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 618

post #9256 of 9749

Still looks like mids are hidden.  Don't like the mids of Audeze as it's bumped down and the graphs reflect that.  I like the clear treble, but the mids, I'm not too fond of the Audezes.  There is good amount of sub bass also, but I prefer the HE-6 overal, as the mids are better represented with more details and great clarity.   This is with the right amp of course as Audeze is easier to drive, but it's not refined.

post #9257 of 9749
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post

Still looks like mids are hidden.  Don't like the mids of Audeze as it's bumped down and the graphs reflect that.  I like the clear treble, but the mids, I'm not too fond of the Audezes.  There is good amount of sub bass also, but I prefer the HE-6 overal, as the mids are better represented with more details and great clarity.   This is with the right amp of course as Audeze is easier to drive, but it's not refined.


Have you auditioned the LCD3s? Complaints about mid range and lack of refinement don't come up very often and I don't experience that personally.
post #9258 of 9749

Looking at both graphs, seems indeed very similar. The thing that I wonder the most about is the closeness in bass response while Tyll's measurements showed a clear low-end drop-off starting as early as 60Hz (that would be certainly be audible on some recordings and unacceptable to me)

 

Going by that similarity in the Audeze graphs, seems to me that the -most noticeable- difference would be that the LCD3s become easier to drive (i.e. higher efficiency of the new driver) and will sound better on a larger variety of amplifiers...

 

I remember there being talk about a fazors-only upgrade (here or on Innerfidelity), did anybody ever try that? I imagine the difference would be even more subtle and perhaps not worth it?

post #9259 of 9749

Waiting for my Q French Silk Cable.

post #9260 of 9749

I was just looking on the Audeze web site and I noticed something, they are referring to the LCD-X as their "Reference Level" headphones. So what are the LCD3 now? To my way of thinking, a companies reference level headphone should be their best. I mean to say flatest FR, lowest distortion, best imaging and soundstage. Maybe they should switch the prices now. I have heard some people actually say they thought the X was the better headphone, but I haven't had the chance to listen to one myself. It just strikes me as odd they would take one of their mid-level price-wise headphones and call it their reference level phone. Why would I then want to buy or be interested in an LCD3.(Even though I am, but I am going to start looking harder at the X now, after seeing that)

post #9261 of 9749
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPiper View Post
 

I was just looking on the Audeze web site and I noticed something, they are referring to the LCD-X as their "Reference Level" headphones. So what are the LCD3 now? To my way of thinking, a companies reference level headphone should be their best. I mean to say flatest FR, lowest distortion, best imaging and soundstage. Maybe they should switch the prices now. I have heard some people actually say they thought the X was the better headphone, but I haven't had the chance to listen to one myself. It just strikes me as odd they would take one of their mid-level price-wise headphones and call it their reference level phone. Why would I then want to buy or be interested in an LCD3.(Even though I am, but I am going to start looking harder at the X now, after seeing that)

 

I would say that the LCD-X are the more neutral of the two headphones. The LCD-3s have a warmer and very enticing and enjoyable sound, but for "reference" listening, I agree that the LCD-X are the ones I'd reach for.

post #9262 of 9749
Yeah it seems odd, though most people from what I've read still agree the LCD3 is the better headphone. But quite a few also feel the X is better, just depends on preferences I guess. If you like the warmer more musical experience I would say the 3 is the way to go, if you prefer more neutral and precise imaging the X might be your bag.
post #9263 of 9749
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldendarko View Post

Yeah it seems odd, though most people from what I've read still agree the LCD3 is the better headphone. But quite a few also feel the X is better, just depends on preferences I guess. If you like the warmer more musical experience I would say the 3 is the way to go, if you prefer more neutral and precise imaging the X might be your bag.

Really? Most? LOL.

 

I love both headphones, but I prefer the more "neutral" LCD-X as its a better all rounder for most genres.

post #9264 of 9749
From most of the reviews I've read of the X & 3 yes I would say the trend is a preference towards the 3, but like I said everyone has their own prefrences and I still think the LCD-3 is their flagship.
post #9265 of 9749
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldendarko View Post

From most of the reviews I've read of the X & 3 yes I would say the trend is a preference towards the 3, but like I said everyone has their own prefrences and I still think the LCD-3 is their flagship.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post
 

Really? Most? LOL.

