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 638

post #9556 of 9585
^ Well yes. Last year I was interested to hear of the LCD-X and its fazor tech. This caused me to look once again at whether to upgrade my LCD2r1 to the LCD3 or the new X instead. After following the X thread for some months and re-reading the 3 threads I decided the (classic) 3 was "the one".

Hence, I was taken aback to find that while making this decision the 3 had quietly become the 3F eek.gif

All good though. The 3F sounds terrific. One day I hope to hear a classic and find out whether I would've preferred it...
post #9557 of 9585

I have the  LCD-3C but would not consider changing them for the fazored version or having them in addition because at the end of the day, the house sound is similar. What I may do is get myself some Stax 009s as a contrast as they definitely have a more extended treble whilst the Audeze major in the bass. then hopefully can have the best of both worlds.

post #9558 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by walakalulu View Post

I have the  LCD-3C but would not consider changing them for the fazored version or having them in addition because at the end of the day, the house sound is similar. What I may do is get myself some Stax 009s as a contrast as they definitely have a more extended treble whilst the Audeze major in the bass. then hopefully can have the best of both worlds.


 



I think that's the most sensible choice, in all honestly the seperation between the two is not great, still has the Audeze house sound like you said. If your going to spend the money I would seriously recommend considering investing it in other flagship phones with different signatures like an HE-6 or HD800 for example. Much bigger difference between those and the LCD-3 that exists between the LCD-3C & 3F.
post #9559 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by walakalulu View Post
 

I have the  LCD-3C but would not consider changing them for the fazored version or having them in addition because at the end of the day, the house sound is similar. What I may do is get myself some Stax 009s as a contrast as they definitely have a more extended treble whilst the Audeze major in the bass. then hopefully can have the best of both worlds.

 

Well its pointless having both the 3F and 3C since in IMO the 3F does everything better.

 

I compared the LCD3F (via HA-1) against the 009 and 007mkII (HA-1 Dac/SRM-007tII). It was the first time I heard electrostatics. I must say I was a bit disappointed. The 009 in particular is super clear and super detailed, especially in the bass I thought. You can hear everything down there but it has almost zero bass punch as compared to the LCD. If all you heard was the stats you probably would not realize what you were missing because the bass is still very extended and very very clear. The mids and treble I didn't feel was that special. The vocals are super clear and lack a bit of texture and sometimes sounded a bit artificial. I didn't feel I was missing out on anything in the treble, just more clear on the 009. I was actually blown away more by the LCD3F on the Auralic Vega/Tauras I tested several month ago, still my favorite setup of all time. After the 009, the 007 didn't even sound like an electrostatic, it was more thick and a lot less detailed. I am sure if I had more time with both of these I would probably get to like them more but they were my initial impressions. I think I could live without the 007/009 but I could not live without the the LCD3F, I like that bass punch too much. After listening to a whole CD on the 009 I was getting a bit bored, I was missing that sweet sound I was used to on the LCD3F. The price of those things for what they do is ridiculous too, Hifiman is making a stat that is coming out by the end of year that could be much better value.

post #9560 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldendarko View Post
 
I think that's the most sensible choice, in all honestly the seperation between the two is not great, still has the Audeze house sound like you said. If your going to spend the money I would seriously recommend considering investing it in other flagship phones with different signatures like an HE-6 or HD800 for example. Much bigger difference between those and the LCD-3 that exists between the LCD-3C & 3F.

 

+1 to my friend goldendarko

 

The difference is not that great between the LCD-3C and LCD-3F (having heard both on the same system). The house sound is the same - there's no getting away from that,  you either like it or not. The F's in my opinion just have that extra refinement. However, if there had never been an F released I would have had no problem living with the C's. 

 

Thanks

post #9561 of 9585

If the bass is changed in any quantity or quality with the Fazored 3, then there is no way I would change my classic. As it stands, it has the best bass from all the headphones I've tried, and I've tried them all: MDR-R10, SR009, SR007, Qualia, LCD-X, etc, etc, etc.

post #9562 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlxx View Post


IMO the 3F does everything better.

And IMO the 3C is better. The way I see it and hear it, things that 3F does "better" than 3C, the X does even "better" than the 3F. I prefer the 3C for what it does, and if I like those "improvements" of Fazor, I would just go for the model that was designed with favor from the get go and get the X.
post #9563 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkcc View Post


And IMO the 3C is better. The way I see it and hear it, things that 3F does "better" than 3C, the X does even "better" than the 3F. I prefer the 3C for what it does, and if I like those "improvements" of Fazor, I would just go for the model that was designed with favor from the get go and get the X.

