New Audeze LCD3

Quote:

matthewhypolite said:

Well given how many LCD3 returns ive seen, there may very well be an LCD3-R2

Click to expand...

I am implying that there are LCD-3's that sound significantly different than other LCD-3's.   I do not believe the differences can be attributed to burn in.  I have a pair of LCD-3's on loan burning in solidly for 3 weeks and the the veil and recess in the lower mids has not changed.    Quite a few folks I have privately communicated with have heard this and many have sent their pairs back, a few now wish they did.    Then there are the owners who have not heard the recess and veil in the lower mids.  My friend who has graciously lent me the LCD-3's I am using at the moment has 2 pairs of LCD-3's    He has confirmed to me that the pair he has in his possession sounds quite different than the pair he has loaned to me.  The pair he is using at them moment does not have the problem some LCD-3 owners have reported.  Something with the pair I have is off and from my correspondence with other owners it seems to be off in the exact same way as those who also sense something wrong.  After three weeks of listening and corresponding I believe that some LCD-3's have different signatures, perhaps a batch signature, I am not sure.  Whatever it is there are too many people who have confirmed this to me.  Some of them with world class amps, others with excellent amps.  I do not find this to be a stretch by any means.  I myself have had 2 pairs of LCD-2 r.1's that sounded significantly different.   
 
 
 

Quote:

head injury said:

No, but I expect the "resonance" people were talking about that's ruining soundstage is FR related, unlike the treble resonance.
 
The sensation that notes are coming right from within the cup. I reduced it by reducing the lower mid-range. It's because it was a little too loud, not (or not just) because of resonance.

Click to expand...

Ok well just to be clear that's not what I'm talking about at all.  And I don't know of separate midrange and treble resonances being reported.  I've only head of a very few people hearing what has been described as "reverb/echo/resonance/ringing" in the midrange.  And that's not going to be cured by changing the FR.  Damping maybe, but I doubt it at this point. 

Well i hope my returned unit belongs to the better sounding signature batch
 
Quote:

warriorant said:

I am implying that there are LCD-3's that sound significantly different than other LCD-3's.   I do not believe the differences can be attributed to burn in.  I have a pair of LCD-3's on loan burning in solidly for 3 weeks and the the veil and recess in the lower mids has not changed.    Quite a few folks I have privately communicated with have heard this and many have sent their pairs back, a few now wish they did.    Then there are the owners who have not heard the recess and veil in the lower mids.  My friend who has graciously lent me the LCD-3's I am using at the moment has 2 pairs of LCD-3's    He has confirmed to me that the pair he has in his possession sounds quite different than the pair he has loaned to me.  The pair he is using at them moment does not have the problem some LCD-3 owners have reported.  Something with the pair I have is off and from my correspondence with other owners it seems to be off in the exact same way as those who also sense something wrong.  After three weeks of listening and corresponding I believe that some LCD-3's have different signatures, perhaps a batch signature, I am not sure.  Whatever it is there are too many people who have confirmed this to me.  Some of them with world class amps, others with excellent amps.  I do not find this to be a stretch by any means.  I myself have had 2 pairs of LCD-2 r.1's that sounded significantly different.   
 
 
 

Click to expand...

 

Quote:

warriorant said:

I am implying that there are LCD-3's that sound significantly different than other LCD-3's.   I do not believe the differences can be attributed to burn in.  I have a pair of LCD-3's on loan burning in solidly for 3 weeks and the the veil and recess in the lower mids has not changed.    Quite a few folks I have privately communicated with have heard this and many have sent their pairs back, a few now wish they did.    Then there are the owners who have not heard the recess and veil in the lower mids.  My friend who has graciously lent me the LCD-3's I am using at the moment has 2 pairs of LCD-3's    He has confirmed to me that the pair he has in his possession sounds quite different than the pair he has loaned to me.  The pair he is using at them moment does not have the problem some LCD-3 owners have reported.  Something with the pair I have is off and from my correspondence with other owners it seems to be off in the exact same way as those who also sense something wrong.  After three weeks of listening and corresponding I believe that some LCD-3's have different signatures, perhaps a batch signature, I am not sure.  Whatever it is there are too many people who have confirmed this to me.  Some of them with world class amps, others with excellent amps.  I do not find this to be a stretch by any means.  I myself have had 2 pairs of LCD-2 r.1's that sounded significantly different.   
 