 

I love both headphones, but I prefer the more "neutral" LCD-X as its a better all rounder for most genres.

Interesting, this. Mac, have you heard the "fazored" LCD-3. I would be interested in the comparison since I've been itching to throw some money away and looking at the X. I do have the "original" LCD-3.

post #9266 of 9749

I auditioned The X and 3(f) side by side a few weeks ago.  I only spent maybe 30 minutes with each and I think that the X will be a more successful product.  I get the feeling that the 3's are still the Audeze statement product: the splashy wood and lamb skin combo, the propriety sound, etc.  The LCD3 just feels like a headphone that was built by them for themselves and they worried less about mass appeal.  The LCD-X feels more like they understand the market and their customers and built a product for them.

 

Either way, both are excellent and if I did not own the HD800's, I would have left with the X's.

post #9267 of 9749
Quote:
Originally Posted by kothganesh View Post
 

 

Interesting, this. Mac, have you heard the "fazored" LCD-3. I would be interested in the comparison since I've been itching to throw some money away and looking at the X. I do have the "original" LCD-3.

 

Careful when you say "original" LCD-3. If the serial number starts with 231, then that really is original and quite a few found that the sound signature was "veiled"...some liked it. Then they made some changes, primarily to the fabrics used on either side of the drivers, although I think some refinements to the driver were made too, that resulted in a serial number change starting 261. There are some that insist that newer 261s are brighter than earlier ones, but having had my own 261 and a late 2013 261 at the same time, I really couldn't hear that myself. Then of course there is the fazor 271s. I suspect someone coming from a good pair of 261s to 271s will hear much less of a difference than someone coming from the "real" original LCD-3s with 231 serial numbers and original drivers

post #9268 of 9749
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfatpaulie View Post
 

I auditioned The X and 3(f) side by side a few weeks ago.  I only spent maybe 30 minutes with each and I think that the X will be a more successful product.  I get the feeling that the 3's are still the Audeze statement product: the splashy wood and lamb skin combo, the propriety sound, etc.  The LCD3 just feels like a headphone that was built by them for themselves and they worried less about mass appeal.  The LCD-X feels more like they understand the market and their customers and built a product for them.

 

Either way, both are excellent and if I did not own the HD800's, I would have left with the X's.

 

There are quite a few people with LCD-3 + HD800. The HD800 is much more in the reference direction and the LCD-3 that deep warm smooth voicing. So for those can afford such an indulgence, the marriage of those two headphones is quite something depending on what you are listening to, or your mood. The LCD-Xs are more in the direction of an HD800, as you said, if you already have the HD800 you are less likely to choose the X over the 3 for a second pairing.

post #9269 of 9749
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfatpaulie View Post
 

I auditioned The X and 3(f) side by side a few weeks ago.  I only spent maybe 30 minutes with each and I think that the X will be a more successful product.  I get the feeling that the 3's are still the Audeze statement product: the splashy wood and lamb skin combo, the propriety sound, etc.  The LCD3 just feels like a headphone that was built by them for themselves and they worried less about mass appeal.  The LCD-X feels more like they understand the market and their customers and built a product for them.

 

Either way, both are excellent and if I did not own the HD800's, I would have left with the X's.

 

I think you are spot on.  I also feel that LCD X is really targeted to those who don't really like the Audeze house sound from LCD2 to LCD3.  Personally if I can have only 1 pair of totl headphone I would opt for LCD X.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonstatt View Post
 

 

There are quite a few people with LCD-3 + HD800. The HD800 is much more in the reference direction and the LCD-3 that deep warm smooth voicing. So for those can afford such an indulgence, the marriage of those two headphones is quite something depending on what you are listening to, or your mood. The LCD-Xs are more in the direction of an HD800, as you said, if you already have the HD800 you are less likely to choose the X over the 3 for a second pairing.

 

 

Yes!  I'd rather have (and I have) LCD3 + HD800 than just having LCD X  :L3000:  

post #9270 of 9749
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkcc View Post
 

Yes!  I'd rather have (and I have) LCD3 + HD800 than just having LCD X  :L3000:  

 

If you don't mind me asking, how do you find the NFB-28 with the LCD3's?  I am looking for an 'all in one' unit for them and I keep going between the NFB-28 and something like a Reference 10.  Any thoughts?

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