[AnamCeoil]

As a portable dac/amp, as a dac to an external amp I think it should work fine but again this is speculation only.

Nice, thanks for the info. I am using my Mojo 2 as a dac into the V202 and it works great; and the EQ options are a great addition for adding a bit of additional flavor. Enjoy the music!

 

[DigitalJust]

2021 Lcd-x. I've abandoned eq (various, including sonarworks). With this crossfeed setup (combo of ghz midside and canopener), things are in the stereo field where i want and it just works, including tonality wise. Plugins run on the output slots of Sonnox Listenhub systemwide.

 

[Bernard23]

Personally, for my head and ear shape and tastes the LCD-X needs EQ otherwise it's underwhelming. I knew this before I bought them, but because they have such low distortion at high SPL you can eq them without adding unwanted artefacts. I use a slightly tweaked version of Oratory1990's settings in Roon DSP and they sound magnificent.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Personally, for my head and ear shape and tastes the LCD-X needs EQ otherwise it's underwhelming. I knew this before I bought them, but because they have such low distortion at high SPL you can eq them without adding unwanted artefacts. I use a slightly tweaked version of Oratory1990's settings in Roon DSP and they sound magnificent.

I don't think that the LCD-X is disappointing, on the contrary it is very precise, neutral and revealing, the feeling you have is probably due to the use of the EQ you use which causes addiction (especially that of Oratory1990 which I don't like like it) and it gives you this feeling when you turn it off. This happens with almost all headphones

 

[Kentajalli]

I also believe that both the X and XC are not tonally accurate out of the box. But it does not matter! Why?
After ones ears gets used to a transducer, the ear/brain is quite capable of applying its own EQ to some degree and compensate, provided:
- The FR is not vastly varying. It needs to be smooth enough up to about 2-3 kHz or so.
- Distortion remains low. Distortion masks fine detail. if you can hear the fine detail, that's enough.
Ask yourself, how a certain Saxophone (for example) sounds distinguishable if it is played, in a small room, a concert hall or behind a curtain?
The XC at least, needs a little low bass boost and top treble cut. However, after 10 mins without any EQ, I can listen to it for hours & not complain.
I went as far as modding mine, only because I don't like EQing bass.

 

[Lightspeed12]

I also believe that both the X and XC are not tonally accurate out of the box. But it does not matter! Why?
After ones ears gets used to a transducer, the ear/brain is quite capable of applying its own EQ to some degree and compensate, provided:
- The FR is not vastly varying. It needs to be smooth enough up to about 2-3 kHz or so.
- Distortion remains low. Distortion masks fine detail. if you can hear the fine detail, that's enough.
Ask yourself, how a certain Saxophone (for example) sounds distinguishable if it is played, in a small room, a concert hall or behind a curtain?
The XC at least, needs a little low bass boost and top treble cut. However, after 10 mins without any EQ, I can listen to it for hours & not complain.
I went as far as modding mine, only because I don't like EQing bass.

I have the lcd-x one month before the updated version & enjoy it. I have the latest update ear pads, apparently they make a difference.
Am thinking about getting the update version aswell or the lcd-2c but not decided weather to bother.

 

[tkemp5513]

I also believe that both the X and XC are not tonally accurate out of the box. But it does not matter! Why?
After ones ears gets used to a transducer, the ear/brain is quite capable of applying its own EQ to some degree and compensate, provided:
- The FR is not vastly varying. It needs to be smooth enough up to about 2-3 kHz or so.
- Distortion remains low. Distortion masks fine detail. if you can hear the fine detail, that's enough.
Ask yourself, how a certain Saxophone (for example) sounds distinguishable if it is played, in a small room, a concert hall or behind a curtain?
The XC at least, needs a little low bass boost and top treble cut. However, after 10 mins without any EQ, I can listen to it for hours & not complain.
I went as far as modding mine, only because I don't like EQing bass.

