Quote:

grokit said:

 

Great point. And lol 

Click to expand...

Funny how un-intended consequences can actually be beneficial.
 

I agree with SS in that the bass can sound imbalanced with the LCD3's.  On some recordings I LOVE it, it's subtle and not overpowering, well integrated, and others it drowns out the mids and highs.  I will say that the LF + LCD3 for me is a very satisfying combination.  Just upgraded to a Q cable this evening so will give that a few days, and then drop in some NOS Amperex tubes. 
 
I run from my DAC (Amarra Model 4) outputs to both the LF and my electrostatic setup, and so plan to do more A/B listening.  I find I do much better comparisons when I spend a couple weeks exclusively with one system, and then switch to the other for a week, and then do A/B.  Putting the 009's on tonight for the first time in a few weeks, it's almost jaw-dropping the difference in detail, transparency and soundstage.  However, the warmth from the upper bass/mids is not there which as mentioned above I do prefer in some tracks.  So very different experiences - the 009's and WES is in a different category of performance - a more honest reproduction of the recording IMO.  But I still think I'm going to go to the LF/LCD3 as or more often as they're fun, intimate / "cozy" and just easy to throw on a listen while working on the computer and with some recordings the tone seems more natural, esp with certain instruments like the piano or with the female voice (the 009's are a little more distracting though as my attention is pulled to the music - that's a compliment )

Quote:

silverlight said:

I agree with SS in that the bass can sound imbalanced with the LCD3's.  On some recordings I LOVE it, it's subtle and not overpowering, well integrated, and others it drowns out the mids and highs.  I will say that the LF + LCD3 for me is a very satisfying combination.  Just upgraded to a Q cable this evening so will give that a few days, and then drop in some NOS Amperex tubes. 
 
I run from my DAC (Amarra Model 4) outputs to both the LF and my electrostatic setup, and so plan to do more A/B listening.  I find I do much better comparisons when I spend a couple weeks exclusively with one system, and then switch to the other for a week, and then do A/B.  Putting the 009's on tonight for the first time in a few weeks, it's almost jaw-dropping the difference in detail, transparency and soundstage.  However, the warmth from the upper bass/mids is not there which as mentioned above I do prefer in some tracks.  So very different experiences - the 009's and WES is in a different category of performance - a more honest reproduction of the recording IMO.  But I still think I'm going to go to the LF/LCD3 as or more often as they're fun, intimate / "cozy" and just easy to throw on a listen while working on the computer and with some recordings the tone seems more natural, esp with certain instruments like the piano or with the female voice (the 009's are a little more distracting though as my attention is pulled to the music - that's a compliment )

Click to expand...

 

Yes I agree when using the LCD-3/LF about this combo
 
The Liquid Fire has a great dynamic range as dos the LCD-3. And it is for that reason why I have a problem with bass and ear fatigue. I also find this combo to be fun, but because of the bass of the LCD-3, that bass seems to numb my ability to hear the fine details and depth that the LCD-3 can accomplish. If I could over come that problem I would be happy with the LCD-3's, but so far all I have been able to do by changing the natural sound of the LCD-3's is to stop the numbing effect at the cost of the details and depth.
 
btw; I have tried nos sets of  Tungsram, Amperex (orange), and Siemens/Halske 6922=E88CC=CCa early 60's in my Liquid Fire. All of these quad sets are nos, matched and very strong tubes. I am using the Siemens for my Liquid Fire.

Dear sillysally
 
You  said you didn't hear LCD3's microdetails (because too much bass), but the others said LCD3's microdetails is nearly as much as 009.
 
I guess different cable may cause different sonic result too. And you didn't mention about headphone's cable.
 
What cable did you use in your review, stock LCD3 cable or after market cable?
 
Thank you.

