CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS
Lobby => Headphone Measurements => Topic started by: Marvey on October 30, 2013, 01:16:40 AM
-
My subjective impressions and notes on measurements are on other areas of the site. I may post my own impressions of them in a bit.
-
Is the L + R freq-graph the same? It's identical... "Perfect" driver matching?
Although the CSD's have some difference in the midbass/midrange?
-
I am guessing the FR/dist plots of 'L' & 'R' are both 'R' ;)
-
I am guessing the FR/dist plots of 'L' & 'R' are both 'R' ;)
That is not possible. The purr is without flaw!
-
LOL. I goofed. Let me find the correct file. Fixed
-
Oh myyyy! I'm intrigued by these now. If only there was some way to drop the "1" from the front of the price tag...
-
What circular piece of the LCD-X measures about 60mm in width? I ask because of that 4kHz slicer.
-
A very good question. That 4k slicer in known as the "ortho wall" (all speculation on our part) which seems to be inaudible: http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,1193.msg31986.html#msg31986 (http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,1193.msg31986.html#msg31986)
-
Can you put both channel FRs on the same graph? Channel matching has been a problem with Audeze in the past going by your measurements, so it would be interesting to see if they've progressed.
-
Here you go
-
Thanks!
-
Hmm... I have always wondered how bad (or not) is this recession of upper mid-range- treble on orthodynamics. I like articulate sound, like to hear stings as they are in real life, and have air and definition of cymbals (10KHz peak is not compensation, plus it adds sibilance to female vocals and this is very very odd thing for me)
I know bass is better, better extension and low distortion, Chello, double bass, Bassoon would be great, but I am not sure of other things...
One day I will try them :)p8 :)p4
The midrange dip like that mostly affects female vocals and piano, especially audible in symphonic or jazz pieces. The 3k dip will hit electric guitars mostly, maybe complex high strings. Yes, 10k peak can sound sibilant if excessive.
This looks much like LCD v2.1; or v3 with increased membrane tension. See LCD v2.1 #2; or LCD v3 #3 and shift resonant freqs up.
Based on this and having heard a good LCD v2.1, I'd say too expensive.
-
With the exception that there is now a more evident peak at 8kHz. This is noticeable.
-
Well, got to hear the LCD-X at the meet, didn't like'em...
Frequency Response
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1201.0;attach=4435;image)
CSD right
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1201.0;attach=4437;image)
CSD left
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1201.0;attach=4439;image)
For some reason these measured with a bit of a roll off in the bass (both channels), unlike the similarly constructed and measured LCD-2... Dunno. I think someone commented they sounded a little lean relative to the LCD-2s... meet impressions/measurements. Seems something weird is going on between 8 and 10 kHz, and a resulting peak at 8 kHz as Marv pointed out. Here is a comparo with the LDC-2 (blue) at the meet (right channel):
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1201.0;attach=4441;image)
I also think the LCD-2s have very nice looking cups, and feel the LCD-X are a step back in the cup aesthetic department (YMMV, IMHO, YMMVAPD, LOLS, XYZ, WTF, ETC).
-
^ That is the same pair I have BTW. I think the coupler surface I use seals better. As for why Craig's LCD2.2 had better bass response, it's possible the older driver was better damped / lower Q, thus more immune to the effects of seal.
Ultrabike's rig same LCD-X (no smoothing) - copied from above
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1201.0;attach=4435;image)
Here's the same LCD-X measured on my rig - this time smoothed 1/24 octave instead of 1/6.
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1201.0;attach=4443;image)
-
Pretty close 100Hz and up. Will eventually move up to a better coupler. :)p7
-
Very close yeah in terms of measurements. I would agree with you that Craig's LCD-2.2 (from the 445 at the SD meet) destroyed this particular LCD-X in terms of sound quality.
His LCD2.2 measurement re-posted here:
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=17.0;attach=4429;image)
Interesting tidbits:
- Craig's LCD2.2 has smoother mids to upper mids
- Slightly less initial rolloff than LCD-X. LCD-X has a steeper deep at ~ 3kHz
- Peak is broader and higher up in frequency than LCD-X. LCD-X has a sharper narrow peak at 8kHz
-
For the sake of completeness, here is the Audeze supplied graph for this pair.
-
They do look surprisingly similar.
-
Single channel measurement? Ha, they're hiding something.