I’m currently experiences this. Having just gotten back into producing music at home, I utilize my LCD X as my number one reference, especially for bass. However, I’m finding I’m making good mixing choices even on Grado 225x or Shure 225 in ears, both of which have rolled off treble. And then there’s my DT770s, those I do notice the treble extension but bass and kids are basically the same. And I even find the bass on my grados to provide a very good image of sub bass, however on grados it’s not a flat response, so I just make sure it boogies on them. LCD X are to make sure everything is balanced well.

My point is that it almost doesn’t even matter what kind of response your phones have so long as you know how they sound and what sounds good on them. It is critical to have sub-bass response though. All that said, I’m still wanting a pair of AIAIAI headphones mostly cus they look great and supposedly the studio model is pretty flat.

 

[Bernard23]

I don't think that the LCD-X is disappointing, on the contrary it is very precise, neutral and revealing, the feeling you have is probably due to the use of the EQ you use which causes addiction (especially that of Oratory1990 which I don't like like it) and it gives you this feeling when you turn it off. This happens with almost all headphones

More likely my ears and head are different to yours (HRTF etc) and nothing to do with EQ. I listen to all my phones without it first, then with, usually to O1990 as a starting point because that target works for me (and lots of reasons why it might not for you). LCD-X sound somewhat flat out of the box compared to Sundara, 770 Pro, SRH840 even the £45 Zero Red. Without EQ, they all sound wildly different, with EQ to the same target, the differences are much smaller, and in truth come down to comfort and price and just the feel good factor. Get the FR response right (for you) and consistent across all your devices (so figure out your target) and it's mostly pointless spending lots of cash, it really is. Exact same logic for loudspeaker room correction.

 

[Bernard23]

My point is that it almost doesn’t even matter what kind of response your phones have so long as you know how they sound and what sounds good on them.

This!

Having measurement data will give you a number to refer to each time you want to come back to "know" how they sound

 

[Jonne Haven]

Hey @MusicalDoc8 ,

This is in reference to the LCD-5 review you just posted. I would have posted it as a comment but comments are limited to less characters than I needed to use to reply...so I am posting here.

I enjoyed your review! As well as many of your other posts I've read! It seems you are very impressed and satisfied with your extreme purchase and seemingly extreme enjoyment of your purchase.

As you may already know from the LCD-X and XC Update forum, that I own both of those and I think you own an XC if memory serves. I have a question as regards your comparison to either of those.

My main reservation in making the $4500 leap for an LCD-5, besides the rather significant price difference between the LCD-5 and the LCD-X or XC is the bass of the LCD-5.

As I am a recording engineer and mastering engineer for most genres of music ranging from classical to jazz, pop, and EDM particularly Dubstep, very strong sub-bass representation is of upmost importance to me as I will swap from my X and XC to my external monitors and sub-woofer (a 550watt SVS that is rated down to16Hz)...so it is important that my headphones represent the sub-bass as best they can to that which my external setup provides in spades.

So, finally my questions are how does the LCD-5 represent sub-bass at least down to 20hz?...as compared to the X or XC (i don't know if you own both). Also, if it is not as representative of those low frequencies, does the "detail" as you call it, make up for the extreme price hike up?...and perhaps less sub-bass (maybe due to the smaller drivers and thinner diaphragm)?

Also, have you tried EQing it at all? And if so, how does it respond to EQ? Can a potential lack of sub-bass be EQd in, or does the physical composition of the LCD-5 limit that aspect no matter how much you EQ (perhaps due to its smaller diaphragm)?

From my experience with the clarity and resolution of the Focal Stellia, I've come to appreciate a higher price bracket of headphone, though the Stellia cannot compete with either the LCD-X or XC in sub-bass at all and are useless in accurately mixing and mastering anything that has significant sub-bass...and the Stellia has a "metallic" shimmer sound quality that can't be EQd out, I think due to the Beryllium drivers it's made out of. But I do love its resolution for vocals...what I'm trying to say is that I can believe your review when you speak of detail as I think I've experienced a bit of that detail you speak of in the Stellia which is not quite as expensive as the LCD-5 (Stellia is $3000...kinda called the cheaper and "easier to drive (portable) Utopia"), but it may come close. And if the LCD-5 is even better than that, then let me just say, I drool at the thought of getting my hands on one of those.

