or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Audeze LCD-3 Impressions Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-3 Impressions Thread - Page 124

post #1846 of 4451

It really depends on your personal taste. Unlike MacedonianHero, I grew up with bright sounding headphones and that is the sound signature I enjoy the most. Therefore HE-6 is perfect for me, and so are the Grados (not all of them mind you :redface:).

I wasn't a fan of the LCD-2, but I did appreciate the neutral response and fresh approach to this niche. I am receiving an LCD-3 soon, so will look forward to comparing it with the other headphones I've got. The things I disliked the most about the LCD-2 were the: constricted and narrow sound stage + lack of treble + too much mids. However, there was the paradox that the instrument separation was excellent even though the sound stage was narrow.

post #1847 of 4451
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dukeskd View Post
 

It really depends on your personal taste. Unlike MacedonianHero, I grew up with bright sounding headphones and that is the sound signature I enjoy the most. Therefore HE-6 is perfect for me, and so are the Grados (not all of them mind you :redface:).

I wasn't a fan of the LCD-2, but I did appreciate the neutral response and fresh approach to this niche. I am receiving an LCD-3 soon, so will look forward to comparing it with the other headphones I've got. The things I disliked the most about the LCD-2 were the: constricted and narrow sound stage + lack of treble + too much mids. However, there was the paradox that the instrument separation was excellent even though the sound stage was narrow.

 

Good news is that the sound staging was one of the most improved things on the LCD-3s.

post #1848 of 4451

Yup and newer ones are pretty tilted up tonally.  No HD800 shelf but no upper mid suck out either.

post #1849 of 4451
Quote:
Originally Posted by negura View Post
 

 

You're right and that's an actual flaw with the HE-6s. Nobody said they're perfect (well, except for preproman maybe :) ) It does not have to be bright if it's closer to neutral or neutral. It will be interesting how the LCD-Xs actually turn out to be, but I truly welcome more neutral Audezes (as said if they're NOT bright). I think there's headway between the warmness of the LCD-3s and less so.

 

It's only a flaw if your amp allows it to be.  LCD-3=Sold.  Got tired of the shelved treble, closed in soundstage and the dark sig.  I guess I like a "brighter" more open / airy headphone.  Or a more neutal sounding headphone when compared to a dark one.  Bass is not something that hides from orthos so I just won't own the LCD-3s for it's bass.

post #1850 of 4451
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post
 

 

It's only a flaw if your amp allows it to be.  LCD-3=Sold.  Got tired of the shelved treble, closed in soundstage and the dark sig.  I guess I like a "brighter" more open / airy headphone.  Or a more neutal sounding headphone when compared to a dark one.  Bass is not something that hides from orthos so I just won't own the LCD-3s for it's bass.

 

Ummmm...this is the LCD-3 Appreciation Thread. :wink_face:

 

I on the other hand don't miss my HE-6s since I sold them after my LCD-3s arrived. :deadhorse: 


Edited by MacedonianHero - 10/5/13 at 10:09pm
post #1851 of 4451
I still find it quite hard to understand the preconception or reputation of dark or bassy for the LCD3. At least for my units in my setup the difference of the HD800 vs the LCD3 is no where close to what I had been and is reading on various threads. There are noticeable difference but at the same time I can't really understand how it would be "tiring" with the HD800 treble, or how the LCD3 treble is "shelved". These descriptions sounded way too extreme against my experience with them.

LCD2 I can somewhat agree with the darkness and subdued treble, but LCD3 is probably at the lower bound of the "the right amount of treble" for me, while the HD800 at the upper end. For reference I do fine TH900 treble too spicy, and LCD2 treble a bit too little. He6 I haven't spent enough time with and can't really decide if it is too bright or not. (I think it is a tad too bright out of the EF6 with my brief demo sessions in different occasions but would reserve judgement.)

But at the end of the day these are all very subjective and my point is that I would be hearing a much bigger difference between the LCD3 and the HD800 if I went by these comments, but I don't.
Edited by kkcc - 10/5/13 at 10:17pm
post #1852 of 4451
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkcc View Post

I still find it quite hard to understand the preconception or reputation of dark or bassy for the LCD3. At least for my units in my setup the difference of the HD800 vs the LCD3 is no where close to what I had been and is reading on various threads. There are noticeable difference but at the same time I can't really understand how it would be "tiring" with the HD800 treble, or how the LCD3 treble is "shelved". These descriptions sounded way too extreme against my experience with them.

LCD2 I can somewhat agree with the darkness and subdued treble, but LCD3 is probably at the lower bound of the "the right amount of treble" for me, while the HD800 at the upper end. For reference I do fine TH900 treble too spicy, and LCD2 treble a bit too little. He6 I haven't spent enough time with and can't really decide if it is too bright or not. (I think it is a tad too bright out of the EF6 with my brief demo sessions in different occasions but would reserve judgement.)

But at the end of the day these are all very subjective and my point is that I would be hearing a much bigger difference between the LCD3 and the HD800 if I went by these comments, but I don't.

 

What's your rig?

