or Connect
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 611

post #9151 of 11248
I enjoy Steve Eddy's Q Cable. Great stuff.
post #9152 of 11248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones Bob View Post

I enjoy Steve Eddy's Q Cable. Great stuff.
What is it that IYO, makes Eddy's cables great stuff?
post #9153 of 11248

Steve Eddy makes sexy cables

post #9154 of 11248
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowglycdb View Post

My headphones came back with the Fazor upgrade, the frequency chart changed :O   and it's clearly an improvement in various areas,  more dynamic, they aren't dark anymore, mid has better presence, there's more attack, they're more fun than before, the treble has air, something that I didn't have before, I'm very happy with the change even though I haven't listened to them for more than 3 hours.

Which amp/dac? Been thinking on the upgrade just not sure how well it would play with my Mjolnir/Gung stack?


Pre-Fazor





Fazored


post #9155 of 11248
Agreed, I think they are the best looking of aftermarket cables, they add clarity in my opinion over stock cables. I think really though any of the major companies (Q Audio, Moon Audio, Headphone Lounge, etc.) are all well-reviewed and safe choices. I think the differences between them wouldn't be too significant, but any one of them would definately be a noticeable upgrade.
post #9156 of 11248
Quote:
Originally Posted by commtrd View Post

Which amp/dac? Been thinking on the upgrade just not sure how well it would play with my Mjolnir/Gung stack?

 

 

Master-7/Master-8,  the trebles are good enough, and the mids are very nice


Edited by mowglycdb - 5/10/14 at 8:57pm
post #9157 of 11248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Camper View Post

What is it that IYO, makes Eddy's cables great stuff?

First off, they are extremely light and flexible. They hang like shoestrings from the headphones.

Second, they look sexy in silk. biggrin.gif

Third, I prefer their SQ to the others that I have tried.
Edited by Jones Bob - 5/10/14 at 9:24pm
post #9158 of 11248
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowglycdb View Post
 

My headphones came back with the Fazor upgrade, the frequency chart changed :O   and it's clearly an improvement in various areas,  more dynamic, they aren't dark anymore, mid has better presence, there's more attack, they're more fun than before, the treble has air, something that I didn't have before, I'm very happy with the change even though I haven't listened to them for more than 3 hours.

 

 

Pre-Fazor

 

 

 

Fazored

 

Hi, the main difference I see is I see an additional hump where the audible treble is, that could be what you are noticing.  Other than that, I see slight bass bump and slight treble extension.

 

I'd like to see what frequency that additional hump is.

post #9159 of 11248
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowglycdb View Post
 

My headphones came back with the Fazor upgrade, the frequency chart changed :O   and it's clearly an improvement in various areas,  more dynamic, they aren't dark anymore, mid has better presence, there's more attack, they're more fun than before, the treble has air, something that I didn't have before, I'm very happy with the change even though I haven't listened to them for more than 3 hours.

 

So you just had the fazor upgrade done? Can you measure the impedance? Just use a multimeter on the jack. See if you get 50 or 110 Ohms.

Would be interesting to see if they did anything to the driver as well, even though they say they don't.

post #9160 of 11248

Don't have one D:, haven't even heard that name 

post #9161 of 11248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones Bob View Post


The customer was not told, so all is speculation without hard data. wink.gif

Yes I was told. The phones were sent back because of the L/H driver was cutting out so they replaced the drivers. I am the third person to own these so I wouldn't have thought they would be fitted with fazor from original. I emailed Audeze yesterday for more details of what they did.

I have both graphs and will attempt to upload them to these pages.

post #9162 of 11248
Ok, here's my preliminary or possibly final answer. I've a fair bit to say but only half of it is listening impressions, which I'm still thinking about.

Take home message: yes, the LCD3F is meaningfully better than the LCD2r1. There are several aspects to this: tonal balance; separation and hence clarity; sound-stage; detail.

However, let me start by venturing an interesting (to me) speculation about psychoacoustic perception. I'm a research psychologist. Perception is not my field but I'm familiar with stock perceptual effects used in past experiments in my field; I have a post-grad knowledge of memory; and I think there's a lot more to brain decoding than I've seen discussed in head-fi's 'science' forum.