$4500 is a lot of money for me, especially as I am on a tight budget (living in Hawaii is expensive) and other things like getting LASIK (laser corrective eye surgery, $2500) seem like a very inviting priority to me right now as I hate wearing glasses especially in front of my six monitors (glare, smudges, shifting my eyes from monitor to monitor, etc. don't do well with glasses). But I've been pondering and researching the LCD-5 ever since it came out...it sounds like a dream come true...but $4500! (sigh)

Please give me your thoughts if you have the time and inclination!

Blessings,
-Jonne

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Hi @Jonne Haven while you get the answers to your questions which unfortunately I am unable to give you as I have never listened to the LCD 5, I would like to ask you a question about the difference between the LCD-X and XC.

I have owned the LCD-X 2021 for about 1 year now combined with an RME ADI-2 DAC and I am quite satisfied, I mainly listen to EDM music (Dubstep, EBSM, Darkwave, Cyberpunk, etc...) Therefore you know how important the lows are frequencies with these genres, but I believe that the LCD-X gives its best with the right equalization, otherwise if driven with DAC OS and neutral amplifiers it sometimes becomes too sterile, therefore it is necessary to intervene with the equalization and you know this. The LCD-X responds very well to EQ and so does the LCD-XC, however from the measurements it appears that the LCD-XC has lower distortion which should prepare it even better for EQ than the X, you can confirm this?

But the main question is: With the right equalization, which of the two (LCD-X or LCD-XC) gives you more satisfaction and do you consider it more suitable for the EDM genre?
In the past when I was undecided whether to buy one or the other, my dilemma was which of the two I would like more but in the end I got the LCD-X, but I always wondered what it would be like if I chose The LCD-XC, I conclude by saying that I don't need the closed back, I can listen to my open back headphones without any problem so I don't expect the answer "if you need the closed back choose the XC otherwise I did well to choose the X

Blessings

 

[MusicalDoc8]

Hey @MusicalDoc8 ,

This is in reference to the LCD-5 review you just posted. I would have posted it as a comment but comments are limited to less characters than I needed to use to reply...so I am posting here.

I enjoyed your review! As well as many of your other posts I've read! It seems you are very impressed and satisfied with your extreme purchase and seemingly extreme enjoyment of your purchase.

As you may already know from the LCD-X and XC Update forum, that I own both of those and I think you own an XC if memory serves. I have a question as regards your comparison to either of those.

My main reservation in making the $4500 leap for an LCD-5, besides the rather significant price difference between the LCD-5 and the LCD-X or XC is the bass of the LCD-5.

As I am a recording engineer and mastering engineer for most genres of music ranging from classical to jazz, pop, and EDM particularly Dubstep, very strong sub-bass representation is of upmost importance to me as I will swap from my X and XC to my external monitors and sub-woofer (a 550watt SVS that is rated down to16Hz)...so it is important that my headphones represent the sub-bass as best they can to that which my external setup provides in spades.

So, finally my questions are how does the LCD-5 represent sub-bass at least down to 20hz?...as compared to the X or XC (i don't know if you own both). Also, if it is not as representative of those low frequencies, does the "detail" as you call it, make up for the extreme price hike up?...and perhaps less sub-bass (maybe due to the smaller drivers and thinner diaphragm)?

Also, have you tried EQing it at all? And if so, how does it respond to EQ? Can a potential lack of sub-bass be EQd in, or does the physical composition of the LCD-5 limit that aspect no matter how much you EQ (perhaps due to its smaller diaphragm)?

