CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS
Main Deck => Discussion for Registered Members Only => Topic started by: Marvey on October 29, 2013, 11:22:30 PM
-
LCD-X Measurements, Review, Stream of Consciousness Post
FR MEASUREMENTS (see below)
CSD MEASUREMENTS (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,1200.msg32101.html#msg32101)
MUPPETFACE FIRST IMPRESSIONS (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,1200.msg32109.html#msg32109)
EARLY SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,1200.msg32111.html#msg32111)
CLOSING THOUGHTS (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,1200.msg32366.html#msg32366)
I've already taken some good listens with the LCD-X on the Vali and jot down some notes. I will try on the Mjolnir next - so no subjective comments until I am done on the Mjolnir. In the meantime, I've taken some measurements. Here they are (see below).
- The pads look like they are the super comfy LCD-3 type pads. As far as operation, adjustability, weight, comfort, etc. I'm not going to bother because the mechanisms are the same as the LCD2.2/LCD3.
- The LCD-X is very efficient. I'm at 8:30 on the volume knob on the Vali. HE-500 and Abyss require 9:30 / 10:30.
- Even the LCD-X is efficient, it will require serious amping (good current / power output at 22 ohms - that's getting very close to speaker current demands) to sound their best. The Vali was not up to the task. The Mojo was.
- Muppetface has these too. She's much a better writer than me in terms of writing proper reviews. I expect her to let us know of her thoughts.
- Thanks to Questhate for buying them and sending them over to me for quick measurements. This is what makes CS what it is.
-
I have the LCD-X on hand as well.
Here are my impressions so far, delivered in HF threadcrap format:
:-S
-
CSDs. Clean as expected.
Note ringing at 4.5k is an "ortho wall" for lack of a better term.
(see this: http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,1193.msg31986.html#msg31986 (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,1193.msg31986.html#msg31986))
-
Okay, a few more [very brief] thoughts after some sporadic listening throughout the day. These are bassier than I expected given some of the early impressions I saw. The bass is certainly well controlled, but the emphasis is there to my ears. I like the highs. The balance there is nice to me, a bit more prevalent than the other models in the Audez'e lineup. People who don't care for the overall Audez'e sound are probably not going to find these to be a revelation, but personally I dig the balance of the highs relative to the rest of the FR.
The mids are where I'm having a bit of a hang up: I'm hearing them as slightly sucked out. I'm finding I have to turn up the volume more than I'm used to to hit that satisfying spot. The last headphone like this for me was the TH900, which I also perceived as having a wee bit of a mid range suck out. It's not a glaring issue, but I did notice it after a while. It was exacerbated when using DAPs or portable amps despite the inclusion of a 1/8" adapter. These kinda need a beefy amp.
Soundstage seems less intimate and more open compared to its brethren. I like that. Resolution doesn't seem quite up to par w/ the LCD-3 to my ears thus far, but I can see some finding details to be more apparent with these due to the relatively more emphasized top end. There's something slightly unnatural about their timbre as Purrin said. Maybe it's the new driver material I'm hearing? The other Audez'e models sound more natural to me, more organic. I'd say I still prefer the way the highs on these sound to the other Audez'e models however.
I have to agree with Purrin: there's something enigmatic about them to me thus far, and I keep going back and forth on how big a deal I think the issues I'm hearing are to me personally.
Thus far, I'm liking these best with synth pop and electronica. Probably the best Audez'e for these genres. I think the slightly synthetic timbre + snappy bass + more open sound makes for a perfect match. The LCD-3 is a better choice for folk, orchestral, vocals. IMHO, YMMV, WTFBBQ.
-
INITIAL IMPRESSIONS
I'm having a hard time putting together my thoughts of this headphone together. Sometimes I think it's good/pretty good. Other times I'm like "I dunno". The LCD-X does seem more recording dependent than most other headphones I've used.
The LCD-X has a presentation very similar to the other Audeze headphones, but with some minor twists and I'm not sure if these twists make quite make the LCD-X "neutral" or not.
- Less lush - less "organic" sounding. Lacking body.
- More treble presence, but the elevated treble doesn't quite seem unified with the rest of the spectrum. (The HE-500, Paradox, and Abyss also have this issue, but to a much lesser extent.) The elevated treble region (it's not too loud really - just about right) makes a small section of the mids seem slightly sucked out.
