Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › LCD3 Measurements
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LCD3 Measurements - Page 5

post #61 of 236

Nice stuff. Quite a revealing set of plots. The upper grouping is essentially resonance free (except maybe the top octave peak of the LCD3). Straight frequency response and distortion character (H2-H5 sweeps) probably distinguish the members of the group, but not resonance issues. All very impressive.

post #62 of 236
Could we get the O2 amongst these charts as well?
post #63 of 236

Very revealing indeed Purrin - thanks.

post #64 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by visualguy View Post

 

In my experience, it's pretty easy to find speakers which sound great all-around, and there are many choices that fall into the category where it's hard to point to any significant weakness. With headphones, you can always point to some weakness, which is I guess why people keep trying different ones in an endless cycle...

Agree on that one.
 

 

post #65 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by koonhua90 View Post


Tyll when can we expect to see your review of the LCD-3? I am sure you pre-ordered it, and should have one by now right? biggrin.gif

 



Actooly, I've got two. In the midst of the rapper can reviews, but will review the LCD-3 before Christmas. I like them, but they're not perfect.



Quote:
Originally Posted by visualguy View Post


Too bad they produce too much sibilance on female vocals, and their bass is on the anemic side.
 

In my experience, it's pretty easy to find speakers which sound great all-around, and there are many choices that fall into the category where it's hard to point to any significant weakness. With headphones, you can always point to some weakness, which is I guess why people keep trying different ones in an endless cycle...

 


I think folks like Purrin, Arnaud, myself, and others are putting a lot of pressure on headphone makers that speaker makers have had for a long time.  I think headphone makers are getting significntly more serious about technical measures.

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

T1

T1 L.txt.jpg

 


So, what do you think is going on here?  I've got a theory that their new magnet is essentially overdriving the diapragm and causing it to ring.  What do you think?

 

post #66 of 236
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyll Hertsens View Post

So, what do you think is going on here?  I've got a theory that their new magnet is essentially overdriving the diapragm and causing it to ring.  What do you think?


I wish I had a DT880 to compare to. I don't think it's the new magnet, I think Beyer just hasn't made any real progress (driver design, diaphragm / surround material, diaphragm geometry, motor / voice coil design) other than a bigger magnet marketed under "Tesla". If anything, a more powerful magnet would lead to better control. The reason I feel the Tesla thing is a bunch of BS is that I can't seem to find any technical information about it. So they increased the magnet strength, but what else did they do to the motor design to take take advantage of that? We only get some story about Nicola Tesla which has effing nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the T1 headphone. That's weaksauce and just makes me want to hurl.

 

I'm mean at least Sennheiser didn't any market any buzzwords for their ring driver like "Helmholtz" or "Heisenberg" technology. They didn't have to. 

 

This is just me though. I'm highly allergic to marketing "buzzwords." For example, when Carly slapped on the slogan "invent" for HP, we all knew it was official that HP stopped inventing.

 


Edited by purrin - 11/17/11 at 10:34am
post #67 of 236


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

 


I wish I had a DT880 to compare to. I don't think it's the new magnet, I think Beyer just hasn't made any real progress (driver design, diaphragm / surround material, diaphragm geometry, motor / voice coil design) other than a bigger magnet marketed under "Tesla". If anything, a more powerful magnet would lead to better control. The reason I feel the Tesla thing is a bunch of BS is that I can't seem to find any technical information about it. So they increased the magnet strength, but what else did they do to the motor design to take take advantage of that? We only get some story about Nicola Tesla which has effing nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the T1 headphone. That's weaksauce and just makes me want to hurl.

 

I'm mean at least Sennheiser didn't any market any buzzwords for their ring driver like "Helmholtz" or "Heisenberg" technology. They didn't have to. 

 

This is just me though. I'm highly allergic to marketing "buzzwords." For example, when Carly slapped on the slogan "invent" for HP, we all knew it was official that HP stopped inventing.

 


Very well said!

 

post #68 of 236

Surely the biggest acoustic factor of the Tesla driver is that there's a hole directly behind the centre of the diaphragm? Perhaps the framework being metal rather than plastic is important too, but the whole point of this ring mangnet is to allow that hole to be drilled there.

 

Yeah the "Tesla" stuff is from the marketing department for sure, but they are a corporation after all, what do you expect?

 

For me, regardless of measurements, the T1 has sounded exceptionally clear and vibrant when I've heard it, if a little metalic. I found it hard to find anything to enjoy about the HD800 because the frequency response was so... wrong... for me. I'd like to hear one with these new mods applied, maybe I could appreciate their qualities more if I didn't feel so under attack by the sibilant treble.

post #69 of 236
Thread Starter 

 

I'm positive I measured a "bad" T1 with horrible driver matching and a bad channel with an excessive treble peak (there's a post about it somewhere.) There have also been rumblings about good and bad T1s on these boards. There was one I heard about a year ago that actually sounded good - some slight treble tizzyness - but good bass and otherwise well balanced.
 
post #70 of 236

^ yeah, it places apparent inconsistencies in the LCDs in some perspective - not excusing it - when 'phones from larger companies like Beyerdynamic can also be "bad".

 

More seriously, where does it place our discussions if we aren't listening to the 'same' phone even when we think we are?

 

In other words, even our more expensive phones may not be even approximately consistent, let alone laboratory-grade 'measuring instruments'.

 

The effect is to reduce the precision of our impressions, and could be another reason - other than HRTF etc - our language and definitions remain blurred.

post #71 of 236

We've seen SQ and manufacturing consistency discussed.

Thought I'd post the Audeze FR for my set so others can compare against their set.

LCD3 FR v02.jpg

post #72 of 236
Thread Starter 

Not bad!

post #73 of 236

From the all the FR charts I've seen, there's still a huge amount of variability between the drivers.

post #74 of 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by khaos974 View Post

From the all the FR charts I've seen, there's still a huge amount of variability between the drivers.



Have you seen the various HD800 graphs?

post #75 of 236

Yes, Audez'e mentioned that they applied better quality control on the LCD-3s but the fact is there seem to be more "manufacturing variances" than I expected.

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 › LCD3 Measurements