To the perception: initially, listening to tracks I know well it was strikingly clear there were 'major' differences, this without performing direct A/B. What's interesting about this is that having since A/B'd I found I was right about the differences, but they are perhaps a percent or so of the total information available, if that. That is, the LCD2r1 and the LCD3F are overwhelmingly similar, but differ in ways that give them meaningfully different capabilities.

Apparently, the brain is able to perceive these differences very quickly - particularly from memory (?!) - leading sometimes to the judgment "this is like night and day".

Right and wrong! The differences may indeed be night and day, but the similarities (quantitatively) far outweigh them. Certainly that's so in this case.

Btw, I mention memory because it seems to me that often when we're listening we're listening as much to our memory of a piece as to the piece itself. This is apparent in many aspects of perception, including visual, when one 'sees' things not there or fails to see things actually there. This seems a good argument for using unfamiliar music in assessing gear differences. The one 'new' track I added to my comparison showed nothing different though. Indeed there's the problem of learning. You can't listen to the same track 'for the first time' twice!

So, point by point:

1. Tonal balance: there is no mistaking these are both Audez'es. The LCD2r1 is darker, but it depends on the material how noticeable this is. By material I don't mean anything so gross as genre. It varies track by track. For example, Stacey Kent C'est petit rien has a smattering of piano chords in the right hand around high C not too far into the track. Heard via the 2r1 soon after the 3F these sound slightly dull and flat. Cymbals and brush work sounded ok (to me!) though, except the tails are distinctly longer with the 3F. (Tails in the lower mids and bass - that ability to convey the rumble in a hall or the body of a piano - is about the same between the two. One exception: low bass is more present and defined with the 3F, contradicting the FR traces of my two, which would argue for the opposite!).

More significantly, with some instruments - notably violin e.g. Lara St John Bach partita no 2 in D minor - much more of their timbre is apparent with the 3F. This adds expressive nuances not as readily heard with the 2r1. Wooden percussion instruments also have a more marked 'woody' character.

Something to note. If I take a break and come straight back to the 2r1, those high C chords no longer sound dull. It's easy to understand why most headfiers find the LCDs particularly dark straight after the T1 or HD800.

2. Sound-stage and separation: I'm not particularly good at hearing sound-stage cues, which I find much more convincing with loudspeakers. That said, the 3F presents a sound-stage even I hear. It locates instruments precisely and has good imaging. This may or may not be related to separation, which is uniformly very good. Sometimes this is a good deal better than the 2r1, sometimes not - material dependent I think.

This showed itself in a striking way with the final movement of Beethoven's appassionata where (I forget the exact passage and don't have the sheet music with me) there is a break into fairly busy scale work in the area around low C. With the 2r1 this tends to meld into everything else that's going on; with the 3F it sounded like a distinct voice, almost - in fact - as if a second piano had entered the fray. Slightly disconcerting at first. In fact, as a general comment, so far I admire rather than love the 3F. It's certainly not correct to call it 'an analytical monster', but the amount of new information presented does make it less easy to simply enjoy at first for me, jumping straight from the 2r1.

Btw, I'm strictly amateur but played classical piano for many years. I found the 2r1 a revelation. It was the first time I heard a piano sound like a real piano through headphones. Yet here is the 3F with a slight but noticeable difference both tonally and in terms of separation, and piano sounds real here too. It's made me re-evaluate the recordings I sampled in recent days. Where I had previously assumed the pianist had applied too much pedal or I was hearing something about the character of the particular instrument, I now see the 2r1 has slightly muddled the more complex colors of the piano (that occur when there's a lot of chord work and sustain pedal is in play).

Indeed, listening to Led Zeppelin's Moby Dick from How the West was won with the 3F then the 2r1 was slightly shocking. The latter sounded distinctly muddy and muddled by comparison.

Another aspect of this is that the 2r1 (with the amp I used with this comparison, mentioned below) placed everything at a slight distance and all together, whereas the 3F brought it up close and nicely separated - both spatially and instrumentally. Voice, for example, in the Stacey Kent piece was projected clearly and slightly forward of the accompaniment (and I don't think this was a mere presence-region effect.,. i.e. favoring voice more; it seemed to be part and parcel of all the instruments having their own space and air).