 

Glad you like your 3C better, I can understand that some people might. Can't agree on the X though, I don't like that one.

post #9564 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlxx View Post

 

Speaking of the HA-1, I compared it with the Conductor on my 3F the other day with the thought of getting the HA-1 due to the extra features (balanced, remote, display, etc) but the Conductor was a much better match than the HA-1 (se or balanced) with the 3F to me. More bass punch, more dynamic, better vocals and the biggest difference was in the treble. The Conductor had more detail/resolution, the HA-1 was too smooth in the treble and made it sound a little bland.

 



LOL - It's funny how opinions can vary so dramatically, but I had the Burson Soloist already and got the HA-1 to try side-by-side to it, and preferred the HA-1 but ONLY after I used the balanced connections on the HA-1. To be honest I think the sound of the two is not that far apart which is perhaps not too surprising as they are both towards neutral (also typical of solid state). As the sound was fairly close and equally pleasing with the LCD-3 I wanted to take advantage of the DAC and remote etc so sold my Soloist.
post #9565 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonstatt View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlxx View Post
 

 

Speaking of the HA-1, I compared it with the Conductor on my 3F the other day with the thought of getting the HA-1 due to the extra features (balanced, remote, display, etc) but the Conductor was a much better match than the HA-1 (se or balanced) with the 3F to me. More bass punch, more dynamic, better vocals and the biggest difference was in the treble. The Conductor had more detail/resolution, the HA-1 was too smooth in the treble and made it sound a little bland.

 

LOL - It's funny how opinions can vary so dramatically, but I had the Burson Soloist already and got the HA-1 to try side-by-side to it, and preferred the HA-1 but ONLY after I used the balanced connections on the HA-1. To be honest I think the sound of the two is not that far apart which is perhaps not too surprising as they are both towards neutral (also typical of solid state). As the sound was fairly close and equally pleasing with the LCD-3 I wanted to take advantage of the DAC and remote etc so sold my Soloist.

 

I was wanting to do the same for the extra features, sadly I didn't like its sound enough to buy it. However, the Soloist is just the amp (the same that is in the Conductor I believe but I never listened to this), maybe the Conductor with its DAC just pairs better with the LCD3 (to me anyway) although the HA-1 has a Sabre DAC also. I tried it balanced too but just couldn't get to like it as much, oh well.

post #9566 of 9585

I wonder how much of the differences we all hear across headphones (e.g. the debate here on LCD-3C versus LCD-3F) is due to the phones and how much is due to us? 

 

While the term IMHO does point out individual preferences and also potential differences in our anatomy, I wonder if there are any real differences across headphones of the same model? I've compared the LCD-3C, LCD-3F and LCD-X and found my preference (and bought it!), but I've never had the chance to sit down with two LCD-3F's for example and see if there was one I preferred. I know the response charts show minor variations across units, but I wonder how much of those variations might be responsible for our individual preferences? 

 

Now the real problem is that there are so many complexities to deal with beyond this in our systems, specifically source and amplification equipment and cables that it is very hard to know what the real reasons for our preferences across Head-Fi members. I hope to be at CanJam this year in Denver and will see if I can do a little experimentation on this subject. 

 

And finally the most important rule of all is to of course listen to what makes you happy! 

 

Have a great Labor Day everyone

post #9567 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by citraian View Post

For me the difference wasn't subtle at all. More like going from the LCD-2s to the LCD-3s. More bass impact, incredible bass detail and layering (no more LCD-3C muddy and blurry bass), more clarity, more sparkle, more detail, more soundstage and way better transient response.


Exactly! This is the precise reason I decided to move to the X. And all those things happened too. I have to wonder just how much actual difference there really is between the 3(f) and the X... Would have to be substantially better to justify another move to the 3(f) from the X I think.

post #9568 of 9585
Quote:
Originally Posted by commtrd View Post
 


Exactly! This is the precise reason I decided to move to the X. And all those things happened too. I have to wonder just how much actual difference there really is between the 3(f) and the X... Would have to be substantially better to justify another move to the 3(f) from the X I think.

 

To my ears the 3(f) and X are different and not one better than another. The X is, to me, more analytical (not to the HD800 point) while I find the 3(f) is more suitable for long listening session.

post #9569 of 9585

I found the LCD-3F to provide 95%+ of the bass goodness of the LCD-X but with that mid-range "magic" that only the LCD-3's have. That's why I chose the -3's over the -X. 

post #9570 of 9585

Someday plan on getting 3f but for now the X will have to do. I do miss those beautiful creamy mids from my LCD3c though. Not that the mids are not good on the X (they are) just not as full as I remember from my 3c when I had it.

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