For the benefit of others reading my previous post and scratching their head regarding my use of
veiled when comparing the Aeolus to the LCD-X, I wanted to expand on that description using a single track, to further convey the differences in these two headphones and try to articulate what I mean, in a more comprehensive way. Please bear in mind that I am not a reviewer, writer, audio engineer or otherwise qualified to provide a professional assessment. I wouldn't describe myself as an audiophile, either.
My approach to equipment is simple; does it (equipment) bring me closer to the music? By closer to the music I mean; I forget about the equipment and become immersed in the experience. In many ways the LCD-X is a departure from this approach, it's immersive, sure, but in a very different way to the Aeolus. Depending on the equipment pairing with the LCD-X, it isn't necessarily
musically immersive. Whereas, Aeolus always is,
musically immersive (with my equipment).
Track: Michael Hedges – Aerial Boundaries (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_Boundaries |
https://www.discogs.com/Michael-Hedges-Aerial-Boundaries/release/2823225 )
Track Rationale: I know this track intimately, I own it on CD and vinyl and have ripped to FLAC myself. I've listened to it on $500k systems, both valve and ss, on low and mid-fi systems for more than 20 years. Sure, it is a predictable audiophile-demo album, but I'm using it here merely because I know the album so well and have heard it reproduced by so many different systems.
Format: 16bit / 44.1kHz FLAC – personal rip via XLD and for comparison via Quboz with same bitrate (differences were negligible.)
Equipment: Macbook Pro (2015 / 8GB / i5 – only runs Roon and in priority mode) - Mac OS X | Roon > QED Reference USB > Naim DAC V1 > RCA Audio Note Lexus > Pathos Aurium
Equipment Notes:
The Naim DAC is quite aggressive and punchy, forward in presentation and has strong drive. It’s a SS beast, not at all polite or sweet, neither is it forgiving of bad recordings. Analytical leaning and not at all organic, a modicum of digital glare is evident. With very well produced music the aforementioned qualities lend to create a very impactful and powerful picture.
Equipment Images:
https://imgur.com/a/6nhq8gY
Initial Considerations:
When listening with the LCD-X I’m hearing the Naim DAC but voiced by the LCD-X; the sound is punchy, very wide, slightly artificial (timbre of the guitar is a little off on this recording and the textual is somewhat digital, a tad glaring/etched – not at all liquid or sweet). I know this to be the Naim characteristics because I can switch out to my RME DAC, the difference through the X’s is distinct – I feel detail retrieval is slightly better with the Naim compared to the RME set to line-out with EQ etc., all switched off.
When listening to the Aeolus, they actually benefit from some of the aforementioned qualities and characteristics of the Naim. Although, I’m not hearing those characteristics as apparently as I do with the X. Switching DAC’s changes the sound considerably with the X, not so for the Aeolus, the change I hear with the X, I still hear with the Aeolus, just not as distinctly.
In other words, the Aeolus is not as picky about or sensitive to upstream gear (based solely on the gear I own). Having said that, there is a subtle difference feeding the Pathos Aurium with the Naim, when listening to the Aeolus – the musical picture is slightly tighter, slightly more impactful with greater drive and attack – bass is a little more extended and shaped and treble is a little cleaner. Arguably, mids are better via the RME, though, more velvety and a more liquid sound overall.
Track Dissection and Separation vs Musical Immersion:
LCD-X
The LCD-X / Naim pairing is a microscope on the music – listening to the above track I can hear right into the recording, the placement of instrument, mics, etc., feedback and distortion and perception of the size of the recording space, all the atmospheric data is presented. The Naim / LCD-X provides a very wide palette of sound-space, like a huge blackboard with chalk drawings across it. Each part of the picture on this blackboard is distinct and noticeable; I can see (hear) the pink swirl down in the bottom right corner, the green lines trailing off up to the right, I can smell and almost taste the chalk composition, fresh chalk remnants hanging the air. I can tell how hard the artist was pressing when drawing the lines, I can see the differing levels of chalk deposited on the blackboard.
All of the above is amazing, an enthralling aural hallucination – you can get lost in that for a time, seeing all the pretty colours on this huge blackboard.
The downside to this blackboard of chalk drawings is that it is not a cohesive whole, I don’t hear/see a completed artistic picture, I see all the lines and characteristics and qualities of those lines, chalk in the air, the wide blackboard – it’s pure dissection and separation from the Naim / LCD-X.
Specifically; the background feedback/mic distortion, spatial artefacts, atmospheric cues and other live-recording anomalies, while present should not (subjectively speaking) be front and center, with the LCD-X and Naim, they are. I can hear all of this background with the same emphasis and dominance as Michael Hedges strumming away. An analytical wet dream? Yes! Musically immersive? Heck no! Not by my definition of musical immersion. I generally don’t want dissection and artificial separation, that isn’t helping me enjoy a completed picture of the music. I want to stand a few feet back so I can take in the full drawing – whilst not entirely losing the lines (on the blackboard, stay with me!).
Aeolus
The Aeolus is an entirely different proposition compared to the LCD-X – Yes, I can hear those noted background elements with the Aeolus, the somewhat unpleasant feedback/distortion, the room placement and spatial artefacts, the live atmosphere, it’s there, but it’s where it should be, in the background, merely part of the picture. I’ve taken a couple of paces back and can now see the whole picture on the blackboard. Here, the Aeolus does benefit from all the information coming out of the Naim, but it’s not representing/voicing it like the LCD-X, the picture is cohesive and complete – balanced and yes, musically immersive. It’s not robbing completeness or cohesion through surgical dissection.
If I want to listen to Michael picking his nose during a recording, hearing that as clearly as his guitar playing, I reach for the Naim/LCD-X pairing. If I want to enjoy the music and not lose a bunch of detail along the way it’s got to be Naim/Aeolus. If I want to really play to Aeolus’ midrange strength I run them with my RME, but then I’m losing some drive, dissection/seperation, detail and extension (without EQ or correction that is.) compared to the Naim.
The Pathos Factor:
What does the Pathus Aurium add? For a tube amp (hybrid) it’s quite neutral leaning toward slightly analytical – it adds just a hair of sweetness to the top-end, just very slightly, compared to the Naim. It’s airier than the Naim and removes/improves some of the glare detectable from the Naim. It's overall more lush and rich sounding (compared to the Naim, not as an overall statement about the Pathos compared to other tube amps). In simple terms, it just helps the Naim sound less hard, a touch more sparkle and admittedly, a little less controlled and drive. The Naim, when used as a single DAC/headamp, is like a vice grip, which some people will love, no doubt.
Conclusion:
The Naim / LCD-X paring is wide, surgical and exciting, the Naim / Aeolus is musically immersive, cohesive and balanced. The RME / Aeolus is smooth and velvety, but a little laid back (with the Aurium). Neither headphone is right or wrong, just different voicing, placement and application. For pure musical enjoyment, in my set up, the Aeolus has it, without any question.