The timbre / congruency of tone is just off. It's like the LCD-X is pretending to be neutral, but it's not. As if the Audeze driver was not meant to sound this way (it being most comfortable sounding be lush and laid-back) - as if a gay person were being forced to be straight. Something is just not natural about it.
I dunno. This is a hard one to figure out. I'll leave it at that for now. Still sorting out my thoughts with other people who have the headphone in their possession.
P.S. Agree with MF on the resolution not being quite up to par with the LCD-3. The new driver does not seem able to reproduce low level information as well. The fine details sort of get lost. Although I don't have an LCD-3 on hand to compare the LCD-X to.
P.S.S. I think what's troubling is that the tuning is unlikely to please fans of the Audeze house sound (LCD2/3), nor please people who prefer something more neutral, e.g. Paradox, HD600, HE-500, etc.
-
The FR looks pretty good to me, though I am still no expert in reading them. Slight downward tilt along the same lines as the HE500 without the treble being quite so shelved. How do you find the two compare?
I have a secret desire to own a pair of Audeze's after hearing the LCD2 at a meet and was hoping these were going to be a awesome. Less organic than the other Audeze's is not good as I thought that was one of the LCD2's strong points. I wonder if the timbre problem has something to do with the aluminum earcups? It seems to me the change from wood to metal might be the culprit. It would be interesting to hear why they opted for metal instead of the signature wood.
-
I'd assume the timbre issues are probably more likely the result of their new driver material. This new fazor thing?
As for why they opted for metal instead of wood, others have said the LCD-X shows Audez'e attempting to streamline their production process. I imagine then the metal parts would be easier to produce with high consistency standards at larger volumes.
-
Not the cup material, pretty much guarantee that.
-
Got ya, thanks for clarifying. It makes sense from a production standpoint that they would transition to metal cups, especially since they have increased the prices on the LCD2 due to the rising cost of wood.
-
Just a wild guess, but weird treble might be caused by harmonic distortion. This headphone needs more detailed measurements.
-
"enigmatic" <-- what Muppetface said.
I'll look into other measurement types and perhaps overlay stuff to see what's going on. I wouldn't say the treble is weird, just that the overall timbre or cohesiveness is off.
I'll quote Anax: Hehe, you guys are picking up on the weird timbre/tone of the new driver material. It has a more plastic/unnatural tone than a normally organic Audeze sound. IMHO.
-
The harmonic distortion is at the bottom of the graphs.
-
The harmonic distortion is at the bottom of the graphs.
There are some HD spikes, but they are so damn low no one is going to hear them.
-
Yeah the distortion graphs look great.
-
The only caveat of the measurements I can see is the treble...that very narrow/sharp 10kHz peak, with its small ringing ridge, can't do much good for treble coherency I'd have to imagine.
Otherwise these measure pretty!
-
So I take it from these impressions that the LCDX isn't just an LCD2 "sans veil". Yes? No?
For me at least, that's what I was hoping they would be. I could live with the LCD2 if it was just a bit less dark, but I wouldn't want to trade the lush midrange qualities. I kinda like the lushness, at least with regard how to how the LCD2 presented it.
-
I recall the LCD2.2 to have some rough and glaring lower treble in the 8-9khz region as well. Maybe not to this level. What Audeze should have done was elevate the region 12khz and beyond instead of emphasizing the lower treble even more.
-
LCD2.2 - yes rough in treble and sometimes sibilant. Not an issue because overall the treble was push down. The 8kHz peak on the the LCD-X is more noticeable and this is where I am having trouble with marginal recordings.
BTW, the amp (among the ones I have around) which works the best with the LCD-X is the Leckerton UHA-6S. Vali = too slow and bassy. Mjolnir = too thin.
-
Did someone say "plasticky"?!?
*sells K702's and orders the LCD-X* ahoy
Indeed looks very clean on paper. Interesting point on the Leckerton. Low Z output? Since I have one of those, I might have to take it to a local Audeze dealer to check these out.
Interesting read. Thanks.
-
Interesting... uha-6s to power the lcd-x. I have a pair of lcd2.2s on loan to me and tried it with the audio gd nfb-10es2. It was good... but not 2.5x the price of the hd600s good. Ill have to try again with the uha-6s.
-
Did someone say "plasticky"?!?
