Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › New Audeze LCD3
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Audeze LCD3 - Page 58

post #856 of 9618

I gave these a good listen at our Orange County meet last week.  I certainly thought they sounded excellent, with some noticeable improvement over the 2.  Is it worth 2x the price?  Not to me, at least not at the moment...  I don't have enough time with the 800 or T1 to compare.

post #857 of 9618

Personally, I feel that if people just learned about pro audio techniques of surgical EQ'ing, and then properly create custom EQ curves via competent visual parametric EQ's, there wouldn't be nearly as many people buying more and more ridiculously expensive headphones in order to chase better sound quality. For a very large percentage of folks, as soon as you correct the frequency response of the headphones, they'd be perfectly happy--unless the headphone has horrible distortion, noise, and very sloppy transients. But generally speaking, any reputable headphone usually measures good enough in those departments where it's really just the frequency response you need to address.

 

For people who find it too much work to learn to EQ properly, you can even just use something like SonoReplicator: http://www.sonoreplicator.com/

 

Comfort-wise, that's a different matter and very subjective.

 

My custom EQ for my LCD-2 turns it into a something much more accurate/neutral (good enough for professional critical audio production), and the comfort isn't too much of an issue for me, so I'm saving a ton of money by no longer chasing after more expensive products.

 

 

post #858 of 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagothur View Post

I hope Audeze expands their product line.  Maybe a portable Ortho?  A man can dream.



Don't you mean an Ursus can dream?

post #859 of 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatique View Post

Personally, I feel that if people just learned about pro audio techniques of surgical EQ'ing, and then properly create custom EQ curves via competent visual parametric EQ's, there wouldn't be nearly as many people buying more and more ridiculously expensive headphones in order to chase better sound quality. For a very large percentage of folks, as soon as you correct the frequency response of the headphones, they'd be perfectly happy--unless the headphone has horrible distortion, noise, and very sloppy transients. But generally speaking, any reputable headphone usually measures good enough in those departments where it's really just the frequency response you need to address.

 

For people who find it too much work to learn to EQ properly, you can even just use something like SonoReplicator: http://www.sonoreplicator.com/

 

Comfort-wise, that's a different matter and very subjective.

 

My custom EQ for my LCD-2 turns it into a something much more accurate/neutral (good enough for professional critical audio production), and the comfort isn't too much of an issue for me, so I'm saving a ton of money by no longer chasing after more expensive products.

 

 


I like the Rev.2 without any EQ added.   I don't think I'd be able to mix with them if I were to use any EQ to shape their response.  I am however very interested in trying out your EQ.  I have over 135 AU's for use with Logic or GB that can shape response and can implement them in Fidelia also for playback.   Perhaps you could post your EQ and which software you are using to EQ with.  

 

post #860 of 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatique View Post

Personally, I feel that if people just learned about pro audio techniques of surgical EQ'ing, and then properly create custom EQ curves via competent visual parametric EQ's, there wouldn't be nearly as many people buying more and more ridiculously expensive headphones in order to chase better sound quality. For a very large percentage of folks, as soon as you correct the frequency response of the headphones, they'd be perfectly happy--unless the headphone has horrible distortion, noise, and very sloppy transients. But generally speaking, any reputable headphone usually measures good enough in those departments where it's really just the frequency response you need to address.

 

For people who find it too much work to learn to EQ properly, you can even just use something like SonoReplicator: http://www.sonoreplicator.com/

 

Comfort-wise, that's a different matter and very subjective.

 

My custom EQ for my LCD-2 turns it into a something much more accurate/neutral (good enough for professional critical audio production), and the comfort isn't too much of an issue for me, so I'm saving a ton of money by no longer chasing after more expensive products.


Probably true in most cases for most people.  In my case eq won't fix the deficiencies of the LCD2 driver so yeah I guess it's a minority viewpoint I hold.  Though I think it should be majority one at that price point.

 

post #861 of 9618

Wow how many threads are there on the LCD 3?  

post #862 of 9618

NOT ENOUGH!!!!!! NEED MAORARAR!!

 

Six.

post #863 of 9618

MAORARAR!!!

post #864 of 9618

Hahahahaha!  dang... I can't even keep up... Any who... more impressions please!  

post #865 of 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatique View Post

Personally, I feel that if people just learned about pro audio techniques of surgical EQ'ing, and then properly create custom EQ curves via competent visual parametric EQ's, there wouldn't be nearly as many people buying more and more ridiculously expensive headphones in order to chase better sound quality. For a very large percentage of folks, as soon as you correct the frequency response of the headphones, they'd be perfectly happy--unless the headphone has horrible distortion, noise, and very sloppy transients. But generally speaking, any reputable headphone usually measures good enough in those departments where it's really just the frequency response you need to address.

