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 628

post #9406 of 9887
Listened to the Stax for a couple of hours against the various Audeze but kept returning to the Stax. Detail that any Audeze just masks. Best get both I suppose.
post #9407 of 9887
Quote:
Originally Posted by gameon View Post



How do like the fazor compared to non fazor?

I like the fazor. I had about 2 hours to compare LCD-3F, LCD-3C, and LCD-X. I liked the LCD-3F the best of them all. The 3F is not hugely different from the 3C, but the differences are definitely audible. I know there has been a lot of hand wringing over the loss of bass in the charts but to me the 3F was preferrable. The openness and improved imaging up top was a definite improvement, the deepest bass is somewhat less but the overall bass character is tighter with more definition but still warm and full. The LCD-X is a different animal. I am fairly new to Audezes, but It seems to me the X is Audeze's attempt to make a neutral headphone and they took the sound in a different direction for the company. The LCD-3F seems like an attempt to bring the improvements of the X to a top of the line headphone but while still maintaining its "Audeze-ness".

post #9408 of 9887
Quote:
Originally Posted by KmanChu View Post
 

I like the fazor. I had about 2 hours to compare LCD-3F, LCD-3C, and LCD-X. I liked the LCD-3F the best of them all. The 3F is not hugely different from the 3C, but the differences are definitely audible. I know there has been a lot of hand wringing over the loss of bass in the charts but to me the 3F was preferrable. The openness and improved imaging up top was a definite improvement, the deepest bass is somewhat less but the overall bass character is tighter with more definition but still warm and full. The LCD-X is a different animal. I am fairly new to Audezes, but It seems to me the X is Audeze's attempt to make a neutral headphone and they took the sound in a different direction for the company. The LCD-3F seems like an attempt to bring the improvements of the X to a top of the line headphone but while still maintaining its "Audeze-ness".

 

 

Cool KmanChu,

 

Can you talk about the mids on all three?

post #9409 of 9887
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post
 

 

 

Cool KmanChu,

 

Can you talk about the mids on all three?

 

3F definitely sounds like the 3C more than X. Sorry for using cliches, but the 3C has the creamiest, most saturated mids. The 3F sounds essentially similar in that regard but slightly more neutral. whereas the X sounded much leaner and drier if more honest. X sounds more analytical (only compared to the 3) but there weren't really any details I could find with the X that I couldn't hear on either of the 3s, just less obviously presented. With 3F over the X, the colors were more saturated and seemed richer sounding. Comparing the two, the 3F was like listening  to music in Kodachrome wheras the X just sounded less appealing (although probably more accurate and transparent.) this is ultimately what led me to get the 3F over the X.

 

the comparison really is just relative to Audezes, I don't mean that that X is dry and analytical in an absolute sense, it sounded wonderfully smooth, but it just has a bit different sound. I found percussion sounded really good on the X, the sticks hitting the skins on drums etc was better represented than with the 3. The mids on the X probably sound more real. When I listened to a good recording of a classical guitar (an instrument I know well from playing it myself) the X probably sounded more like a real guitar. The 3 still sounded wonderful, but just not quite as clear. If two of the same instruments were attempting playing the same pitch you would have an easier time figuring out there were two instruments on the X than on the 3.

 

So in short:

 

X a bit leaner mids but with more definition, just a little coarser sounding (relative only to the 3)

 

3: richer tone, smoother, still highly resolved but giving up just a little "there it is" obvious definition of the X

post #9410 of 9887

In short 3C vs 3F.

 

3C has a more full bodied sound, in my case it had a bit more slam than 3F a bit more creamy.