LOL you know what? I think i invented that term. I never thought it would spread like it did hahaha. It started with my k701 and grado bashing :)p5
-
Very interesting impressions, shows how you can never really gauge timbre from measurements alone. Thank you Purrin and MuppetFace.
-
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...
-
I wish you had an XC there to listen to as well.
-
I'll have an XC to compare to it in a week or two.
Keep in mind the X is 'supposed' to be the better of the two, and that it seems like they've been having a harder time with the XC's tuning. I'm kind of holding out a weird hope it might sound a little less confusing, just because they've been working on them for longer and these drivers were initially intended for the closed model and whatnot.
Then again, all reports indicate that if you don't like the mids on the X, you're not going to like them on the XC. So... uh... yeah.
The mids are the biggest issue of the X for me. However at this point, I think I've come to like these more than Purrin. I'd still take a modded LCD-3 over them no question, but I think the X is more of a successful 'commercial' product. Which kind of takes the charm out of Audez'e for me, as I really liked their previous looks-like-a-woodshop-project approach.
I'd take the X over most of the unmodded LCD-3s I've heard. Though I'd kind of rank it as a sister headphone to the LCD-2 rev. 2, more a different flavor, that just happened to be priced too high.
-
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...
My early LCD-2 rev.2 had a hollow resonance that mired everything. My second rev.2 (angled metal connectors) was much better but had qualities similar to what you describe with the LCD-X. I came close to pulling the trigger on the X. Probably time to cross Audez'e off the list for good.
-
Still looks like Audeze are sticking to their weird, bassy treble shelving. Kudos to them on having clear design goals that they are consistent on, ala stax (lambda era) and etymotic.
-
CLOSING THOUGHTS
I had a chance to compare directly with an LCD2.2 and LCD3 at the San Diego meet yesterday. Here are my final thoughts:
- 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."
The above comments are nitpicks. The LCD-X is a good headphone, but I really consider it the "entry-level" Audeze below the LCD2.2 and LCD3. I expect the LCD-X to generate more disparate opinions if the SD meet was any indication. But you never know, HF craze, a la the original LCD2 (where the likes of me were shot down) may take over.
-
I have a question, I was talking on the way back from the NY audio meet with a fellow who felt his LCD-2 was too harsh in the treble, but the LCD-X he heard at the meet was much less fatiguing and just right for him. How would one explain what he was hearing--the LCD 2 CSD graphs are from before the newer procedure so I'm not sure how to compare with the LCD-X's.
-
LCD-2 variance. For the most part, the LCD2.2s have been consistent, but there was one LCD2.2 I heard a OCAS / Headroom meet in Buena Park many years ago which was downright nasty in the treble. 11-12k spike. I think Anax should remember that pair since he was the one who brought it to me and casually mentioned "you gotta hear this". I met LFF at that meet. Those were the seeds for Changstar.
-
Ah, thanks. Kinda scary to spend quite a few dollars and have it not sound like you'd expect.
-
LCD-2 variance. For the most part, the LCD2.2s have been consistent, but there was one LCD2.2 I heard a OCAS / Headroom meet in Buena Park many years ago which was downright nasty in the treble. 11-12k spike. I think Anax should remember that pair since he was the one who brought it to me and casually mentioned "you gotta hear this". I met LFF at that meet. Those were the seeds for Changstar.
Indeed! Seems like a long time ago.
-
LCD-2 variance. For the most part, the LCD2.2s have been consistent, but there was one LCD2.2 I heard a OCAS / Headroom meet in Buena Park many years ago which was downright nasty in the treble. 11-12k spike. I think Anax should remember that pair since he was the one who brought it to me and casually mentioned "you gotta hear this". I met LFF at that meet. Those were the seeds for Changstar.
Indeed! Seems like a long time ago.
Yeah. Inconsistent Audeze impressions and quality control had more to do with creating this site than anything else. A lot of us just got fed up w/ the BS and hype. I know the Lcd2.1 was the first ToTL phone I was looking to buy after joining HF and reading the ritualized circle jerk. Till I heard one...
-
That's how we became friends at Venice, CA meet. You did your pseudo inquisitive thing: "Hey... so... what do you think about the LCD2? (r1)"
"It kinda sucks."
-
And people carry the train on claiming it was meant to be "creamy." popcorn
Thank you for the comments and comparisons guys, really eye opening how different the responses are from forum to forum.