 
 

Click to expand...

Recessed lower mids? FR graph responses from many sources (not just Audeze's graphs) show straight and flat responses and very similar to that of the LCD-2 r2. Upper mids too are quite similar. Now the one thing that I am finding that an amp that can drive the LCD-2s isn't necessarily ideal for the LCD-3. They are less forgiving of what's upstream and a bit more like the HD800s in that regard. I'd look at what's upstream first. I seriously doubt that there is that much variation between headphones.
 
Take your V200 for example. I would classify the mids/treble a bit on the "subdued" side of things. Likely why its such a good match for the HD800s. The LCD-3s could be revealing this, something that the LCD-2s (either revision) didn't.
 
 

Quote:

macedonianhero said:

Recessed lower mids? FR graph responses from many sources (not just Audeze's graphs) show straight and flat responses and very similar to that of the LCD-2 r2. Upper mids too are quite similar. Now the one thing that I am finding that an amp that can drive the LCD-2s isn't necessarily ideal for the LCD-3. They are less forgiving of what's upstream and a bit more like the HD800s in that regard. I'd look at what's upstream first. I seriously doubt that there is that much variation between headphones.
 
Take your V200 for example. I would classify the mids/treble a bit on the "subdued" side of things. Likely why its such a good match for the HD800s. The LCD-3s could be revealing this, something that the LCD-2s (either revision) didn't.

Click to expand...

Isn't the V200 supposed to have a flat frequency response? How can you say the LCDs have the same mid-range response and cite graphs as the source, but that a flat amp has subdued mids and treble?

Quote:

macedonianhero said:

Recessed lower mids? FR graph responses from many sources (not just Audeze's graphs) show straight and flat responses and very similar to that of the LCD-2 r2. Upper mids too are quite similar. Now the one thing that I am finding that an amp that can drive the LCD-2s isn't necessarily ideal for the LCD-3. They are less forgiving of what's upstream and a bit more like the HD800s in that regard. I'd look at what's upstream first. I seriously doubt that there is that much variation between headphones.
 
Take your V200 for example. I would classify the mids/treble a bit on the "subdued" side of things. Likely why its such a good match for the HD800s. The LCD-3s could be revealing this, something that the LCD-2s (either revision) didn't.
 
 

Click to expand...

I have done a lot of leg work behind the scenes and talked to many folks about their LCD-3's privately.  Most of them have excellent upstream gear.  Many have Liquid Fire amps,  and equally excellent DAC's.  It is not a reflection of the upstream process.  As I stated my pair comes from someone who has two pairs of the LCD-3's.  One sounds very different than the other one. He owns the LF and has a world class DAC and has come to the same sonic conclusion as myself and others.  
 
I have tried the LCD-3's on the V200 and the Lyr with many different sets of tubes, basic signature remains the same on the pair I am using.  As I stated there seems to be two sets of LCD-3 owners. Those who do not have this sonic attribute and those that do.  Since I have actually owned two pairs of LCD-2 r.1's that sounded different from each other I have no doubts that there are differences and can be differences in those models.  I see no reason to assume that this is not a possibility with the 3's, also  I am not the only person to report different sound signatures among the LCD-2 R.1's   
 
And as much as I do not want to consider the TP mod of the LCD-3's a viable and serious augmentation of a 2K headphone it is being done by many people and they have reported improved results.  Some of these folks were drawn to the mod because they felt something amiss with their 3's and some were just drawn by curiosity but originally it was created to solve what I believe is the same sonic recess I have found in the pair I am borrowing at the moment.
 

