Audeze LCD-X Measurements and Review

Audeze LCD-X Measurements and Review
(Synopsis of content from Changstar)

EARLY MUSINGS

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. 2016 UPDATE: I've heard the LCD-X on all sorts of amps.

1. 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.
2. For initiates not familiar with the Audeze headphones, these are super heavy and uncomfortable, until you get use to them. Some people never get use to them.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Thanks to Questhate for buying them and sending them over to me for quick measurements. This is what makes CS what it is.

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.

1. 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.
2. Less lush - less "organic" sounding. Lacking body.
3. 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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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. The 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.
3. I'm not sure if I can say the LCD-X 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.)
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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.
7. 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."
8. 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.

Audeze LCD-X Frequency Response (0db REL = 100db SPL)



Audeze LCD-X Distortion (at above levels)



Audeze LCD-X CSDs (at above levels)



ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY

 

Yep, pretty much this. Weird attempt at neutrality with rough and poorly integrated treble is what I heard.

 

Recently bought this one from @Koth Ganesh . Unfortunately for us, something went wrong during the travel between India and France and both Drivers were KO when I opened the package. My first Audeze and my first experience of such a fail . lol wut ?

By the tway, Audeze did a great job and I could send them the headphone for repair. I just received it with a pair of brand new drivers ( 2016 edition) and a pair of new pads. Thks Audeze !

I'm amazed to see how close are my preliminary findings to all what I read above. I still don't know if it sounds good or meh after a few hours and listenings. and yes it can sound really good and/or really weird depending on the music/recording and I confirm the treble is IMO rough and somewhat unpleasant. I was expecting a more typical Audeze sound with a lot of bass impact and lusher sound to be honest so I need to forget those expectations before any more comment.

 

My Krell KSA5 Clone and my GOv2