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 619

post #9271 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkcc View Post
 
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:  

 

Being part of Justin's recent LCD-X tour, I got to spend a good deal of time with it at home and compare it extensively to my LCD2.2 as well as a friends LCD3 and played with it on a full range of setups from very high end to portable. Overall, the X was unquestionably my favorite headphone, but IMO was still very much the Audeze house sound. It was the most different in the group, but in a blind lineup of planers, I'm confident that i could pick it out as an Audeze.

 

To me the key to the Audeze house sound is a fun euphonic (or even euphoric) quality to the sound. My LCD2 has a very euphonic lower end to it that makes it sound great on every system that I have heard it on. My friends LCD3 adds a bit of euphonic flavor to a slightly extended treble energy, but IMO is a very slight improvement over my LCD2 making it hard to justify at twice the cost. Please don't hate me for my personal opinion as I agree the 3 is awesome but the pricing is off. :eek: Now the X seems to shift the whole sound spectrum up a notch with a little brighter signature, but retains the euphonic lows, highs, and adds a very euphonic mid to the equation. The euphonic mids are what make the X sing for me, but the frequency shift separates the mids better and tightens up the bass somewhat so that the highs can give the typically congested presentation some room and a little air. Obviously there is more to it than that, but that was the key to my opinion of the X. Oh, and what was really remarkable with the X was how well it scaled down to make my X5 and DX90 sound stellar. While the X5 and DX90 cannot drive the X to its full capabilities, the X absolutely can drive the X5 and the DX90 to their full capabilities.

 

I think they nailed it on the LCD-X, but like you, I am getting the HD800 next instead for more variety. Now I have to figure out how to properly drive the HD800 on my Mjolnir setup since the Audeze and HD800s don't tend to play nice on the same amp. Maybe its time to get an Eddie Current Zana Deux SE like my friends.

post #9272 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barra View Post
 

 

....................

 

I think they nailed it on the LCD-X, but like you, I am getting the HD800 next instead for more variety. Now I have to figure out how to properly drive the HD800 on my Mjolnir setup since the Audeze and HD800s don't tend to play nice on the same amp. Maybe its time to get an Eddie Current Zana Deux SE like my friends.

Very nice summary. Like you, I chose the 3 and the HD 800. IMO, the Mojo does not play nice with the 800. The ZDSE is a dream. The Bottlehead Crack is another beautiful pairing with the 800 (IMO).

post #9273 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfatpaulie View Post
 

 

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?

 

I haven't heard the Ref10 so can't really tell you much.  I do like the NFB-28 with LCD3 and I actually asked the same question (well was asking about NFB10ES2 vs Ref10 at the time) to kingwa and his advice is it depends on sound sig of the ess9018 vs pcm1704.  I would venture to guess if you like a warmer sig then Ref10 would be better.  The amp section of both model should drive the LCDs just fine.  

 

Or, you can look at the Chord Hugo.  I like my LCD3 on it more than the NFB28.  There are also reports of preferring it over the Master7.

post #9274 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by kothganesh View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barra View Post
 

 

....................

 

I think they nailed it on the LCD-X, but like you, I am getting the HD800 next instead for more variety. Now I have to figure out how to properly drive the HD800 on my Mjolnir setup since the Audeze and HD800s don't tend to play nice on the same amp. Maybe its time to get an Eddie Current Zana Deux SE like my friends.

Very nice summary. Like you, I chose the 3 and the HD 800. IMO, the Mojo does not play nice with the 800. The ZDSE is a dream. The Bottlehead Crack is another beautiful pairing with the 800 (IMO).

 

The ZDSE is a overall great pairing with HD800, probably one of the best, but it doesn't really help in smoothening its harsh treble.

post #9275 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by songmic View Post
 

 

The ZDSE is a overall great pairing with HD800, probably one of the best, but it doesn't really help in smoothening its harsh treble.

Have you tried the proverbial tube rolling?

post #9276 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by kothganesh View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by songmic View Post
 

 

The ZDSE is a overall great pairing with HD800, probably one of the best, but it doesn't really help in smoothening its harsh treble.

Have you tried the proverbial tube rolling?

 

Yes, but to little to no avail (at least when it comes to taming the treble).

post #9277 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by songmic View Post
 

 

Yes, but to little to no avail (at least when it comes to taming the treble).

Maybe the Anax mod might work but I have not tried it. And I kinda like the treble a bit.

post #9278 of 9445

Does this strike anyone as odd for a LCD-3F? Mostly looking at that dip between 2k-4k

 

post #9279 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by jehugo View Post
 

Does this strike anyone as odd for a LCD-3F? Mostly looking at that dip between 2k-4k

 

 

 

I'm more curious about why theres no drop in bass <80 Hz...

post #9280 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonstatt View Post
 

 

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

I think your serial number distinctions are slightly off.  The initial veil was discontinued early in the 231 serial numbers.  My pair of lcd3's serial number starts w/ 231 and are not part of the initial veiled batch.  This has been confirmed w/ Audeze and my dealer, also the frequency graph corresponds to Tyll's graphs after discontinuation of the veiled batch. 

