Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › REVIEW – Audeze LCD-3 planar magnetic headphones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

REVIEW – Audeze LCD-3 planar magnetic headphones - Page 26  

post #376 of 533


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post


 

My hearing seems remarkable at recovering.  



Do you get a cochlear implant every weekend?

post #377 of 533

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnaud View Post

 
Well, since you are utterly failing at understanding what a square response relates to, I'd recommended to read into whatever reference purrin might pull out or simply drop it all together. 
 
It's fine to post your impressions but when you start to criticize someone who's probably got a pretty good clue of what he's talking about ( Purrin ), you'd better make sure you're not sputtering nonsense. 
 
Overshoot of a 30Hz square response, has a lot more to do than the driver damping at 30Hz...

Thanks arnaud. beerchug.gif

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post

 

I suggest looking at the 30 hz  square waves of the Sony XB series and possibly the Beyer DT1350 to see overdamping might be represented in a graph - it would exhibit rounded corners.  Here's a better link:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_ratio

 

The LCD2s at 30 hz is the most critically damped headphone ever measured - at 30 hz.  No need for formulas that no one understands.

 

 

If you had read my posts carefully, you would have realized what I had actually said: that I personally preferred a square wave response less damped to the LCD2's. I even brought out other examples such as the HD800, HE6, and Grados to illustrate where my preferences lie. I do not disagree with you that the LCD2 has the most critically damped sexy looking square wave (CDSLSW). However, a CDSLSW may not necessary mean anything for most people. I can tell you for sure that people's who's ears I trust (n3rdling, Anaxilus, LFF, CEETEE, etc.) probably wouldn't care much for CDSLSWs. 
 
I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth, especially since your reply was to a general explanation from me to RD regarding his getting "over-damped" and "under-damped" reversed.
 
Do I have an agenda? Yes. Head-Fi'ers really need to get away from this obsession with perfect square waves. It seems that every LCD# thread has some "noob" attributing magic properties to CDSLSWs.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post

Or one can derive self pleasure from CSD plots - how do you want to play this game?  Without knowing the formulas, I already know that the formulas will not prove your position with regards to the LCD2 square wave measurements at 30 hz.  It will in fact, prove my position in the LCD2s perfect neutrality from 20hz to 1 khz.  You will not be able to provide evidence to prove your opinions as facts.

 
OK. Now WTH? Did I bring CSDs into this? You'll know that I very rarely bring any of my measurements into play unless they directly have to do with the discussion on hand. And BTW, people send me their headphones and ask me for CSDs - not square waves.
 
Finally, a CDSLSW at 30Hz does not indicate a flat response from 20Hz to 1kHz (the other way around is a little more true). I will not elaborate here as I have already done so on this exact same assertion in another thread which you have probably already read. As arnaud said, you are clearly talking out of your ass here.
 
 
In closing, two thoughts:
 
  1. How the heck do Head-Fi'ers come up with these kind of wierd notions?
  2. Anyways, I think it would funny if the r2 and r3 square waves didn't look as perfect or had slightly more overshoot compared to the r1's.

 


Edited by purrin - 11/9/11 at 2:49pm
post #378 of 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

In closing, two thoughts:
 
  1. How the heck do Head-Fi'ers come up with these kind of wierd notions?


I have a feeling it's because the use of square waves is not necessarily appropriate from the start... It comes from bench test of electronic components like amplifiers or down to electrical components that can have bandwidth well in excess of 50kHz as well as typically ruler flat (so it won't exhibit much ringing apart from the cut-on / cut-off characteristics at both ends of the spectrum). In which case, indeed, a square wave at 1kHz is going to look pretty square... Audio magazines are inundated by this (rightfully so because most every amplifiers have just boring flat response in the audio range so there would be nothing to talk about...). People extrapolate to headphones and interpret it as a need for the headphone to have 1MHz bandwidth lol ;)

 

As we discussed before, the cycle rate of the squares (30Hz or 1kHz) does not preclude the excitation to be very broadband and indeed the imperfect response relates to bandwidth, but also damping of the various resonances (if they stick out) and relative phase. Personally, I still cannot interpret such graph as it just looks like a succession of step responses. I'd rather just look at an impulse response and then the usual frequency curves...

 

This is getting off topic though so I will stop here...


Edited by arnaud - 11/9/11 at 3:01pm
post #379 of 533

Is the underlying assumption here that more details are always better? Maybe so, but in practice there is often a cost of of an over analytical sound.

Wilson speakers sound as detailed as anything to me, but I have trouble enjoying them, as they make me nervous.