Quote:

head injury said:

Isn't the V200 supposed to have a flat frequency response? How can you say the LCDs have the same mid-range response and cite graphs as the source, but that a flat amp has subdued mids and treble?

Click to expand...

 
Simply because the V200 isn't totally "flat" to ears. That is the allure of the V200 with the HD800s. It helps tame their treble-upper mids. That's not saying the V200 isn't a fantastic amp. I am finding that the LCD-3s are more revealing than the LCD-2s of source/amp and more similar to the HD800s in that regard.
 
 


Quote:

warriorant said:

I have done a lot of leg work behind the scenes and talked to many folks about their LCD-3's privately.  Most of them have excellent upstream gear.  Many have Liquid Fire amps,  and equally excellent DAC's.  It is not a reflection of the upstream process.  As I stated my pair comes from someone who has two pairs of the LCD-3's.  One sounds very different than the other one. He owns the LF and has a world class DAC and has come to the same sonic conclusion as myself and others.  
 
I have tired the LCD-3's on the V200 and the Lyr with many different sets of tubes, basic signature remains the same on the pair I am using.  As I stated there seems to be two sets of LCD-3 owners. Those who do not have this sonic attribute and those that do.  Since I have actually owned two pairs of LCD-2 r.1's that sounded different from each other I have no doubts that there are differences and can be differences in those models.  I see no reason to assume that this is not a possibility and I am not the only person to report different sound signatures among the LCD-2 R.1 models.  
 
And as much as I do not want to consider the TP mod of the LCD-3's a viable and serious augmentation of a 2K headphone it is being done by many people and they have reported improved results.  Some of these folks were drawn to the mod because they felt something amiss with their 3's and some were just drawn by curiosity but originally it was created to solve what I believe is the same sonic recess I have found in the pair I am borrowing at the moment.
 

Click to expand...

Interesting...here are some other people's responses (including my own):
 
Skylab's:
http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd-3-planar-magnetic-headphone/reviews/5820
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/575751/new-audeze-lcd3/1980#post_7924680
 
Currawong's:
http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd-3-planar-magnetic-headphone/reviews/5877
 
dBel84's:
http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd-3-planar-magnetic-headphone/reviews/5815
 
Mine:
http://www.head-fi.org/a/comparisons-of-the-lcd-3-and-the-lcd-2-rev-2
 
Jude's:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/575751/new-audeze-lcd3/2055#post_7929332
 
None of us have noted the issues you have. As well, there is a common thought of improved detail retrieval, sound staging improvement, more air and neutral presentation over the previous Audeze offerings. So the likely culprits are upstream gear, HRTF, personal preferences, etc...
 
Merry Christmas Everyone!
 
 
 
 
 

Quote:

macedonianhero said:

 
Simply because the V200 isn't totally "flat" to ears. That is the allure of the V200 with the HD800s. It helps tame their treble-upper mids. That's not saying the V200 isn't a fantastic amp. I am finding that the LCD-3s are more revealing than the LCD-2s of source/amp and more similar to the HD800s in that regard.
 
 

Interesting...here are some other people's responses (including my own):
 
http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd-3-planar-magnetic-headphone/reviews/5820
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/575751/new-audeze-lcd3/1980#post_7924680
 
http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd-3-planar-magnetic-headphone/reviews/5877
 
http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd-3-planar-magnetic-headphone/reviews
 
http://www.head-fi.org/a/comparisons-of-the-lcd-3-and-the-lcd-2-rev-2
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/575751/new-audeze-lcd3/2055#post_7929332
 
None of us have noted the issues you have. So the likely culprits are upstream gear, HRTF, personal preferences, etc...

Click to expand...

there are many posts in the various threads were people feel the LCD-3's they own have something about them that is not quite right.  I am not going to list them and point them out.  Perhaps they will post their findings. Personally I can understand why they would not since any observation of the LCD-3 and the LCD-2 which is not praise always seems to meet rigorous criticism.
 