From my experience with the clarity and resolution of the Focal Stellia, I've come to appreciate a higher price bracket of headphone, though the Stellia cannot compete with either the LCD-X or XC in sub-bass at all and are useless in accurately mixing and mastering anything that has significant sub-bass...and the Stellia has a "metallic" shimmer sound quality that can't be EQd out, I think due to the Beryllium drivers it's made out of. But I do love its resolution for vocals...what I'm trying to say is that I can believe your review when you speak of detail as I think I've experienced a bit of that detail you speak of in the Stellia which is not quite as expensive as the LCD-5 (Stellia is $3000...kinda called the cheaper and "easier to drive (portable) Utopia"), but it may come close. And if the LCD-5 is even better than that, then let me just say, I drool at the thought of getting my hands on one of those.

$4500 is a lot of money for me, especially as I am on a tight budget (living in Hawaii is expensive) and other things like getting LASIK (laser corrective eye surgery, $2500) seem like a very inviting priority to me right now as I hate wearing glasses especially in front of my six monitors (glare, smudges, shifting my eyes from monitor to monitor, etc. don't do well with glasses). But I've been pondering and researching the LCD-5 ever since it came out...it sounds like a dream come true...but $4500! (sigh)

Please give me your thoughts if you have the time and inclination!

Blessings,
-Jonne

I'll gladly do that, i was in your same shoes when deciding if i would go from the XC to the 5!
Also, i use ZERO EQ. I'm not gonna be snob about it but either a IEM/HP is to my liking out of the box or it gets sent back to the seller.
In theory tho the XC is a EQ monster having real low distortion, but still i rather have something working out of the box, with no fiddling.

 

[phthora]

Hey @MusicalDoc8 ,

This is in reference to the LCD-5 review you just posted. I would have posted it as a comment but comments are limited to less characters than I needed to use to reply...so I am posting here.

I enjoyed your review! As well as many of your other posts I've read! It seems you are very impressed and satisfied with your extreme purchase and seemingly extreme enjoyment of your purchase.

As you may already know from the LCD-X and XC Update forum, that I own both of those and I think you own an XC if memory serves. I have a question as regards your comparison to either of those.

My main reservation in making the $4500 leap for an LCD-5, besides the rather significant price difference between the LCD-5 and the LCD-X or XC is the bass of the LCD-5.

As I am a recording engineer and mastering engineer for most genres of music ranging from classical to jazz, pop, and EDM particularly Dubstep, very strong sub-bass representation is of upmost importance to me as I will swap from my X and XC to my external monitors and sub-woofer (a 550watt SVS that is rated down to16Hz)...so it is important that my headphones represent the sub-bass as best they can to that which my external setup provides in spades.

So, finally my questions are how does the LCD-5 represent sub-bass at least down to 20hz?...as compared to the X or XC (i don't know if you own both). Also, if it is not as representative of those low frequencies, does the "detail" as you call it, make up for the extreme price hike up?...and perhaps less sub-bass (maybe due to the smaller drivers and thinner diaphragm)?

Also, have you tried EQing it at all? And if so, how does it respond to EQ? Can a potential lack of sub-bass be EQd in, or does the physical composition of the LCD-5 limit that aspect no matter how much you EQ (perhaps due to its smaller diaphragm)?

From my experience with the clarity and resolution of the Focal Stellia, I've come to appreciate a higher price bracket of headphone, though the Stellia cannot compete with either the LCD-X or XC in sub-bass at all and are useless in accurately mixing and mastering anything that has significant sub-bass...and the Stellia has a "metallic" shimmer sound quality that can't be EQd out, I think due to the Beryllium drivers it's made out of. But I do love its resolution for vocals...what I'm trying to say is that I can believe your review when you speak of detail as I think I've experienced a bit of that detail you speak of in the Stellia which is not quite as expensive as the LCD-5 (Stellia is $3000...kinda called the cheaper and "easier to drive (portable) Utopia"), but it may come close. And if the LCD-5 is even better than that, then let me just say, I drool at the thought of getting my hands on one of those.