I remember my LCD3 which was a newer pair sounding oddly veiled, borderline uncomfortably so. However, my LCD2.2 was pretty much just right at the treble, definitely not peaky or anything. It just had more clarity than the LCD3 I had. Part of me wanted to think that it was just because I had owned the same 2.2 for over a year and my ears were more adjusted to that, but that's just nonsense. I hear what I hear, and I know what I hear, and what I heard was no bueno.
I wonder what is the root cause of such inconsistensies. It seems each product they come out with always has some sort of crap at the start, and you'd think after the third time they'd get it right.
Maybe they needed more R&D but had to rush for CanJam, and didn't want to pull a JHAudio, so they pushed for production on an imperfect product?
-
Could anyone with a LCDX in possession pop open the grill and show us the Fazor mod irl? Much obliged.
-
Sure thing. One is a top down picture with the grills taken off. It's just a metal diffuser bolted on to the back of the driver. The second picture is a "side" view to see how high the ridges are.
-
Sure thing. One is a top down picture with the grills taken off. It's just a metal diffuser bolted on to the back of the driver. The second picture is a "side" view to see how high the ridges are.
Thanks. They look slick! I wonder how much of an impact (positive / negative) they have on the sound.
-
I wonder too, but I'm too scared to unbolt the thing from the driver.
The treble is harder and more unrefined on the LCD-X compared to my HD800 here (and rougher than even the LCD-2 based on auditory memory). The HD800 treble rendering is smoother and sweeter, even with the 6K peak. After seeing the Fazor thing, maybe it's the treble waves bouncing off that hunk of metal. Strangely though, the 8K peak that the measurements here show aren't as troublesome for me as the 6K one on the HD800. Maybe I can't hear past 7K.
-
Nah, 6K peaks are just incredibly annoying based on the information that gets rendered there. It's not your ears. Nails on a chalk board are always painful.
-
thought I would post my XC impressions here too - this was from a while ago.
LCD-XC impressions
The XC pair I have has a nice wood grain but the finish is not smooth - several areas of dimpled varnish and although they are buffed, they do not have the sheen of some of the wood cups I have seen ( including the sheen / finish of the zebrawood on the LCD3 )
sound on casual listening: I used every opportunity to play random music from my iphone , streaming Blues/Indie/Jazz stations. Very pleasant experience overall , mostly music I didn't know but easy to get into and get on with work I had to do. The XC is comfortable and isolates pretty well , perhaps a little too well as I got a few cold stares from my wife who had been trying to get my attention. Nice thing is that they did not sound closed in , they do not have the soundstage of my LCD3 and I had forgotten how much the pads shroud around your ears.
Critical listening. This was a challenge for me as most of my gear has been selected to drive inefficient planars and the LCD-XC is just so easy to drive I found it hard to use any of my amps. So much so that I even resorted to firing up the mytek and using its headhone stage. I did finally figure out a setup that would allow me to get a good sense of how the XC performs and enable a comparison to my beloved LCD3. ( just for completeness , I used an early proof of concept cavalli portable - discrete class A but low gain )
I think these are good headphones but they are not neutral and do not rank nearly as good as my LCD3. With that said, the following is what I experienced. When listening to test tracks that I am very familiar with, I found that I was turning the volume down because some of the upper mids were too sharp. This resulted in the mids , especially some portions of female vocal to feel recessed. I also found that the bass lacked the definition that I am used to hearing, it is still full and impactful but not as tight and not as "layered" / detailed. When i put them head to head against my LCD3 and a stock pair of LCD3, there are a few things that become more evident - the pitch of the mids is notched up ever so slightly , just enough to make you aware of it and on some tracks eg acoustic fretwork, can sound a little "nasal". I am not sure I would have picked this out without ABing , I knew it sounded different but would have put it down to headphone variation as it doesn't sound off on its own. I also feel that the overall voicing of the XC is, on first impression, more satisfying than the stock LCD3 voicing because of the increased treble presence. My LCD3 actually have as much top treble energy but it doesn't have the upper mid emphasis which makes for a more balanced sound that I am using as a reference. I also felt that the XC's soundstage did not suffer relative to the stock 3 but was nowhere near my own.
This takes me back to my initial comment, these are good headphones but I do not find them neutral. Overall I think people could live with the colouration quite happily. I don't think it is a driver problem so much as a slight honkiness that most closed headphones are prone to.