 

For people who find it too much work to learn to EQ properly, you can even just use something like SonoReplicator: http://www.sonoreplicator.com/

 

Comfort-wise, that's a different matter and very subjective.

 

My custom EQ for my LCD-2 turns it into a something much more accurate/neutral (good enough for professional critical audio production), and the comfort isn't too much of an issue for me, so I'm saving a ton of money by no longer chasing after more expensive products.

 

 



Once again it should be pointed out that while this may be fine for people who listen exclusively to music from their computer, which is not by any means all of us.

post #866 of 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspeakers View Post

I gave these a good listen at our Orange County meet last week.  I certainly thought they sounded excellent, with some noticeable improvement over the 2.  Is it worth 2x the price?  Not to me, at least not at the moment...  I don't have enough time with the 800 or T1 to compare.



honestly, if the lcd-3 is an improvement of the lcd-2, no game with the hd-800 or t1(only for the sound)

if we begin to tlak about the prices, the situation is a little different.

the t1 and hd-800, in europe, are more cheaper compared to the lcd´2


Edited by alota - 10/28/11 at 7:21am
post #867 of 9618

Well my LCD-2's are definitely less compromise than my old $300 cans, My 770's were great, punchy, deep but did not resolve as well as my AKG702 which could spew detail at this level but the trade off of being a little more lifeless in dynamics.

 

So the price/performance ratio totally exist this far up.  Can't comment on anything higher as I don't have the experience.  I am sure there are headphones out there that might have all the good stuff of the LCD-2 with even less sacrifice.  Considering if you compare the HD800's to the LCD-2(or even the HiFiMans) there are compromises and differences.

 

EQ'ing helps if your good at it, but nothing can change the physical properties of the headphones.  You can only help it out a little bit.

 

For instance no kind of equalizing is going to give the 701's heart thumping bass that rattles your skull.


Edited by ninjikiran - 10/28/11 at 6:44am
post #868 of 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorAnt View Post


I like the Rev.2 without any EQ added.   I don't think I'd be able to mix with them if I were to use any EQ to shape their response.  I am however very interested in trying out your EQ.  I have over 135 AU's for use with Logic or GB that can shape response and can implement them in Fidelia also for playback.   Perhaps you could post your EQ and which software you are using to EQ with.  

 


I'm actually in the middle of testing out SonoReplicator, and so far it's been promising (but do NOT follow their instructions on setting the "level," because you'll completely screw up the sound. I find that keeping the level fairly high is much better and natural (the sweet spot for me was near 0.6, but this probably depends on the headphone). I just fired off a critical question for those guys, and I'll finalize my review of SonoReplicator once they give me their answer. If their answer is satisfactory, then I would start recommending it as the no-brainer way for everyone to measure and perfect the frequency response of their headphones--all done automatically for you, not fuss, no guess work.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylab View Post

Once again it should be pointed out that while this may be fine for people who listen exclusively to music from their computer, which is not by any means all of us.


Not necessarily. You can use a hardware EQ unit with whatever source your are using. There are plenty of great pro audio hardware parametric EQ's out there with amazing sound quality--even excellent digital ones with LCD displays so you can visually see the curve you are tweaking. I feel that if all the money people spend on different expensive headphone amps just to use them as fixed-EQ's for their headphones are actually spent on one single high-quality hardware EQ, then it'll be a far more wise and practical purchase. Because, really, that's how these different amps are being used--as a unit that "synergizes" with a particular headphone with its subtly differently frequency response from another amp. 

 

post #869 of 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatique View Post

Not necessarily. You can use a hardware EQ unit with whatever source your are using. There are plenty of great pro audio hardware parametric EQ's out there with amazing sound quality--even excellent digital ones with LCD displays so you can visually see the curve you are tweaking. I feel that if all the money people spend on different expensive headphone amps just to use them as fixed-EQ's for their headphones are actually spent on one single high-quality hardware EQ, then it'll be a far more wise and practical purchase. Because, really, that's how these different amps are being used--as a unit that "synergizes" with a particular headphone with its subtly differently frequency response from another amp. 

 



I am well aware of that, but good outboard EQ's are expensive, and do have other issues, and digital ones are not acceptable (to me at least, and others) when analog sources are concerned.

 

EQ may work for some, but it's not a panacea, and should not be viewed as such.

post #870 of 9618

Do you still have that sexy (Marantz?) EQ? That thing was fantastic. 

 

Either way, I actually usually prefer hardware EQ to software EQ. For instance, the EQ controls on my Pioneer SX-255R are fantastic. The bass knob is so smooth and subtle (the SUPER BASS button isn't). 

 

All this being said...I hardly ever EQ anything anymore. I always think about doing it and then the anti-EQ mindset...sets in again.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylab View Post

Once again it should be pointed out that while this may be fine for people who listen exclusively to music from their computer, which is not by any means all of us.



 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › New Audeze LCD3