Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Mini-Review: Audeze LCD-3 (vs LCD-2 r2, SR-007, et al)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mini-Review: Audeze LCD-3 (vs LCD-2 r2, SR-007, et al) - Page 3

post #31 of 50

Understood.

However there are plenty of JH 13 units out there , with many happy listeners, including Asr .

We are not talking 3a here.

If the UE referred to improves on the JH13 then we have another benchmark compared to LCD 3 and other compared headphones .

post #32 of 50
You are missing the point. It's about the company, not the product.
post #33 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wild4sound View Post
Don't get me wrong on this .

I find this review very good and helpful.

Asr praises the JH 13 and places it very high up the ladder.

What I am asking is, does he recommend  the UE because it betters the JH13 on sound quality .

From his post he clearly states he does not like the brand JH and their dealings.

He does not state that UE is better sounding than the JH13 , to him. 

If he thinks the UE sounds better, then I have to go give it a listen.


My post was intended only as a non-recommendation of JH Audio in general based on their business practices from the JH-3A situation. And as much as I like the sound of the JH13, I would not buy another one. I didn't provide a comparison to the UE IERM because I haven't heard it. Stating that "If I had to buy a pair of custom IEMs today I'd get the Ultimate Ears IERM" doesn't imply that I've heard it (or recommend it), so I'm not sure where you got that idea. My interest in the UE IERM is mostly because of the impressions I've read by other Head-Fiers whose opinion I respect, that have heard it.

 

My interest in the UE IERM originally started as a result of reading this thread: http://www.head-fi.org/t/573858/the-neutral-balanced-thread. The posts/pages directly preceding my post #290 (http://www.head-fi.org/t/573858/the-neutral-balanced-thread/285#post_7888299) are what led to my interest in it.

 

I'll reiterate for clarity: just because the UE IERM are what I'd personally buy next doesn't mean I recommend them. I haven't heard them yet. If there's anything that I do recommend, it's not basing a purchasing decision on only my opinion and instead using aggregate opinion wherever possible.

post #34 of 50

Understood, that makes things very clear . 

Thanks again for the time spent.

post #35 of 50

The thing I liked best about my Stax SR007 (with 007t amp) during the (8) years I had them was that there was no fatigue, especially in the highs and upper mids, just great detail and 

a nice cure for digital glare. I just loved the super-natural portrayal of vocals.

 

Even though Audezes seem to have a reputation for being rolled off in the highs, I find that (even with warmish tubes driving them) some digital glare can come through.

But I find this to be true with all of the many top-model dynamic headphones (and I've had many, T1s, 800s, D7000s, PS1s, 650s, Ed. 8s and more).

 

The Audezes are my favorites (in part) because they are the best dynamics to deal with upper midrange glare (especially in vocals on digital).

And the LCD3 tonality and vocals is *almost* as natural as the Staxes. The LCD3 really brings out the character and fleshes out the texture of singers voices I've known

for decades. Like Carole King's slight hoarseness or John Lennon's axe-blade sharpness. And I think the LCD3 actually shows the shape and size of a singer's voice or instrument

better than the Stax did, along with the space around it. The LCD3 and the Stax are the champs in digging deep into the truth of things more than all the other phones I have known,

with the Stax digging a little deeper and feeling more immediate, like there is no wall at all, but the LCD3 creates a more rounded impression of each image, and I can

sense the size of each image better. 

 

Like I said, with Carole King (I've been using Tapestry and Music to evaluate equipment since being a kid in 1972, all the way back to my first green Superex ProBV phones way back then),

I can hear the image of her voice elevated over the piano with the LCD3

in a natural seated position, especially with the SACDs. I did not hear this with any of the other phones mentioned above. The Stax could not do this either, but, the plink of the piano

was just right there and very real and close-up, with not a hint of cloudiness or overhang or fog. You did not feel like you were looking through a lens or wearing glasses, you were just

seeing it with your own 20/20 vision. And the voice was also right there, like she was right in front of you singing.

 

So I understand ASR's appreciation of the Stax, but for me the Audeze is a fine alternative reality.

 

The reason I eventually sold my SR007s even though I liked the sound (and would have tried a better amp than the 007t) was that I never found them comfortable enough,

with the padding too thin and the ear space too shallow and not tall enough.

 

Now I hear that the SR009s are "brighter" and that scares me off (never heard them, though).

 

 

post #36 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post


 

The reason I eventually sold my SR007s even though I liked the sound (and would have tried a better amp than the 007t) was that I never found them comfortable enough,

with the padding too thin and the ear space too shallow and not tall enough.

 


 



Sounds like you could have just needed a set of new pads. If anything, replaced them with some MK2 pads which have stiffer foam that you might have preferred.

post #37 of 50

Thanks Deadneddz, maybe I'll go the Stax route again someday.

post #38 of 50

Hello. rgs9200m,

 

Long time no see.  I saw your following comments about the Stax SR007.  You just described what I like about the Stax 007.  This "digital glare" your mentioned is one key factor in my preference of Stax SR007 over any dynamic phones including HD800, HE6 and 650.  It just makes all the dynamic phones sounds not as natural as the 007.   I call it "dynamic glare".  I was wondering whether it could be avoided with LDC3, plus tweaks of other components such as amp and tubes.  You answered my question. If you could not remove this digital glare from LCD3, I doubt anybody could.  I am wondering if this "digital glare" could be avoided by using a vinyl source or it is truly associated with dyanmic phones.  I am also not uncertain about the 009 for the same reason you mentioned (brighter).   I will not buy one before having a listen.     