When I owned the HD800 and LCD2 and 3 with the DNA Stratus and X-Sabre, LCD2.2 and 3 were very close, 3 had more mid bass and had better imaging, but FR tilt was nearly identical. HD800 was very bright, but sounded much fuller with the Stratus. However, it was still nowhere near the FR tilt of the Audezes. It was still lacking subbass compared to the orthos, and treble was still very spicy. I remember it's being spicier than the TH900 for sure, even on the Stratus. In comparison, the LCD3 was pretty dark sounding as well, and will most likely be described as "shelved" if the person is used to a more neutral to brighter sound. HD800 was actually tiring to my ears as well with poorly recorded tracks, even with the Anax Mod 2.0. 

 

tl;dr - These descriptions are pretty accurate as far as my experience with them goes.

post #1853 of 4451
I can't understand that either.
post #1854 of 4451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Girls Generation View Post
 

 

What's your rig?

When I owned the HD800 and LCD2 and 3 with the DNA Stratus and X-Sabre, LCD2.2 and 3 were very close, 3 had more mid bass and had better imaging, but FR tilt was nearly identical. HD800 was very bright, but sounded much fuller with the Stratus. However, it was still nowhere near the FR tilt of the Audezes. It was still lacking subbass compared to the orthos, and treble was still very spicy. I remember it's being spicier than the TH900 for sure, even on the Stratus. In comparison, the LCD3 was pretty dark sounding as well, and will most likely be described as "shelved" if the person is used to a more neutral to brighter sound. HD800 was actually tiring to my ears as well with poorly recorded tracks, even with the Anax Mod 2.0. 

 

tl;dr - These descriptions are pretty accurate as far as my experience with them goes.

 

 

My guess is the FR for these headphone might have actually shifted throughout their production lifecycle as I do find people with units from early batches going with the LCD3 dark, HD800 sibilance comments a lot more than owners of more recent batches.  My current units are from later batches (Jul 2013 for LCD3, and 22xxx for HD800).  I did have a Mar-2012 LCD3 and while I didn't A/B them, I would agree the Mar-2012 unit was darker and less transparent.  Compared to my HD800, the three (or maybe two as they might be from the same exhibitor) TH900s I had demo recently definitely sounded more bright with harsher sibilance (Comparison mainly based on violectric v200/v800, and Audio-gd NFB-28 which have flat/neutral sig).

post #1855 of 4451
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkcc View Post
 

 

 

My guess is the FR for these headphone might have actually shifted throughout their production lifecycle as I do find people with units from early batches going with the LCD3 dark, HD800 sibilance comments a lot more than owners of more recent batches.  My current units are from later batches (Jul 2013 for LCD3, and 22xxx for HD800).  I did have a Mar-2012 LCD3 and while I didn't A/B them, I would agree the Mar-2012 unit was darker and less transparent.  Compared to my HD800, the three (or maybe two as they might be from the same exhibitor) TH900s I had demo recently definitely sounded more bright with harsher sibilance (Comparison mainly based on violectric v200/v800, and Audio-gd NFB-28 which have flat/neutral sig).

 

I had 2013 dated ones for my LCD3 and HD800, while my LCD2 went through surgery by Audeze and got new drivers and housing. 

I actually haven't tried the TH900 thoroughly with the stock SPC cable, though the time I demoed them at a small meet, it had too much bass, and treble seemed a bit spiky. My TH900 with DHC's silver litz cable sounds quite natural, treble is not sibilant, bass is not overpowering, and mids are not distant. This is out of a DX50 AND iPhone 5. (I know, but it's what I intended to use them with from the start).

post #1856 of 4451

If you haven't heard a 2013 LCD-3 I could see why you might think dark.  Here are my 2012 and 2013 graphs.  2012 is a post unveiling model.

 

 


Edited by Solude - 10/6/13 at 4:44am
post #1857 of 4451
My LCD 3 is Late November 2012 and starts with 261.
Does it fall into the 2013 category? That's how it sounds to me...
post #1858 of 4451
Quote:
Originally Posted by citraian View Post

My LCD 3 is Late November 2012 and starts with 261.
Does it fall into the 2013 category? That's how it sounds to me...

 

Show your graph...don't be shy :)) My lcd3's sn starts with 261 too and it is from July 2012...


Edited by dan.gheorghe - 10/6/13 at 7:13am
post #1859 of 4451

I should clarify, my 231... is a 261 unveiled spec.  It got the update in June  2012.  Audeze might deny it, but recent batches all stay up high in the presence range.  No driver swap but clearly some other change.

post #1860 of 4451
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe View Post

Show your graph...don't be shy smily_headphones1.gif) My lcd3's sn starts with 261 too and it is from July 2012...
I shown it three times in the past and you have it on your computer in three copies and on your email.
That doesn,t make me shy :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solude View Post

I should clarify, my 231... is a 261 unveiled spec.  It got the update in June  2012.  Audeze might deny it, but recent batches all stay up high in the presence range.  No driver swap but clearly some other change.
I don't get this. Are you saying that only the 2013 LCD-3s are brighter?
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 › Audeze LCD-3 Impressions Thread