Yet when I resumed listening to Moby Dick with the 2r1 after a 40 minute break, it sounded as clear as ever! This either reflects the differences really are small; or that the brain has exceptional signal to noise filtering given basically good gear and can do a good job of 'rescuing' the sound; or something else is going on such as I mentioned about memory above.

3. Detail: There is an easily noticed increase of detail with the 3F. This is most apparent with voice; present but more hidden with timbrally rich instruments like violin, cello, and piano. It does seem to be detail not micro dynamics - there is simply information I didn't notice before, rather than expressive nuances. This can be a little distracting - like suddenly getting all your measurements in inches instead of feet - but I'm sure I'll get used to it!

Although the above is hardly good enough to be any kind of review I probably should mention partnering equipment: iTunes with Audirvana Plus in USB mode; BMC PureDAC; and (mostly) Meier Classic. Material used was a mix of iTunes+; redbook rips either ALAC or WAV; and some 24/96k.

The Classic replaced my Decware Taboo, which is my best amp with the 2r1. Not with the 3F. Two points about this: the Taboo is a speaker amp, and may not be happy with the 110R impedance of the 3F (whereas Jan Meier's Classic may've been more happy with this impedance, even given its near zero Zout). Alternatively, I spent some 15 months tuning the Taboo to the 2r1, and there may be a tube combination to suit the 3F as well.

The other SS amp I used briefly was a Plinius 50W class A monster, the little brother of a Plinius SA-250 amp we use with our speaker rig. Both amps can be run A or AB. Interestingly, the 3F did not sound good with AB, but later - after an hour warm up in class A - things sounded very fine. Assuming this wasn't mere expectation bias, I suggest it shows the 3F is truly transparent (or if you prefer, 'picky').

Ordinarily I would equalise SPL with pink noise to around 78dBA. Unfortunately I don't have my meter with me right now (I could've thought to use my multimeter, but didn't frown.gif). To compensate, I matched by ear (notoriously unreliable) and also deliberately manipulated, alternately, the 3F or 2r1 to be slightly louder. Interestingly, I didn't notice any consistent preference for the louder phone. Or the softer, for that matter.

After this one might think I'd sell the 2r1. Actually no. I'm mindful of another truism: the best tool is the one you're most familiar with. I find the 2r1 is still a fine measuring tool which only suffers in direct competition with the 3F. At this point in my listening it would be true to say the two are cut from the same cloth and are almost the same 'painting', but the 2r1 does impressionism where the 3F does - say - pointillism.

In time I may find the advantages of the 3F indispensable and the 2r1 too limited to keep. This remains to be seen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sling5s View Post

Like you I've held onto my LCD-2. rev. 1 and based on my preferences preferred it to the LCD-2 rev. 2 and did'nt feel like I needed to upgrade to the LCD-3.  
But the LCD-3 with Fazors is really tempting.  

Has the LCD-3F replaced your LCD-2. rev.1 for good or do you still feel the LCD-2. rev.1 classic is worth keeping.
post #9163 of 11248

 

Forgot to add that these phones have already been repaired on the date shown on the earlier graph.

post #9164 of 11248
Quote:
Originally Posted by alvin sawdust View Post
 

Yes I was told. The phones were sent back because of the L/H driver was cutting out so they replaced the drivers. I am the third person to own these so I wouldn't have thought they would be fitted with fazor from original. I emailed Audeze yesterday for more details of what they did.

I have both graphs and will attempt to upload them to these pages.

 

For a RMA/repair its probably the only drivers they are making now so they put new ones in but for the fazor upgrade for $250 they are just adding the fazors on to the existing drivers it seems.

 

Your new graph looks lots better BTW.

post #9165 of 11248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jones Bob View Post

First off, they are extremely light and flexible. They hang like shoestrings from the headphones.

Second, they look sexy in silk. biggrin.gif

Third, I prefer their SQ to the others that I have tried.

Thanks Bob. The reason I ask is that Mr. Eddy has shot down any improvement in SQ from different cables. I know his site doesn't make a claim of SQ differences. In fact he is a champion of it "not" making any difference. But you are not the first to claim better SQ from Q cables. There are many makers that do make claims of improved SQ from their design/manufacturer. I am a believer of cable material/build making a change in SQ. So to hear a Q customer make comments of sonic changes when the supplier states otherwise caught my attention. Thank you for being honest and forthright in your assessment.
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