-
I've always attributed the better bass extension of closed dynamic headphones vs open ones to the seal they provide, allowing for easier pressurization of the enclosed cavity.
Does the same apply for the XC vs the 2, 3 or X? I know the open LCDs might as well have bottomless extension to begin with, but I was wondering if the XC was even more impactful deep, deep down low as a result of its closed nature.
-
Hmm, reading through this thread worries me greatly... After reading Headmania's review and his comparison of the X to the HD800 I thought it would be the perfect companion to HD800 for me. I've always been a fan of the build, aesthetic and general sound idea of Audeze, but found the LCD-2 to have such a lack of detail and soundstage compared to the HD800 that I didn't keep it, and the LCD-3 was just far to expensive for what it offered (at least to my ears then) which seemed to be the dark signature of the LCD-2 but with more detail and more soundstage - it just seemed a bit too dark still though.
That and I couldn't stand the pads - seemed like having your face squished between two spring-mattresses, just waiting to slip/wobble off your head, where as the LCD-2 was just right for me.
Now when I heard the LCD-x supposedly had a bigger soundstage, and some more treble energy along with the bass and fullness of the "Audeze-sound", I thought it sounded perfect for my use. Specifically that is for metal/rock recording where there sometimes is way too much treble noise relative to the sound level and body of the rest on my HD800, probably due to poor recording, or just the nature of the distorted guitars etc.
Any thoughts on the LCD-X as a companion for the HD800 for the purpose mentioned? And has anyone by chance read Headmanias review, and if so, what are your thoughts on it?
Heres a link to the reviews in question: http://headmania.org/2013/11/08/audeze-lcd-x-review/comment-page-1/#comment-104959 (http://headmania.org/2013/11/08/audeze-lcd-x-review/comment-page-1/#comment-104959)
-
His LCD3 sounds like one of the many defective units out in the wild. Despite this, the LCD3 is till more resolving than the X and has a more natural timbre even with the bad ones that sound slow and veiled. The X is a more balanced sounding Audeze phone but make no mistake, it has it's own signature.
Like the reviewer, I can concur the LCD-X never 'seizes' to amaze me. :P His comparison to the HD800 is accurate in some parts and contradictory in others so it's a bit mixed bag. He definitely has symptoms of being under amped when he hears back wall reflections more on the LCD-X than the HD800. The comments on imaging seem to be inconsistent at times, could be the 800 behaving reactively with the amp. If you want smooth, sibilant free sound even when the sibilance is actually on the recording, the X can help with that.
I could recommend the X at an MSRP of $500, but not what they are asking. If I was fine with using eq, I'd probably pick the TH900 over the X.
-
X is just a brighter 2. Still has little in the way of redeeming qualities if accurate reproduction is your aim.
-
The LCD-X really has no appeal for me, personally. Compared to the other open Audez'e models, it has the most unnatural timbre and seems to lack a bit of the texture of its brethren, like it's just not extracting as much information. Granted it does have a brighter overall tonal balance, and I suspect this makes it seem more detailed for some folks, especially when compared to a 'veiled' LCD-3. The biggest drawback for me however is the midrange: there's a sucked out effect, right up against some hard upper mids, so it sounds both a little distant and also somewhat fatiguing at the same time. It's a recipe for what I call "volume seesaw" where I have to keep turning the volume up and down, up and down. So overall I'd say the X lacks the refinement of its brethren, and it loses the creamy Audez'e magic that gave the brand a unique identity in the first place.
The LCD-XC is a bit less refined still, but it at least appeals to me more being a closed back model. In fact it would be a great closed headphones if it weren't so heavy and cumbersome to use for anything other than sit-down home use. Also the price tag is clearly strategic move on the part of Audez'e to my mind, an attempt to make the LCD-X / XC seem closer to the LCD-3 when it's actually closer to the LCD-2 in my opinion. I have a feeling the LCD-3 has been giving Audez'e a lot of headaches, so they'll probably phase it out when the LCD-4 is released at $4k or thereabouts, allowing the LCD-X and XC to slot into the middle of their lineup. Just a guess, of course.
If you want a brighter tonal balance than the LCD-3, there are better options out there than the LCD-X to my mind. Also I'd wait and see how the new HiFiMan models like the HD-560 do when they're released in a few months.