$4500 is a lot of money for me, especially as I am on a tight budget (living in Hawaii is expensive) and other things like getting LASIK (laser corrective eye surgery, $2500) seem like a very inviting priority to me right now as I hate wearing glasses especially in front of my six monitors (glare, smudges, shifting my eyes from monitor to monitor, etc. don't do well with glasses). But I've been pondering and researching the LCD-5 ever since it came out...it sounds like a dream come true...but $4500! (sigh)

Please give me your thoughts if you have the time and inclination!

Blessings,
-Jonne

If you are willing to EQ, the LCD-5 cannot be beat. Its very low distortion and exceptionally smooth FR make it real easy to EQ to taste. No spikes or dips to worry about really, just a few low Q adjustments get it real close to perfect. For the bass, I've done as much as +13db with no audible distortion. My eyes went a little cross-eyed, but the drivers still sounded clean. At more responsible levels, the EQ'd bass outperforms even the LCD-4: more detail, more control, more impact. What is different is the the 5 has less bloom to it (but that can be helped a bit with amp pairing or EQ). And, the 5 definitely reaches all the way down to 20hz without issue. The only caveat to all this is that 90 db/mW sensitivity requires a fairly heft amp as it is, and adding EQ obviously raises the power requirement even more.

As someone who owns and loves and listens to the XC more than any other headphone these days, I can tell you that the 5 is definitely on another level. The resolution, imaging, and realism of the 5 just exceed the XC. The 5 also doesn't exhibit the dynamic compression that I seem to hear in the XC, or maybe that's just something that shows up in comparison.

Lastly, if price is a concern, used LCD-5 go for well under 3k all the time. Given Audeze's excellent product support, I wouldn't hesitate to grab one used. In fact, my LCD-5 was used, as were 8 of the 9 Audezes I've owned. Never had an issue with any of them.

 

[Kentajalli]

I do have an XC too. A close friend has the X, and I have heard the LCD-5 at lengths against the other two.
The LCD-5 is excellent! but not worth it, unless you are very rich.
Both the X and XC represent good value for money. They are up there with likes of 4K DCAs . And compared to these two, the LCD-5 and DCAs do not represent as much value, though excellent.
I would say, the LCD-5 sounds more akin XC than X, out of the box.
The XC with a bit of low bass lift, and a little upper treble cut, will sound more accurate than X ever would.
BTW, if I am not mistaken, both the X and XC share the same drivers.
Audeze, correct me please.

 

[Jonne Haven]

Hi @Jonne Haven while you get the answers to your questions which unfortunately I am unable to give you as I have never listened to the LCD 5, I would like to ask you a question about the difference between the LCD-X and XC.

I have owned the LCD-X 2021 for about 1 year now combined with an RME ADI-2 DAC and I am quite satisfied, I mainly listen to EDM music (Dubstep, EBSM, Darkwave, Cyberpunk, etc...) Therefore you know how important the lows are frequencies with these genres, but I believe that the LCD-X gives its best with the right equalization, otherwise if driven with DAC OS and neutral amplifiers it sometimes becomes too sterile, therefore it is necessary to intervene with the equalization and you know this. The LCD-X responds very well to EQ and so does the LCD-XC, however from the measurements it appears that the LCD-XC has lower distortion which should prepare it even better for EQ than the X, you can confirm this?

But the main question is: With the right equalization, which of the two (LCD-X or LCD-XC) gives you more satisfaction and do you consider it more suitable for the EDM genre?
In the past when I was undecided whether to buy one or the other, my dilemma was which of the two I would like more but in the end I got the LCD-X, but I always wondered what it would be like if I chose The LCD-XC, I conclude by saying that I don't need the closed back, I can listen to my open back headphones without any problem so I don't expect the answer "if you need the closed back choose the XC otherwise I did well to choose the X

Blessings

Hey @Guy Fawkes,

That is a very interesting question but I think I can give you the points that might answer your questions, at least from my perspective.

