Audeze LCD-X

[Torpedo]

Thank you, that was really helpful

[Edwood]

I lack the Naman Neck required for the LCD-X.

[jpslaw]

I took delivery of the LCD-XC today and spent a couple hours obsessing and running through the acid-test tracks. I have LCD-2 rev. 2 and LCD-3 (new build) on hand to compare. After listening, I also received the email with the response graph from Audeze for my pair of LCD-XC and compared it to the LCD-3 graph. The response graph confirmed what I hear, which is that the LCD-XC has a boost in upper female vocals, trumpets, violins, snares, presence, etc. relative to the LCD-3 as well as a warmer but firmer lower end. I cannot discern any downsides of the closed-back as I can with my Fostex TH-900 and TH-600, which have in-cup resonances (but which I like very much sometimes; they're exciting and tremendously dynamic). Also, unlike the new AKG K812 that I got this week, the presence-area boost is clean, not ringy and ragged, and the bass is heavenly clean and rich. The XC does not have the super-beguiling velvety quality that I like so much in the LCD-3 that makes them my go-to cans for almost all pop/rock/jazz, but it does a great job giving life to choral works and older analog classical recordings. Nevertheless, I still prefer my trusty T1 (new build) for wide-ranging listening sessions across genres. I know that puts me in a minority -- why do people rag on those so much? I've always been totally captivated by them.

 

The LCD-XC is quite heavy, and I would not use it except in a stationary position on a couch, comfy chair, or in bed. That said, those are about the only places I listen to cans anyway! I have a doctor buddy quizzing me about them for use at his office desk chair, and I can't recommend such a big, heavy can for that -- it's T1 all the way, baby (he has Fostex TH-900 and is thinking of a change since the TH-900, though closed, leak quite a bit and are sort of loosey-goosey on the head).

 

Let me disclose that I have deeply rolled-off hearing above 12khz and a pretty significant dip in the presence region in my right ear that skews my balance to the left, so obviously my preferences have to reflect my own deficiencies. I'm 48 and have been deeply into audio since I was 13, so I've got some experience behind me.

[Torpedo]

T1 suck, and not only in the treble, so your hearing impairment doesn't justify your judgment impairment 

[roadtonowhere08]

[eggil]

It may be the fact that being deeply into audio and listening to insanely high volumes,since age 13 that messed up your hearing.

[johnwmclean]

It may be the fact that being deeply into audio and listening to insanely high volumes,since age 13 that messed up your hearing.

 

What?

[Spychedelic Whale]

I think they are bros from another mother.

[nnotis]

These were reviewed in Stereophile, in case anyone's interested.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audeze-lcd-x-headphones

[justin]

wonder why they didnt have tyll do measurements?

[nnotis]

I appreciated the pro audio perspective.  Maybe he figured it best to leave the full measurements and their subsequent interpretations to Tyll.

 

As much as he liked the LCD-X, I wonder what he'd make of SR-009s with a BHSE? 

[HiWire]

Also, I haven't heard the Blockhead mentioned in a long time.

[complin]

Yes BUT its wierd that Frame says in his review 

 

"Although the Audezes were darker than the Sennheisers, they were as good at revealing fine recorded detail. In fact, the LCD-Xes reminded me of the recorded detail that could be heard with Stax's Lambda electrostatics, with the important difference that I didn't become fatigued after long listening sessions, as I used to with the Lambdas."

 

I find that a really strange comment as I have always felt that Stax, including the Lambdas, are one of the least fatiguing of all headphones, particularly as he is probably referring to the previous series and not the current.

 

 

These were reviewed in Stereophile, in case anyone's interested.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/audeze-lcd-x-headphones

[postjack]

Yes BUT its wierd that Frame says in his review 

 

"Although the Audezes were darker than the Sennheisers, they were as good at revealing fine recorded detail. In fact, the LCD-Xes reminded me of the recorded detail that could be heard with Stax's Lambda electrostatics, with the important difference that I didn't become fatigued after long listening sessions, as I used to with the Lambdas."

 

I find that a really strange comment as I have always felt that Stax, including the Lambdas, are one of the least fatiguing of all headphones, particularly as he is probably referring to the previous series and not the current.

 

normal bias lambdas are definitely one of the least fatiguing headphones i've owned. i can see how a newer production lambda could be seen as fatiguing (i think it was the sr-202 i owned), but even the newer production models are way less fatiguing then 98% of the headphones out there. i'd put grados, beyers, definitely ultrasone, and a myriad other headphones as more fatiguing than the pro bias lambdas.

[n3rdling]

It's all about pushing the new shit

[postjack]

It's all about pushing the new shit

 

hell yeah who needs that old shit anyway

[nopants]

As someone who is constipated I endorse shit pushing

[complin]

Thats all well and good but when the constipation breaks I for one don't want to be around 

 

As someone who is constipated I endorse shit pushing

[Edwood]

I seem to prefer the LCD-3 to the LCD-X, mainly because the LCD-3 is more resolving of details to me.  But the LCD-3 is so dark sounding though.   The LCD-XC were too honky sounding in the mid treble region, did not like them.

[HeadphoneAddict]

I seem to prefer the LCD-3 to the LCD-X, mainly because the LCD-3 is more resolving of details to me.  But the LCD-3 is so dark sounding though.   The LCD-XC were too honky sounding in the mid treble region, did not like them.

 

I enjoyed the LCD-X more at RMAF for their larger soundstage and improved efficiency.  Of course we all talk about how no "one" headphone does everything perfectly, but many top tier phones have an area where they excel over others.  I couldn't say the LCD-X were #1 in any area, but they did a lot of things right, which averages out to a high score in my book.

 

But not high enough to ditch my LCD-2 rev2 for a bigger dent in the wallet.

[Nebby]

Hmm...I wonder if they went cheap and got Pelican knockoffs, because that doesn't look like a pelican case.

[spritzer]

It's some cheap Chinese crap but still better than the "wood" boxes. 

[GrindingThud]

This is it: http://www.skbcases.com/industrial/products/prod-detail.php?id=439#.UzhUJSe9KSM

http://www.skbcases.com/music/products/proddetail.php?id=440&c=105&o=&s=78

Edited March 30, 2014 by GrindingThud

[morphsci]

I bought this headphone, first Audeze cans for me so no comparisons to be made.

Tyll Hertsen called the prior LCD2 & LCD3 "spectacularly yummy", but yet to give review of the X's, though does provide measurements on his site. Steve Guttenberg of cnet reviewed X's as a "game changer", high praise indeed.

So, they get delivered to me and first thing to impress is they come supplied with a plastic foam inset brief case = very wow - I like to wear shades when carrying my Audeze logo brief case in public like I'm agent "X", yeah these cans sure bring out the Xtrovert in you.

Sound wise, these cans are very nice and forgiving. Comparing them to my Fostex TH600's which can on some tracks be a little over bearing on highs and vocals "S" the LCD-X's don't and have a generally more warmer sound with stronger bass.

One thing which is amazing on the LCD-X is a binaural recorded YouTube video that gives a very real perception of depth, distance and positioning of sounds, especially the rattling matchbox part,

So yeah, I'm in for the win with the LCD-X's and recommend if you're in the market for a pair of very expensive, heavy but comfy cans with the X-factor...and come with cool brief case

image.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpg

ts;dr

[Voltron]

ts;dr

 

Too Stupid; Didn't Read?  Good work, sir, I love the new acronym!