-
If you want a brighter tonal balance than the LCD-3, there are better options out there than the LCD-X to my mind. Also I'd wait and see how the new HiFiMan models like the HD-560 do when they're released in a few months.
Hmm, good point - currently I've tried the TH900 as a companion for the HD-800 but found it too similar, but falling short in all areas except bass quantity. And what made me cross it off my list is the seesawing you spoke of, because I love its bass punch, but when i turn it up to enjoy it with a metal recording, by ears get shredded (no pun intended) making me turn it down, or even just switch to the HD-800.
So yea. With no way of actually auditioning any of the Audeze models here (except the LCD-2 which some people own) I'm having a rough time deciding - but the Hifimans are definitely something I'll be looking out for. I even thing the local distributor will have a release event/meet up when the time comes :)
It strange to hear such different impressions between this forum and many reviewers and sites... I mean I consider myself a realist and to some extent a cynical type, but the X is getting a beatdown here :P
At any rate, thanks a lot for helping. My quest for a "meaty" HD-800 continues! To the great beyond! (hopefully not an LCD-4 though... *shrugs*)
-
The best companion to the HD800 is the HD800. There's really nothing quite like it.
If you need a less demanding HD800, the K812 is the closest you'll come to an answer.
If you need a portable HD800, UERM seems to be the consensus choice for CIEMs. My UERM doesn't sound very much like the HD800, but it was the only CIEM I liked out of half a dozen I tried, so there's that.
-
Yea, probably true. I think the only headphones competitive with it on the market that I haven't heard are the LCD-X and XC series (hence my curiosity). The TH900 came very close, but the is just too much harshness/sibilance in the treble for my ears' health.
I think the HE-500 has a lot of what I'm looking for, I just want a better/more refined version of it, one with more emphasis on the parts that i'm interested in, so a HE-500 with better resolution, a bit more bass energy and a big soundstage.
As for in ears I currently have a pair of Heir Audio A.4 which I found to resemble the HD800 in a lot of areas - although when I later compared it to JH13+16 and the fit-ear models it couldn't quite keep up in soundstage etc. But those were waaaay too bright and sibilant to my ears to replace it though.
-
but the X is getting a beatdown here :P
Just a matter of point of reference. Many of the folks here have been through 009/007 with BHSE or T2 and lived with the HD800 and other phones using many different high-end chains (some good, some bad). We've also been through the many HD800 killers and various end-game sidegrades and have little patience or time for BS. If something isn't what people hype it to be, many here will likely point it out.
-
I think the HE-500 has a lot of what I'm looking for, I just want a better/more refined version of it, one with more emphasis on the parts that i'm interested in, so a HE-500 with better resolution, a bit more bass energy and a big soundstage.
I think the 560 could be up your alley.
-
Are the X/XC not selling too well? I haven't read the threads but they don't have many pages for Audeze products.
-
I think the HE-500 has a lot of what I'm looking for, I just want a better/more refined version of it, one with more emphasis on the parts that i'm interested in, so a HE-500 with better resolution, a bit more bass energy and a big soundstage.
I think the 560 could be up your alley.
Another possibility as a compliment to the HD800 is the Abyss, although I wouldn't say it's a cost efficient headphone.
-
I think the HE-500 has a lot of what I'm looking for, I just want a better/more refined version of it, one with more emphasis on the parts that i'm interested in, so a HE-500 with better resolution, a bit more bass energy and a big soundstage.
I think the 560 could be up your alley.
Another possibility as a compliment to the HD800 is the Abyss, although I wouldn't say it's a cost efficient headphone.
Hehe, no, not exactly, but yea, it might do the job sonically, but I didn't find it to impress me quite enough to carry that price - especially not the price of the entire system I heard it on (Liquid godt and some absurdly expensive Dac i cant remember the name of). That and he waffle iron construction isn't very practical :P
-
If the Abyss is too rich for your blood, but you still want ortho goodness, I'd suggest looking into some of LFF's headphones, particularly the Code X.
Also for the more adventurous and tolerant of goofy designs, the new Jecklin Float QAs get my highest recommendation. I prefer them overall to nearly every other e-stat past and present, particularly because they sound more natural to my ears whereas most e-stats have an ethereal quality. Cue the eye rolls from some folks.