 

 

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/audeze-lcd-x-fazor-and-fresh-listen-current-lcd-2-and-lcd-3-page-2

 

The original LCD3's w/ veil or early 231 serial LCD3's are likely the blue line, late 231's w/o veil (fabric changes flanking the drivers) are the green line, the 261's w/ new driver are the yellow line, followed by the red line reflecting fazored LCD3's w/ the new driver.

 

Also in obtaining this information from Audeze, I learned that the impedance change from 50 to 110 is a result of the fazors NOT the driver change that occurred in the 261 serial LCD3's.  This is important, because those w/ the late 231 LCD3s that opt to upgrade to LCD3F will still benefit from the impedance change.  To my knowledge no frequency response graph of this has been posted yet, which I'd be curious to see.


Edited by rrahman - 7/1/14 at 12:12am
post #9281 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrahman View Post
 

I think your serial number distinctions are slightly off.  The initial veil was discontinued early in the 231 serial numbers.  

 

Yes, instead of just looking at the serial number, it might be more important to look at the date.  Anything Mar2012 (my first pair) or before would probably be in the initial "veiled" batch, at least mine were.  But even between late 231s and early 261 there were people claiming material difference.  My current pair was 261 serial and had drivers replaced in Sep 2013 sounds quite close to the latest LCD3f I demo'ed.  I feel my LCD3 sounded "better" than before replacing the drivers (left driver failed and Audeze replaced both sides) but can't trust my audio memory to make sweeping statement on which one (early 261 and later 261?) is definitely better.

 

I guess bottom line is that if you can demo the latest fazor'ed ones, go compare and see if it's worth changing.  If no demo available, you'd need to ask if you like what you got now and decide.  Sound is highly subjective and what sound "better" to one might be "worse" for you.  For me, I can't even tell if the fazor'ed one is better or not as both sounded more similar than different.  For me I'd rather save the money for funding another pair of headphone or dac/amp.


Edited by kkcc - 7/1/14 at 2:14am
post #9282 of 9445
Quote:

 

Also in obtaining this information from Audeze, I learned that the impedance change from 50 to 110 is a result of the fazors NOT the driver change that occurred in the 261 serial LCD3's.  This is important, because those w/ the late 231 LCD3s that opt to upgrade to LCD3F will still benefit from the impedance change.  To my knowledge no frequency response graph of this has been posted yet, which I'd be curious to see.

 

I had not seen the updated link at Audio Fidelity...very interesting! You are right there were some 231s that didn't have the "veiled" issue, and then for whatever reason they changed the serial to 261 once I guess they were sure they had it pegged. But what I meant in my original post was that the earliest 231s would sound very different to a 271 as compared to the 261s (or later 231s).

 

I do find the chart overlays very interesting, and it shows the biggest difference to be found would be the early 231s to any of the others with the mid range slope-off being much more pronounced. The 271s do show a drop-off in lower bass which could give the perception of greater clarity in the treble. It is very important to understand from a psycho-acoustic perspective that the brain is easily fooled on a frequency pivot. If you lift the treble up, but not too much, the perception is often that the bass is too light. If you lower the bass, the perception is that there is more clarity and possibly brightness. All of these effects take place while the mid-range remains a constant.

 

Finally, impedance is a purely electrically derived characteristic. To put this another way, if you change a speaker cone in a conventional speaker to a stiffer one, it does NOT change the impedance. The impedance is a factor of the voice coil design, not the cone. It does change the efficiency of the speaker (dB/m) if you changed the stiffness of the cone but it does not change the impedance. Any impedance change has to be a change in the driver. Any efficiency change could be related to both the electrical side, and the external physical design. If the fazors direct more of the sound into the ear with less loss through absorption into the ear cups etc, then that would be an efficiency change, not an impedance one.

post #9283 of 9445

Is a higher impedance better relative to the particular amp supplying audio information to the headphone? The X impedance is 22 ohms and that means an easier to drive phone. If the impedance on the new driver/fazor LCD3 is 150 ohms, then that should mean it is relatively harder to drive. So how is having the higher impedance better?

post #9284 of 9445
Quote:
Originally Posted by commtrd View Post
 

Is a higher impedance better relative to the particular amp supplying audio information to the headphone? The X impedance is 22 ohms and that means an easier to drive phone. If the impedance on the new driver/fazor LCD3 is 150 ohms, then that should mean it is relatively harder to drive. So how is having the higher impedance better?

 

I don't think anyone has said higher impedance is better. You are right that higher impedance means more power needed to drive if the efficiency is the same. However if a headphone had a higher impedance but also better efficiency then of course it could cancel out. For example the HD800 have higher impedance than an LCD-3 but also better efficiency, so the volume is actually very similar between the two for an amp set to a certain volume level. It was observed that Audeze have changed the impedance spec for the Fazor'd LCD-3, and I was suggesting that the Fazors themselves can not change the impedance of the headphone....something about the driver (electrical) components itself must change that.

post #9285 of 9445
Yes, that too. I'm trying to make sense of the FR in relation to what we've seen before.
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