 
Also I am going to stand by the fact that from the best I can tell all of the posters you have highlighted have not had two pairs of LCD-3's which sounded different to compare with.  If you have one pair in which you do not hear what I have described and do not have another pair that does then you really can't come to any firm conclusion other than the fact that the pair you have does not have the character I have described.   I have to go by someone who actually has experienced significant differences between two pairs both at the same time on a world class rig.  
 
Again as I have stated I have privately communicated with many owners and there are a number of them who have experienced the same sonic signature and this has occurred throughout a large sampling of upstream gear, so it would appear upstream gear is not the problem.  
 
I think eventually we are going to see other folks start to post these same findings with some of the LCD-3's.  Certainly I have already seen this occur in some of the other threads.
 
 

WarriorAnt stop wasting your time, i've given up on MacedonianHero  a few posts back, he's right and you're wrong, thats all that matters lololol.

 
Quote:

warriorant said:

there are many posts in the various threads were people feel the LCD-3's they own have something about them that is not quite right.  I am not going to list them and point them out.  Perhaps they will post their findings. Personally I can understand why they would not since any observation of the LCD-3 and the LCD-2 which is not praise always seems to meet rigorous criticism which is why this will be my last comment on the subject.
 
 
Also I am going to stand by the fact that from the best I can tell all of the posters you have highlighted have not had two pairs of LCD-3's which sounded different to compare with.  If you have one pair in which you do not hear what I have described and do not have another pair that does then you really can't come to any firm conclusion other than the fact that the pair you have does not have the character I have described.   I have to go by someone who actually has experienced significant differences between two pairs both at the same time on a world class rig.  
 
Again as I have stated I have privately communicated with many owners and there are a number of them who have experienced the same sonic signature and this has occurred throughout a large sampling of upstream gear, so it would appear upstream gear is not the problem.  
 
I think eventually we are going to see other folks start to post these same findings with some of the LCD-3's.  Certainly I have already seen this occur in some of the other threads.
 
 

Click to expand...

 
 
Regardless of hearing only one version (although I am fairly certain tha Skylab, Currawong, and Jude have both heard multiple pair), many of our conclusions are identical across more than just one pair.
 
With regards to your statement of upstream rig, I think you missed my point. I've heard many high end amps that I have really disliked with the Hd800s. Great amps/DACs and synergy are not one in the same. And it appears that what worked for the LCD-2s diesn't necessarily hold true for the LCD-3s.
 
 

I'm also struggling a little with the idea of the LCD-3 having recessed lower midrange.  If anything it seems kind of the opposite of my impression. 

^ I guess I can add you to my list too.

Quote:

rhythmdevils said:

I'm also struggling a little with the idea of the LCD-3 having recessed lower midrange.  If anything it seems kind of the opposite of my impression. 

Click to expand...

Having a recessed lower midrange? From what I have heard, the LCD-3's midrange is like the LCD-2's and is extremely liquid like?

So what you guys are saying is that WarriorAnt couldn't have heard the LCD-3 and decided that it had a recessed lower midrange, and that others held the same opinion?  That seems ludicrous.

I'll come forward and say I'm the one WarriorAnt mentioned as having 2 pairs of LCD-3. Indeed, one pair was stellar, the other had cellophane around the mids. They were both auditioned on the same rig, had about the same number of hours on them, so go figure. I even used the same cable, and extensively compared them. There is absolutely no doubt that they sounded vastly different. 
 
One more thing, which should put things into proper perspective: Skylab, Jude, et al. we're sent review samples from the manufacturer. He or she who doesn't think said samples were cherry picked and tested raise the hand. Yeah, I thought so. There's a reason Consumer Reports' reviews are meaningful: they actually go out and purchase the items being tested, so they are likely to get average samples.