 

3F goes almost as deep,less slam though, doesn't sound so full bodied because the upper mids are more balanced now, so violins sound more realistic, same for women voices. Imaging is improved and sound stage is more balanced ( 3C was wider), 3F is a bit faster, and it has a bit of air, which I hardly experienced from the 3C.

post #9411 of 9887
Quote:
Originally Posted by gameon View Post
 


Is your 261 # the first 3 numbers or the last 3, because i contacted Audeze today about my lcd2 that i bought 2 weeks ago from music direct and they said by the serial number i do not have fazors in mine, on the graph they were tested on 8-13-13 

first three numbers on mine are 532

Starting to get confusing, when i rub my finger on the inside of the ear pad it feels like it has the bumps in it which they say that is the fazors, but today they responded i did not have fazors by my serial number. confusing...

 

The 231, 261, 271 are all first 3 digits of  LCD 3... 

LCD 2 has serial numbers starting with 5xxx and I'm not sure what's the range of serial that has fazor.  Probably better to ask in the LCD 2 threads.  And if Audeze confirmed it is not fazor'ed by your serial, I would trust them :)

post #9412 of 9887
Quote:
Originally Posted by KmanChu View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

 

 



 



Cool KmanChu,



 



Can you talk about the mids on all three?





 



3F definitely sounds like the 3C more than X. Sorry for using cliches, but the 3C has the creamiest, most saturated mids. The 3F sounds essentially similar in that regard but slightly more neutral. whereas the X sounded much leaner and drier if more honest. X sounds more analytical (only compared to the 3) but there weren't really any details I could find with the X that I couldn't hear on either of the 3s, just less obviously presented. With 3F over the X, the colors were more saturated and seemed richer sounding. Comparing the two, the 3F was like listening  to music in Kodachrome wheras the X just sounded less appealing (although probably more accurate and transparent.) this is ultimately what led me to get the 3F over the X.



 



the comparison really is just relative to Audezes, I don't mean that that X is dry and analytical in an absolute sense, it sounded wonderfully smooth, but it just has a bit different sound. I found percussion sounded really good on the X, the sticks hitting the skins on drums etc was better represented than with the 3. The mids on the X probably sound more real. When I listened to a good recording of a classical guitar (an instrument I know well from playing it myself) the X probably sounded more like a real guitar. The 3 still sounded wonderful, but just not quite as clear. If two of the same instruments were attempting playing the same pitch you would have an easier time figuring out there were two instruments on the X than on the 3.



 



So in short:



 



X a bit leaner mids but with more definition, just a little coarser sounding (relative only to the 3)



 



3: richer tone, smoother, still highly resolved but giving up just a little "there it is" obvious definition of the X


 



Yep pretty accurate assessment. I traded in my LCD3(c) for the X and I absolutely love it. Much as I liked the 3s, the X just really is the sound I have been looking for since LCD2.2, and LCD3. Very resolving and slightly more neutral but still with hard hitting clean bass, beautiful mids, clear and clean treble. Nothing disparaging about the 3s though as they are awesome too. Good to have a choice!
post #9413 of 9887
Quote:
Originally Posted by KmanChu View Post
 

 

3F definitely sounds like the 3C more than X. Sorry for using cliches, but the 3C has the creamiest, most saturated mids. The 3F sounds essentially similar in that regard but slightly more neutral. whereas the X sounded much leaner and drier if more honest. X sounds more analytical (only compared to the 3) but there weren't really any details I could find with the X that I couldn't hear on either of the 3s, just less obviously presented. With 3F over the X, the colors were more saturated and seemed richer sounding. Comparing the two, the 3F was like listening  to music in Kodachrome wheras the X just sounded less appealing (although probably more accurate and transparent.) this is ultimately what led me to get the 3F over the X.

 

the comparison really is just relative to Audezes, I don't mean that that X is dry and analytical in an absolute sense, it sounded wonderfully smooth, but it just has a bit different sound. I found percussion sounded really good on the X, the sticks hitting the skins on drums etc was better represented than with the 3. The mids on the X probably sound more real. When I listened to a good recording of a classical guitar (an instrument I know well from playing it myself) the X probably sounded more like a real guitar. The 3 still sounded wonderful, but just not quite as clear. If two of the same instruments were attempting playing the same pitch you would have an easier time figuring out there were two instruments on the X than on the 3.

