I'm still struggling with the LCD-X. There's some part of my that really wants to like it, but I just can't. Sometimes it sounds thin, sometimes it sounds veiled. It's all over the place. On some tracks, it sounds great. Others, or even sections of the same track not so much. Honestly, I'm finding myself grabbing for the HE-500 with Jerg pads to cleanse myself of the LCD-X's weirdness.

The stamped metal frame doesn't look as good the wood either...

• Compared with a "good" LCD2.2, the LCD2.2 beats the LCD-X in every way. Comparatively, the LCD-X's treble was hotter and the midrange was thinner. The LCD-X just didn't have the cohesiveness and naturalness of the LCD2.2. Every recording I tried with the LCD2.2 seemed "right" and according to a certain vision. The LCD-X on the other hand sounded more disjointed: trying to be neutral when it's not supposed to be - if that makes any sense. For example, Once I adjust to the presentation of say the LCD2.2 or a good LCD3, those headphones never fail to put a smile on my face regardless of recording, even the marginal ones. The LCD-X, with the its thinner, less tactile mids, splash of mid-treble, doesn't make me smile as consistently. Occasional, there's even a WTF.
• On a related note, I would not consider the LCD-X neutral, nor would would I feel it usable as a studio reference. I don't know why these terms were even thrown around in the first place. That fact that the LCD-X exhibits roll-off slope similar to the LCD2/3 and has inconsistent performance from recording to recording is a good indicator that the LCD-X is still colored past the bounds of what can be considered neutral.
• I'm not sure if I can say the LCD-3 sounds less veiled. On some recordings, the veil is gone, but with others the veil is still present. Overall, I would have to say that the LCD-X does sound less veiled, but with the unintended side effect is that it is now less lush and even thin. Despite the measured roll-off slope similar to the LCD2/3, there's something odd with the timbre which can sometimes make the mids sound thin, lack body, or in a worst case, take on a plasticky nature. (These subjective impressions being something the graphs don't tell us.)
• The 8kHz peak is slightly troublesome. Not a showstopper by any means, but it does jut out and contribute to the the lack of coherent sound signature which I mentioned earlier. There's an edginess to horns, snares, upper end of female vocals, etc.
• On the LCD-X bass: less texture and authority compared to LCD2.2/3. Although still clean and just as powerful. It does have impact more along the lines of LCD2.2
• Despite the elevated treble of the LCD-X - hearing past it - the LCD-X does not resolve as well as the LCD3 or even LCD2.2. This was from listening to the headphones from the EC 445 prototype. The new driver just isn't picking up the plankton. It's more along the lines of the original LCD2 in terms of resolving power.
• I do find that the LCD-X is pretty good once I get accustomed to its sound. The LCD-X does have some very good technicalities such as speed, clarity, precision; but once I move back to the LCD-2/3 or even HE-500 (jerg/modular pads), I say to myself, "Ahhh, that's more right."