Please excuse me if I am presuming too much here, in which case I sit corrected :)

post #380 of 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post


You clearly have no idea what instrument attack sounds like.  The HD800 is far, far superior to the K1000 for this.  I had the K1000 with me for several months, The K701 and HD650 is slightly better.


 


lol, someone with hearing damage telling me this. What's more is that you clearly haven't heard the K1000 from a proper setup if you think mid-level headphones like the K701 are better.

 

Anyways, sorry Skylab for the OT post. Won't post here again.

 

post #381 of 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

Is the underlying assumption here that more details are always better? Maybe so, but in practice there is often a cost of of an over analytical sound.

 

Not necessarily.  Some prefer Monet to Bonheur.  But considering that one of the most oft-cliched audiophile lines is "I heard things in X recording that I never heard before..." I'd say details rate pretty high on most head-fier's lists of most important attributes.  Along with soundstage, frequency response, and being a prat.

post #382 of 533

Please don't point your attacks to SP Wild's hearing ability - I disagree with him but I still respect him very much as every other fellow Head-fier.

post #383 of 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3rdling View Post

Do you get a cochlear implant every weekend?


Lol, sorry...cracked me up.

 

@SPWild

 

OT.  Is it your Subaru Legacy balljoint?  If you have lowered the suspension you'll need to add roll-center adjusters to help return the suspension geometry and side loading closer to OEM specs.  They are basically extended balljoints.  Being in Oz you can grab some Whitelines, get the new revisions.

post #384 of 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

Is the underlying assumption here that more details are always better? Maybe so, but in practice there is often a cost of of an over analytical sound.

Wilson speakers sound as detailed as anything to me, but I have trouble enjoying them, as they make me nervous.

Please excuse me if I am presuming too much here, in which case I sit corrected :)


I don't necessarily think detail extraction has to be tied to an analytical sound.  I have heard IEMs and phones that sound more analytical than the HD800 provide less detail.  I think that many just associate more treble w/ more detail.

 

Regarding the HE6/LCD2 detail question, I have heard some impressive low end detail and textures of a good sounding LCD2.  Even though I've only heard the LCD2 sound really good on 2 of 6 occasions, that's two more instances than I can say for the HE6 so can't give you a satisfatory answer for that comparison myself.  You also have to consider apparent detail compared to actual detail.  Certain signatures can appear more detailed due to absence of balanced response than actually resolving more detail.

 

post #385 of 533

I am getting the LCD-3 but I will certainly keep the LCD2 Rev 1.  I suspect that the LCD-2 Rev 1 will become a classic just like the Sony R10 after some years. What the Rev 2 "improved" on, the LCD-3/4/5 will certainly do much better - but I believe that the creaminess of the Rev 1 is something quite unique and therefore worth keeping in the long run, at least to me.

post #386 of 533

I wished my r1 was creamy like yours.

post #387 of 533

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by googleli View Post

I am getting the LCD-3 but I will certainly keep the LCD2 Rev 1.  I suspect that the LCD-2 Rev 1 will become a classic just like the Sony R10 after some years. What the Rev 2 "improved" on, the LCD-3/4/5 will certainly do much better - but I believe that the creaminess of the Rev 1 is something quite unique and therefore worth keeping in the long run, at least to me.


None of this will matter in 10 years when we all get neural implants to receive audio....

 

 

post #388 of 533

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorAnt View Post


None of this will matter in 10 years when we all get neural implants to receive audio....


Haha. Could be sooner. I'm fairly certain Sennheiser has taken note of Audeze's success and currently has engineers working on some interesting items.

 

post #389 of 533
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

Haha. Could be sooner. I'm fairly certain Sennheiser has taken note of Audeze's success and currently has engineers working on some interesting items.


I hope your prediction will come true, and also that they won't judge it necessary to implement a huge price rise.

 

 

post #390 of 533

Okay...we'll just ignore the extremely low distortion measurements, the perfect electrical phase response and good impulse response and just focus on the CSD...yes it may explain why I always felt that my LCD2s were just a tad splashy with tambourines and cymbals and at times exhibit a brighter than neutral character...the pads on my originally padded LCD2 explain how the channels might not measure perfectly.  Still doesn't annoy me like say the HD800...did I ever mention I hated that one?

 

My livelihood depends on my hearing and the diagnostics of what I hear and to be able to differentiate numerous similar sounds and locate them...I have yet to be fired, so that is good.  And I have never worked on any Subaru, where'd that one come from?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › REVIEW – Audeze LCD-3 planar magnetic headphones