 

So in short:

 

X a bit leaner mids but with more definition, just a little coarser sounding (relative only to the 3)

 

3: richer tone, smoother, still highly resolved but giving up just a little "there it is" obvious definition of the X

 

Quite surprising, I find that lcdx sound similar to hifiman he500 though having better refinement in sound.

post #9414 of 9887

I'm leaning toward a pair of LCD-3 headphones to plug straight into my Chord Hugo DAC.  Is there anything I should consider before pulling the trigger?

 

It looks like there are 4 different versions here:

 

http://www.headphones.com/store/Search.aspx?searchTerms=lcd-3

 

What separates them?

post #9415 of 9887

You either get leather pads or micro-suede pads, then the choice of the wooden collectors box or the hard travel case.

post #9416 of 9887
Quote:
Originally Posted by headfirocks View Post

I'm leaning toward a pair of LCD-3 headphones to plug straight into my Chord Hugo DAC.  Is there anything I should consider before pulling the trigger?

It looks like there are 4 different versions here:

http://www.headphones.com/store/Search.aspx?searchTerms=lcd-3

What separates them?
Why not do a little leg work by searching the threads for your $2,000. investment?
post #9417 of 9887
Quote:
Originally Posted by headfirocks View Post
 

I'm leaning toward a pair of LCD-3 headphones to plug straight into my Chord Hugo DAC.  Is there anything I should consider before pulling the trigger?

 

It looks like there are 4 different versions here:

 

http://www.headphones.com/store/Search.aspx?searchTerms=lcd-3

 

What separates them?

You should probably consider the fact that proper driving of Low Efficiency Planar Magnetic headphones requires quite a bit more power than what Chord Hugo outputs, you will definitely get nice sound because of the DAC, but there's definitely not enough power to drive the LCD-3 properly (And I'm not talking about Volume, volume you'll have plenty) It might work to start with that setup, but you should quickly think of pairing it with a proper amp with about 2-4W of power.

 

Regarding that link, notice the differences in what the package holds, even the pics are different.

 

Notice words like: Box/Case, Leather/Microseuede, LCD-2/LCD-3/LCD-X/etc...

post #9418 of 9887
FWIW I like my LCD3 driven straight from my Hugo over amp it with a 8W @32ohm nfb28 amp, or my WA22 with all upgraded tubes with Hugo as DAC.

YMMV
post #9419 of 9887
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkcc View Post

FWIW I like my LCD3 driven straight from my Hugo over amp it with a 8W @32ohm nfb28 amp, or my WA22 with all upgraded tubes with Hugo as DAC.

YMMV

I got to hear the Chord Hugo at T.H.E Headphonium at THE Show Newport finally! I really enjoyed it!

I didn't get to hear it w/ any of my Audezes YET - but, I got to listen w/  HD800s...

and I thought it was outstanding!

 

However, I'd be lying if I said I was planning on getting one, as I've got the DACs I need for now!

 

But...

I had a listening sesh 2 nights ago w/ my LCD-3 w/ Fazor, Double Helix Cables Dual XLR Complement3 cables - Cavalli Audio Liquid Gold - McIntosh D100 DAC (w/ my MacBook Pro SSD w/ Amarra 3.0 as source - WHOAH) and it was nothing short of STUNNING!!!!

post #9420 of 9887
Quote:
Originally Posted by XVampireX View Post
 

You should probably consider the fact that proper driving of Low Efficiency Planar Magnetic headphones requires quite a bit more power than what Chord Hugo outputs, you will definitely get nice sound because of the DAC, but there's definitely not enough power to drive the LCD-3 properly (And I'm not talking about Volume, volume you'll have plenty) It might work to start with that setup, but you should quickly think of pairing it with a proper amp with about 2-4W of power.

 

I came to the same conclusion and decided on the LCD-X instead since it has higher efficiency.

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