainly because of the sounding.

 
Hmm, there's merit to what you say. I don't have experience with high end in-ear monitors, but considering their ultra-light diaphragms , their accuracy must be better than the over the ear headphones. From my experience with speaker drivers the smaller the driver the fewer the up & down swings in the frequency response are. Lighter cone also results in better dynamics (unfortunately to cone break-ups as well). I don't know what causes the problem with the LCD-X in terms of dynamics. It seems to compress at all times and when I start turning the volume they start to compress hard very early, whereas the HD800 starts to gradually compress. Maybe that's in inherent issue with the planar tech, maybe not.
 
Yep, LCD-X is more forgiving. I am almost certain this is due to two reasons - the upper mids/lower treble frequencies are not so accentuated and they're more dynamically constrained than HD800.

 

[MarioD]

 
Mario - that's a great help.  I think the use of the wood gives a classic look to audio equipment, but using modern oak panels like that also imparts a clean, simple and contemporary feel to it.  A really nice balance.
 
Thanks for the thoughts on the LCD-2F & LCD-Xs.  I'm looking forward to giving the X a go in the near future - it sounds like it will be a good step up.  There's a big difference in price since here in the UK i've been able to grab the LCD-2Fs for £750 retail, while the LCD-X seem to be consistently £1400, so it's nearly twice the price  -   a very big step up in terms of an investment, and of course once you decide to spend that kind of money, relatively speaking, it's just a short hop to the LCD-3s !  Demos will be the order of the day.  
 
 
Cheers, 
 
Jeb.

 
Hey Jeb, I'm glad my feedback was useful to you. My plates with the tube sockets are made of brass, another material that I love, and it goes along with wood very nicely!
 
In my view LCD-X is better than LCD-2F in every way, so I'd encourage you to buy it, if your wallet would allow you. The prices here in Europe have also gone up so much, buying an LCD-3F is almost cost prohibitive now

 

[HiFiChris]

An acquaintance of mine who also owned the HD 800 (among other flagships) said that he always had to turn up the volume very high to achieve the tactile bass body he now gets from his Audeze (LCD-3) at much lower listening levels.
Though I always listen at low levels I can confirm that. I guess this is the "magic" that Audeze cans deliver.

Just wanted to share another one's impression on both cans.