 

 

The thing I liked best about my Stax SR007 (with 007t amp) during the (8) years I had them was that there was no fatigue, especially in the highs and upper mids, just great detail and a nice cure for digital glare. I just loved the super-natural portrayal of vocals.

 

Even though Audezes seem to have a reputation for being rolled off in the highs, I find that (even with warmish tubes driving them) some digital glare can come through.

But I find this to be true with all of the many top-model dynamic headphones (and I've had many, T1s, 800s, D7000s, PS1s, 650s, Ed. 8s and more).

post #39 of 50

Hi cacatalysis,  thanks for the good words.

I would say vinyl would do the trick, because I have a number of SACD versions of favorite music and it most always eliminates the glare miraculously, so

I am pretty sure this is a digital phenomenon, some artifact picked up and passed along by the dynamic phones. In fact, that is why I get SACDs when I can.

Yep, dynamic glare is a good term for it, and I wish all the headphone companies would address this issue, and see on these forums the huge number of complaints about

brightness. I think that is why Audeze has been so popular and grown so fast, because they did design their phones to be less bright and glary and still keep detail and definition.

With the world going digital, dealing with digital glare should be a top priority.

 

(Examples well known around here are HD800s, T1s, top Grados, HE6s, and others.)

 

Like I say, the LCD3 (and LCD2 rev 2) have been the best in dealing with this, but still I had to resort to (1) a Brimar 6NS7 NOS tube, and (2) a legendarily warm Shunyata Anaconda VX power cord on

my cd player, along with (for now) a Q-audio cable on the LCD3. All this does the trick, and the glare is down to infinitesimal amounts on many redbook CDs or gone completely on others.

But there is still some room for improvement overall.

And all detail is preserved, so I don't think I am losing definition or things are rolled off. I'm still going to play with cables and my power conditioner some more.

 

It's still a mystery to me why some Staxes work so well in this area, and maybe someone around here who agrees with what I hear can chime in here.

And although it's been 15-20 years, when I had Koss ESP950s, I don't remember them being bright, even with early CD players.

 

 

post #40 of 50


   Quote:

Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

 

Even though Audezes seem to have a reputation for being rolled off in the highs, I find that (even with warmish tubes driving them) some digital glare can come through.


The consensus is that the LCD's are recessed in the highs, but not rolled off. This seems to be supported by the FR graphs, and many pairs of ears.

post #41 of 50

Yep Grokit, I find the sound does reflect the FR graphs, but how is recessed different from rolled off? 

I don't find them recessed except in comparison to other dynamic phones like HD800s. And I have LCD3s and LCD2s (rev2).

Thank you.

post #42 of 50

"Rolled off" usually is meant that at a certain frequency(within the audible range) the response starts to drop in amplitude and continues downward.  An example is the lows in the AKG-701, they start to roll off around 50ish hz.

 

The LCD-3 keep upper frequency response throughout the audible range of music.  However, they are a bit recessed compared to a lot of other high-end phones.

 

I personally happen to like their response quite a bit.  The weight on the other hand...

 

 


Edited by raif - 3/4/12 at 12:00pm
post #43 of 50



Hi rgs9200m,  do your measures to minimize the digital glare begin with your pinnacle amp?  how about the B52 or Rodistor? When you had the stax 007t, had you ever tried to use a pre-amp to feed the 007t?  In my experience a pre-amp really has a transformative impact on how my 007tII drives the Omega MK 1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

Hi cacatalysis,  thanks for the good words.

I would say vinyl would do the trick, because I have a number of SACD versions of favorite music and it most always eliminates the glare miraculously, so

I am pretty sure this is a digital phenomenon, some artifact picked up and passed along by the dynamic phones. In fact, that is why I get SACDs when I can.

Yep, dynamic glare is a good term for it, and I wish all the headphone companies would address this issue, and see on these forums the huge number of complaints about

brightness. I think that is why Audeze has been so popular and grown so fast, because they did design their phones to be less bright and glary and still keep detail and definition.

With the world going digital, dealing with digital glare should be a top priority.

 

(Examples well known around here are HD800s, T1s, top Grados, HE6s, and others.)

 

Like I say, the LCD3 (and LCD2 rev 2) have been the best in dealing with this, but still I had to resort to (1) a Brimar 6NS7 NOS tube, and (2) a legendarily warm Shunyata Anaconda VX power cord on

my cd player, along with (for now) a Q-audio cable on the LCD3. All this does the trick, and the glare is down to infinitesimal amounts on many redbook CDs or gone completely on others.

But there is still some room for improvement overall.

And all detail is preserved, so I don't think I am losing definition or things are rolled off. I'm still going to play with cables and my power conditioner some more.

 

It's still a mystery to me why some Staxes work so well in this area, and maybe someone around here who agrees with what I hear can chime in here.

And although it's been 15-20 years, when I had Koss ESP950s, I don't remember them being bright, even with early CD players.

 

 



 

post #44 of 50

Raif said it well, the LCD's highs are fully extended in frequency but subdued in volume compared to most other totl headphones in their class.


Edited by grokit - 3/5/12 at 12:52am
post #45 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by raif View Post

"Rolled off" usually is meant that at a certain frequency(within the audible range) the response starts to drop in amplitude and continues downward.  An example is the lows in the AKG-701, they start to roll off around 50ish hz.

 

The LCD-3 keep upper frequency response throughout the audible range of music.  However, they are a bit recessed compared to a lot of other high-end phones.

 

I personally happen to like their response quite a bit.  The weight on the other hand...

 

 


X2

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 › Mini-Review: Audeze LCD-3 (vs LCD-2 r2, SR-007, et al)