First off, I do very much also enjoy Dubstep and EDM, besides just "working" with that genre! So I think I can answer your question from that aspect.

Understand that last I checked, yes @Kentajalli, they do have the same diaphragm. However, Audeze has done something (besides make it closed) to vastly alter its FR from the X...I think anyone who owns both will tell you that out of the box, considering they share the same diaphragm, they sound very different, and not just "one is closed, one is open" kind of different. (that, I was a bit shocked to discover as I only bought the XC thinking it would be identical to the X but close-backed for tracking purposes (using with a microphone on to prevent feedback loops). One notable difference is that I find that I'll have to EQ the XC by 2-3dB more gain than the X to achieve the same amount of bass, sub or otherwise...I know that sounds counterintuitive given that the XC is closed while the X being open is "venting" out bass reverberations. But maybe that was Audezes attempt to mask the XCs closed reverberations, who knows. With this in mind, my theory is that the measurements might show less distortion than the X but only because usually distortion starts showing up first at the low end. Probably because compared to the X the XC is going to need more gain in the bass end the measurements show less distortion at the same levels as the X. I guess what I'm getting at is, because the X and XC (last to my knowledge when I bought the XC) is that the diaphragms are the same so expect the same limitations of the XC that you have with the X regarding EQing distortion as well as the same EQing delights.

So that said, if you are to EQ the XC to the same level of bass as your X, expect to increase the bass end by 2-3dB. But not to fret, I've shared some XC EQs here with as much as nearly -18dBs of preamp just for the bass and have experienced 0 distortion doing this and I EQ at almost ear bleeding levels. I don't use an RME, partly because I already have a engineering grade DAC, but I've researched it and it seems pretty capable...but I don't know by heart its distortion limits...nor how much bass you want to EQ in though. My amp is a cheap A30 pro, but that is also a near zero distortion amp and is one of the top 10 highest amplifying while being transparent amplifiers available. So if you were to experience distortion, you're likely to get it from your sources before you get it from the XC.

Now for more fun stuff. Which is more suitable for EDM?

I confess, I listen to the X and master with the X more than I do the XC because the X has more "realism" in terms of what I might expect the average listener of my mixes to be hearing in their headphones or even speakers. But that is for ALL genres. If I were to limit myself to just considering EDM than I might suggest that EDM is not a "realism" driven genre, right?...often times vocals are auto-tuned or pitch shifted, and almost all the time instruments are electronic, and rarely do you find a natural occurring reverb engineered into EDM, right? So the fact that the bass on the XC is closed might actually be more enjoyable. I can tell you that whatever the physics (accurate or inaccurate) the bass is potentially FAR more "massive" than the X...to the point where if pushed to the extreme, your brain will be itself pushed in by the force of the air which has nowhere else to go but in!, of course I exaggerate but I find the sonic aspects of that potential MOST satisfying for this genre! (The XC has never caused me physical pain...let me be clear) But if I pretty much just listened to EDM I would say that I would prefer the XC!...also people have shared that the XC has more detail than the X, but I think that is just either or both it's closed back architecture and natural, non EQd FR.

A couple more things you didn't ask, but I'll add is that the XC is slightly heavier than the X if weight is an issue for you...enough so that I find it has more "slide off your head if you tilt too much potential".
Also that if I had to choose between the X or XC for watching movies, the XC with its rumble potential for those dramatic movie scenes or action sequence explosions is the clear winner for me! Of course qualify everything I've said with my expectation that you'll be EQing!

So to sum up,
- know that the diaphragms are the same (in terms of expectable technical distortion) but you'll still that you'll need 2-3dB more bass EQd in.
- for just the EDM genres (non-realism) I think it's much more suitable especially bass-wise
- a bit heavier than the X
- great for movies too!

My two cents!

Blessings,
-Jonne