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 60

post #886 of 9585

Is the stock cable flexible or stiff ?  Is it easier to drive than LCD-2 ?

post #887 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio-Omega View Post

Is the stock cable flexible or stiff ?  Is it easier to drive than LCD-2 ?


Cable should be pretty flexible as its the same ADZ-6 which is very flexible by headphone cable standards. It should be about as easy to drive as the LCD-2s or even slightly easier as it's a bit more sensitive at 93db to 91db

 

post #888 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylab View Post


 

Yes, I have that EQ - it's a Sansui, and analog, and on some really bad recordings it can be quite effective.  I like using EQ, and tone controls, to deal with certain recordings. I do NOT like using it to correct for overal system sonics.  I want my system (speakers, headphones, whatever) to have a sound that pleases me on the vast majority of reasonably well recorded material.  And then I will EQ recordings that are not reasonably well recorded.

 



Life's too short to listen to badly recorded/mastered music...

post #889 of 9585

Life's too short to be an audiophile.  wink.gif   Zenjoy the sounds.

post #890 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunatique View Post


There is a threshold to what you can do with a specific driver/housing design. For example, if you can't turn small multimedia speakers into large reference studio monitors because the driver/housing/electronics simply cannot go beyond a certain threshold, due to physical limitations. 

 

But, if the headphones you are trying to mimic actually have similar physical capabilities, then YES, you can get pretty damn close by EQ'ing. I know this because I have made all of my headphones sound more or less similar by making each of them as neutral/accurate as possible. When I swap out between the different headphones, it's obvious to me they are far more similar than different after EQ'ing. In fact, I bet if I invited you guys to my studio and did double blind tests, most of you probably wouldn't be able to guess which is which. I can't convince you of this unless you actually try it yourself, or come visit me in my studio.

 

BTW, did you listen to the link I provided where the guys at SonoReplicator duplicated the sonic signature of a more expensive headphone with a much cheaper one, by essentially measuring both and applying the difference EQ between the two? Listen to the examples here: http://www.sonoreplicator.com/mp3demo.htm

 

And that's done with an automated algorithm that does all the calculation for you--all you have to do is measure the headphones (preferably with a pro audio grade measuring mic). It doesn't even involve any critical listening, comparing, testing...etc--all the work is already done for you--a complete no-brainer product. 

 

While trying to use SonoReplicator to create the "ideal" frequency response might prove to be problematic, due to the previous discussed issues (ones I'm grilling the guys behind SonoReplicator about at the moment), but for purely emulating another headphone's sonic signature, it really is damn effective and straightforward.

 


There is a lot more to sonic reproduction than just frequency response.  For me it is just one of many parameters I consider when listening to any system that reproduces a sonic landscape.  Often it is not even the most important aspect for me.  When mixing I'm not going to EQ the suites speakers, I'm going to EQ the material at hand if needed.  I've never worked in any mixing suite that ever sounded like another suite everyone has had a different reproductive character and nature.  I've always found it more beneficial to learn the particular characteristics of each suite and then go from there.  At one time in my career I had a decade long stretch as a freelancer which meant I had to walk into a different editing/mixing suite and perform as efficiently as "the house guy".  Learning the characteristics of each suite in advance really helped me to survive.   I don't' think I have ever worked in a room that was "neutral".  I really don't even know what that is to be honest with you.   

As far as the LCD-2 R.2 is concerned again I would never EQ it to sound different that it does.  I purchased the LCD-2 R.2 exactly for the way it reproduces straight out of the box or travel case.    

 

post #891 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by warp08 View Post



Life's too short to listen to badly recorded/mastered music...



Life is to short to worry if you are listening to a badly recorded/mastered music if the music is good :)

 

post #892 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by warp08 View Post

Life's too short to listen to badly recorded/mastered music...


x2, and its somewhat shocking how much you actually want to listen to those good recorded songs even though they may not be your favorite.

 

post #893 of 9585

I tried LCD-3 at Japanese headphone festival today.

It is faster and detailed than LCD-2 rev.2.

 

DAC:AlgoRhythm Solo

AMP:Rx MkIII(balanced)

4v7xk.jpg

post #894 of 9585

Thank you, takoyaki!

post #895 of 9585

I tend to agree with you, if totally flat frequency response is that important, then the HD800 wouldn't have been so popular or praised by so many.

 

Straight out of the box? Surely you meant straight out of the box after burning in? wink.gif I took your advice, after a 100 hours of burning in, my R.2 is sounding much better, I wonder if the LCD-3 needs any burning in too.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorAnt View Post


There is a lot more to sonic reproduction than just frequency response.  For me it is just one of many parameters I consider when listening to any system that reproduces a sonic landscape.  Often it is not even the most important aspect for me.  When mixing I'm not going to EQ the suites speakers, I'm going to EQ the material at hand if needed.  I've never worked in any mixing suite that ever sounded like another suite everyone has had a different reproductive character and nature.  I've always found it more beneficial to learn the particular characteristics of each suite and then go from there.  At one time in my career I had a decade long stretch as a freelancer which meant I had to walk into a different editing/mixing suite and perform as efficiently as "the house guy".  Learning the characteristics of each suite in advance really helped me to survive.   I don't' think I have ever worked in a room that was "neutral".  I really don't even know what that is to be honest with you.   

As far as the LCD-2 R.2 is concerned again I would never EQ it to sound different that it does.  I purchased the LCD-2 R.2 exactly for the way it reproduces straight out of the box or travel case.    

 



 

post #896 of 9585

eek.gif The pads on the lower LCD-3 in the picture looks like they are 10 years old already...

post #897 of 9585

OnOffOnOffOnOffOnOffOnOffOnOffOnOffOnOffOnOffOnOffOnOffOnOffOnOffOnOffOnOff

 

Surprised they haven't deteriorated yet. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loevhagen View Post

eek.gif The pads on the lower LCD-3 in the picture looks like they are 10 years old already...



 

 

post #898 of 9585

Hm. Maybe the new soft skin on the LCD-3 pads are indeed too soft...

post #899 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loevhagen View Post

eek.gif The pads on the lower LCD-3 in the picture looks like they are 10 years old already...



They use older lambs...

post #900 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorAnt View Post



They use older lambs...



  It makes the music wiser and more refined.

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