I've read comments by people who owned both the Liquid Fire and the Stacker II (which I have) that the former is much improved over the latter. I do know my Stacker II with driver tube tends to give a bit of a bass boost, so if the Liquid Fire is similar, I could imagine it being a bit much for some people with either of the Audeze cans.  There are times I find the Stacker II/LCD-3 combo a bit dull, and other times my dead-nutz-neutral Phoenix a little lacking in musicality, if more absolutely detailed.

Quote:

chirawatf said:

Dear sillysally
 
You  said you didn't hear LCD3's microdetails (because too much bass), but the others said LCD3's microdetails is nearly as much as 009.
 
I guess different cable may cause different sonic result too. And you didn't mention about headphone's cable.
 
What cable did you use in your review, stock LCD3 cable or after market cable?
 
Thank you.

Click to expand...

I think what I said is because the bass causes my ears to go somewhat numb that I couldn't hear microdetails very well, once that happened.
 
I use  DHC OCC copper cable, ordered the cable so I had it when my LCD-3's came.
 
Read my next reply also.
 
Also see my profile for cables I use for my rig, I use the same cables and cords for both the LCD-3 and HE6.
I should add that when I bypassed my Realiser for 2Ch stereo I ran a Monster Toslink cable from my BDP-95 to my DAC not the Toslink I show in my profile. imo the the Monster Toslink is junk compared to the Toslink I show in my profile, but that Toslink is only .5M to short so I use the longer Monster.
 


Quote:

currawong said:

I've read comments by people who owned both the Liquid Fire and the Stacker II (which I have) that the former is much improved over the latter. I do know my Stacker II with driver tube tends to give a bit of a bass boost, so if the Liquid Fire is similar, I could imagine it being a bit much for some people with either of the Audeze cans.  There are times I find the Stacker II/LCD-3 combo a bit dull, and other times my dead-nutz-neutral Phoenix a little lacking in musicality, if more absolutely detailed.

Click to expand...

Yes you may be right depending on the tubes you use. imo if you use the stock JJ tubes in the Liquid Fire it seems to lessen the base. My Tungsram that I tried imo had the most increase for bass of any of the other tubes I tried.
 
Now I may of found a fix for this bass problem I was having. What I have done is takin out the TP mod (thanks purrin) and when putting back in the free floating circular piece of black felt I put what seemed to me to be the smoother side facing the metal grate cover. Do you or anybody know if both sides of the free floating circular piece of black felt is the same on both sides? If both sides are the same than my adjustment in my Realiser may have fixed my problem. What I did is raise the SPL level higher from 72db to 75db, I will keep playing with this for a day or two to be sure my problem is fixed. 
 
Anyway I am trying to make the LCD-3 work for my rig and ears, I just don't see any point to buy anymore amps or DAC to get the LCD-3 to my liking.
imo the Liquid Fire should be a very good match for the LCD-3,

 
 

Quote:

chirawatf said:

Dear sillysally
 
You  said you didn't hear LCD3's microdetails (because too much bass), but the others said LCD3's microdetails is nearly as much as 009.
 
I guess different cable may cause different sonic result too. And you didn't mention about headphone's cable.
 
What cable did you use in your review, stock LCD3 cable or after market cable?
 
Thank you.

Click to expand...

 
Having a few hundred hours on each the LCD3 and the 009's, I can very clearly state that in my setup (YMMV), the level of microdetails are definitely not at the level of the 009's, they're not comparable in this regard.   With the 009's I hear much more texture around instruments, attack and decay are more clear, separation of the instruments/voice far more evident.  I have both headphones volume matched as best as I can, both have the same source running to each respective amp, and I can just move back and forth to observe the differences.  As mentioned earlier, I find some recordings sound lean on the 009's, that really light up with the LCD3's as the tone becomes more natural (more like what I'd hear if I were in an orchestra pit or recording studio), but the increased transparency of the 009's and consistency up and down the spectrum make the 009's sound more "real".  It's definitely complimentary to listen to both though.
 
