LCD-2 and LCD-X - big difference?

[dagot23]

Hi. I'd like some advice. I was looking into getting one of these but I've seen contrasting opinions. I could get LCD-2C or the fazor version but I'm leaning towards the fazor version. That said, most people say LCD-X are much better. Is the difference big enough to warrant the extra cost? For anyone that used either, how's the weight? Seems really heavy, much heavier than any other pair of cans I've tried. Main reason I'm considering LCD-X is the imaging, apparently the imaging on LCD-2 is not very good. That would be a dealbreaker. I'd appreciate any advice. Cheers

 

[DVDdoug]

Main reason I'm considering LCD-X is the imaging,

How do YOU hear soundstage/imaging with headphones?

There's a lot of talk about it so although I don't hear anything like a realistic soundstage, It surprised me that most people don't either: Headphone soundstage survey

 

[dagot23]

How do YOU hear soundstage/imaging with headphones?

There's a lot of talk about it so although I don't hear anything like a realistic soundstage, It surprised me that most people don't either: Headphone soundstage survey

I hear a full 3D image which is why I always consider soundstage/imaging. For most headphones I don't get a "the sound is in my head" sensation. Only HD600 and HD650 felt like that, which is why I didn't like them that much and preferred HD560s. Though from what I know, neither LCD-2 nor LCD-X is like that, so that's probably not an issue. Mainly I'm just not sure if LCD-X is worth the extra cash since some people preferred LCD-2 or felt they were similar. Then there were others saying LCD-X are so much better it's not even funny. So I'm kind of torn between the two. I guess the main thing is for neither to be too peaky in the treble since that sort of thing is why I'm not a fan of most of Hifiman cans

 

[Mr Swing King]

From my own experience I find the LCD-X to be noticeably poorer than the LCD-2 and LCD-2C. It weighs more and is tuned horrendously.
Then again maybe it’s the lack of uppermids/low treble that some folks enterpret as ‘bigger soundstage’ in that certain sounds seem slightly further away?
In practice I don’t see a reason to go past the LCD-2C unless you really want the wood of the original LCD-2/3/4. The X is just a heavy mofo with terrible tuning imho.

Squiglink - Headphone frequency response database by VSG

Compare hundreds of frequency response graphs between headphones from manufacturers like Sennheiser, Hifiman, Focal, and more.

vsg.squig.link

 

[dagot23]

From my own experience I find the LCD-X to be noticeably poorer than the LCD-2 and LCD-2C. It weighs more and is tuned horrendously.
Then again maybe it’s the lack of uppermids/low treble that some folks enterpret as ‘bigger soundstage’ in that certain sounds seem slightly further away?
In practice I don’t see a reason to go past the LCD-2C unless you really want the wood of the original LCD-2/3/4. The X is just a heavy mofo with terrible tuning imho.

Squiglink - Headphone frequency response database by VSG

Compare hundreds of frequency response graphs between headphones from manufacturers like Sennheiser, Hifiman, Focal, and more.

vsg.squig.link

Yeah, the fr of LCD-X looks pretty bad. I'll probably go with LCD-2C, then. Doesn't weight as much, at least. Thanks!

 

[anaveragebear]

You don't buy the LCD-X for the stock tuning. Well, maybe some people do, but not the people who set up an account on this forum, in all likelihood. The lcd-x has great build quality and extremely low distortion, meaning you can literally EQ it as much as you want and not worry as long as you gainstage. It is also the first headphone that I notice the sense of "detail" outside of tuning. for example, in busy passages you can pick out the individual instruments, the transients are snappy, bass frequencies are "textured" and distinct, etc. It is also easy to drive. The main downside is the weight, I'd say. You definitely feel it on your head. And Audeze supposedly has great customer support, which shouldn't be taken for granted. In conclusion, consider it like a high-quality canvas for sculpting your preferred frequency response.

 

[huts]

One negative about the LCD-X I find is that the build quality is very strange. Its held together with little phillips screws that get loose easily and the earpads are glued on with 3M adhesive that I have to replace every 6 months in a very mild and non-humid CA climate.

If you want some random planars you will wear once a week for your collection ok, but I would not recommend them as daily headphones.

 

[dagot23]

One negative about the LCD-X I find is that the build quality is very strange. Its held together with little phillips screws that get loose easily and the earpads are glued on with 3M adhesive that I have to replace every 6 months in a very mild and non-humid CA climate.

If you want some random planars you will wear once a week for your collection ok, but I would not recommend them as daily headphones.

Thanks for the info. Yeah, the glued on earpads thing is somewhat concerning. Seems like pad swapping would be a pain. That and the weight make these sound like a bad daily driver. Will probably get a LCD-2C, then. I tried them at a store, didn't seem very detailed but the bass was great. The weight was annoying, so LCD-X would have been unbearable. Won't be an issue if I use them for bass heavy tracks only, I suppose. I listened to some rock on them and it was a great experience. Will probably keep using HD560s as my daily driver or maybe use my Edition XS more often, once I manage to deal with the treble. Apparently velour earpads bring the treble down a bit so I'll try that.

 

[Lunafag]

Personally I don't like any Fazor Audezes comfort-wise, on LCD-X it was almost touching my ear. Also you're forgetting about LCD-GX. It's the lightest LCD series model without being as small and clampy as LCD-5.

 

[MRC01]

From my own experience I find the LCD-X to be noticeably poorer than the LCD-2 and LCD-2C. ...

That is also my impression having owned and listened to both extensively.

You don't buy the LCD-X for the stock tuning. Well, maybe some people do, but not the people who set up an account on this forum, in all likelihood. The lcd-x has great build quality and extremely low distortion, meaning you can literally EQ it as much as you want and not worry as long as you gainstage. ...

True, but the LCD-2F has the same low distortion & high build quality as the LCD-X. Yet the LCD-2F also has more neutral frequency response and a lower price.

None of the LCD series are truly neutral; they all have a warm sound with a response dip in treble. This works for me since most headphones sound artificially bright to my ears. The LCD-2F (fazor) is the closest to neutral, though it still needs EQ, it is a gentler EQ.

 

[daggah]

Thanks for the info. Yeah, the glued on earpads thing is somewhat concerning. Seems like pad swapping would be a pain. That and the weight make these sound like a bad daily driver. Will probably get a LCD-2C, then. I tried them at a store, didn't seem very detailed but the bass was great. The weight was annoying, so LCD-X would have been unbearable. Won't be an issue if I use them for bass heavy tracks only, I suppose. I listened to some rock on them and it was a great experience. Will probably keep using HD560s as my daily driver or maybe use my Edition XS more often, once I manage to deal with the treble. Apparently velour earpads bring the treble down a bit so I'll try that.

I've had my LCD-Xs for over two and a half years, and the taped pads haven't been a problem - and I live in a relatively humid climate (coastal Virginia). Remember, the design philosophy behind these headphones is based around EQ...there's no need to pad-roll, you use the pads that it came with and tune the tonality to your preference with EQ. When the pads need to be replaced, I'll pull them off, clean them up, and use a new strip of adhesive with the new pads. The main downside will be cleaning off any leftover adhesive.