The Koss ESP 950 is also an awesome little bundle for $500 if you shop around enough. Heck, it's better than a lot of headphones at three times its price or more. The included amp isn't that great, but it should hold you over until you can find a better option like a used SRM-717 for $1k or so. With a better amp it goes from being great to phenomenal in my opinion, and at this price of around $1500, I'd take it over 90% of the stuff out there.
On the dynamic front, I'm really quite fond of the AKG K812.
-
I agree with MF's picks, especially the ESP 950. For a $500 used amp/headphone combo, the ESP950 currently tops my list. Sounds damn good at that price. You can get it brand new from KOSS for $600 around the holidays when their 40% coupon hits. There's a lifetime warranty and they are super generous with it.
-
Also for the more adventurous and tolerant of goofy designs, the new Jecklin Float QAs get my highest recommendation. I prefer them overall to nearly every other e-stat past and present...
Mupps, when did you hear the new floats?
-
Mupps, when did you hear the new floats?
I've had them since December of 2012 or thereabouts. They're one of my main headphones.
-
How's the bass of the LCD-X compared to the HE-400?
-
The HE-400 has more slam, the LCD-X is more polite but has adequate definition. I haven't had enough time with the LCD-X to really know what it's capable off, but if the LCD-3 is any indicator then I prefer the HE-400's tight & heavy bass.
-
Well, I've had my LCD-X now for some months (coming up on half a year I think) and I do like some things about it as is obvious by me still having it, but it is far from perfect and I do catch myself considering selling it... But anyway, the impressions of it are generally that the tonality is brilliant, but I would often like a fuller sound, more bottom on it, though it is not as lacking as the LCD-3 in this regard. Likely this is more up to its increased impact than tonality. The biggest bone I have to pick with it is probably a lack of resolution and that it does seem to require a fairly loud volume level for the drivers to perform their best.
The volume level was too high for one of my friends and below this level it gets too dark and closed sounding. Mind you my reference when it comes to resolution is the HD800. But honestly, considering the LCD-X costs twice as much as the HD800 here, I think it is a "fair" comparison... To be honest, on all technical levels the LCD-X is greatly inferior to the HD800, but its sound signature is more to my taste a lot of the time.
Now I have the HD800 for really detailed acoustic music and progressive metal/death metal, the Fostex TH600 for the heavy rumble of electronic/ambient, and the LCD X for things in between like Jazz-Metal, Djent etc. But if Audeze and Sennheiser or Beyerdynamic even, worked together to make a headphone it might in my eyes be the perfect headphone!
My conclusion is to be honest that at new price, to my eyes, the LCD-X from a "subjective" or "scientific" standpoint is abysmal value compared to things like HD800, HE-6 or T1, but from a more subjective view it is a taste of something better that just isnt quite there, but the best we have got at the moment with that signature.
Oh, and I'm an absolute sucker for the build quality and heft of it, though I must admit it quite uncomfortable over time compared to my other two cans, though definitely not unwearable if you shift it a bit every once in a while...
-
Just got a pair of these in the office today. I previously spent a short while with them at a meet about a year ago and thought they were pretty okay at the time.
Opinion is more favorable now. Sound signature-wise at first listen, they remind me of an open TH900 with a little less bass slam and less recessed in the mid range (both good points IMO). More fatiguing in the treble. Listening through Jimmy Eat World's Bleed American and it's pretty solid.
Comfort's good, still kinda on the heavy side of headphones. Hard to forget I have these on the head, but I might just be a wimp.
Oops, setup as follows:
X-Sabre -> Ragnarok balanced -> LCD-X
Edit: We also received an LCD-2, just gave it a listen on the same setup. Damn, I don't remember the LCD-2 sounding this good. Handed them off to Will who said much the same. Not sure if we got a great pair or if this is the norm now.
-
Edit: We also received an LCD-2, just gave it a listen on the same setup. Damn, I don't remember the LCD-2 sounding this good. Handed them off to Will who said much the same. Not sure if we got a great pair or if this is the norm now.
Frame of reference. A lot of the newer FOTM phones just don't sound as good as some prior flagships. Usually only evident in direct A/B.
I had the same experience hearing the 560 for the first time and how much more I enjoyed many of the improvements over the 500 (using Fang's demo gear). Then I put on the the HE6 just to be sure and said to myself, "oh....right, not quite." Even though the tone and signature is starkly different between the two, the technical differences in capability were obvious.