 

 
Quote:

silverlight said:

 
Having a few hundred hours on each the LCD3 and the 009's, I can very clearly state that in my setup (YMMV), the level of microdetails are definitely not at the level of the 009's, they're not comparable in this regard.   With the 009's I hear much more texture around instruments, attack and decay are more clear, separation of the instruments/voice far more evident.  I have both headphones volume matched as best as I can, both have the same source running to each respective amp, and I can just move back and forth to observe the differences.  As mentioned earlier, I find some recordings sound lean on the 009's, that really light up with the LCD3's as the tone becomes more natural (more like what I'd hear if I were in an orchestra pit or recording studio), but the increased transparency of the 009's and consistency up and down the spectrum make the 009's sound more "real".  It's definitely complimentary to listen to both though.

Click to expand...

Substitute my LCD-2 r.1 and HD800 for LCD-3/009 and I have the same exact story to tell 
 
Working on a strategy to get the K1000 and HE-6 to play out of that same rig...
 

@Sillysally and silverlight 
 
Thank you very much for important messages regard to LCD3 microdetails.
My conclusion (for microdetails) is 009 has definite more microdetails than LCD3.
 
What about LCD3 VS He6?  Can LCD3 rival He6 (for microdetails aspect)?
 
This is very important for me because I will consider buying LCD3 if it can produce more details than my He6.
 
Thank you.

I have compared the 009 and LCD3 quite a bit for the past week but I don't think microdetails of the LCD3 is even close to the 009's. The more resolving the source is, the bigger the difference. The LCD3 has its own charm though and I agree the 009 and LCD3 are very good compliments to each other.

Quote:

chirawatf said:

@Sillysally and silverlight 
 
Thank you very much for important messages regard to LCD3 microdetails.
My conclusion (for microdetails) is 009 has definite more microdetails than LCD3.
 
What about LCD3 VS He6?  Can LCD3 rival He6 (for microdetails aspect)?
 
This is very important for me because I will consider buying LCD3 if it can produce more details than my He6.
 
Thank you.

Click to expand...

imo the HE6 with my rig is a better headphone in most every way. Yes I would say the microdetails are a little better with the HE6 mainly because the HE6 has better mids, highs and the bass with the HE6 is also a little better because it is very impactful and very fast. Some may say that the bass with the LCD-3 goes lower but to me its just that the bass with the LCD-3 is kinda syrupy/creamy so you get that impression. And Of-course the price is much less for the HE6.
You also my want to look at my profile to get a better understanding were I am coming from.
 

Quote:

grokit said:

 

Substitute my LCD-2 r.1 and HD800 for LCD-3/009 and I have the same exact story to tell 

 

Click to expand...

Agreed, but then which sounds more like "real life"? My opinion is that the HD800s portray an "uber-reality" with regards to micro details similar to an over sharpened photo. It's not what you see in nature, but man does it show you everything that's going on. The Audeze headphones portray what you would see (or I guess in this case: hear) in nature. Many prefer one vs. the other, but having both is a fantastic contrast.
 

I still think having the 009 and LCD3 is very good compliment. You get best of both worlds. I don't think I need something in between.

Quote:

sillysally said:

imo the HE6 with my rig is a better headphone in most every way. Yes I would say the microdetails are a little better with the HE6 mainly because the HE6 has better mids, highs and the bass with the HE6 is also a little better because it is very impactful and very fast. Some may say that the bass with the LCD-3 goes lower but to me its just that the bass with the LCD-3 is kinda syrupy/creamy so you get that impression. And Of-course the price is much less for the HE6.
You also my want to look at my profile to get a better understanding were I am coming from.
 

Click to expand...

Replace the LCD-3 with the LCD-2 Rev.2 and my opinion is identical to yours. I think I'll just wait for the LCD-4.
 
I also find the HE-6 comfortable despite their weight. Can't say the same for any of the Audez'e cans. For whoever said that the HE-6 is badly shaped, try moulding the headband to your liking...it's not difficult.

SS, yours is the first pair in the FS I've seen.