Just got my LCD-3 and the first impression... - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmhifi 

The "suction cup" effect is still there. This for me is probably even bigger issue. My ears feel really uncomfortable wearing these. I feel pressure (even slight pain) in my ears after wearing and listening these for a while. I don´t notice this effect with any other headphones I own or have owned/tried and that headphone list is a long one. Even the LCD-2s don´t have this effect. I told Audeze about this, but their response was:

 

"The "suction effect" you are referring to will occur with any open backed headphone. The ear pads have nothing to do with this. This effect is normal with open backed headphones."

 

I have to respectfully disagree.

x2

Never tried the LCD-3, but my LCD-2 Rev. 2. have NEVER had a suction effect and I've had them over four months. The closest thing is a little sticky when it's really hot in here but that's only when taking them off; it's not felt when listening to the music.

Suction cup effect has to do with LCD-3 pads specifically. 

Dunno what to say. Huge and wide are words not normally coming to mind when referring to *any* LCD, but the LCD-3 is definitely wider than either LCD-2 revisions, and I've heard them all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmhifi 
To sum it up in few words, my LCD-2s sound huge and wide and the LCD-3s small and closed.

Yup. The LCD3 pads, while super comfortable and squishy, easily conform to your head. This highly contributes to the section effect. To a lesser extent, some STAX also do this, but some models have vents to prevent the suction effect (and to mitigate the STAX fart which is what happens when you compress.) The LCD2 pads are firmer and don't conform, so they will not have the suction effect. Also, this suction effect has nothing to do with their open backed nature as most other open headphones do not exhibit this suction effect: Grados, Sennheisers, HiFiMans, etc.

@tmhifi: I am sorry that this didn't work out for you. I've measured/listened to four of the newer unveiled ones (or a batch released all within two weeks) and had a chance to directly compare at least two of them to an LCD2r1 and r2. And while the LCD3 do have stronger low bass, they sounded less dark overall and had a much wider soundstage. It's entirely possible that you got an LCD2r1 which was less dark sounding and more open than many others. I know there was a lot of variation with the LCD2s.

Ultimately, the LCD3 may just not be your cup of tea.

I don't know what other upstream equipment you are running, but the potential and character of each LCD3 is easily discernible with very modest equipment, i.e. I could tell even using a Sony X Walkman portable. I am only stating this because I almost expect somebody with too much money to tell you that you need a $20,000 DAC and $10,000 amp to realize the full benefits of the LCD3 over the LCD2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmhifi 

I´m still listening and comparing these. I just don´t like what I hear. :( To sum it up in few words, my LCD-2s sound huge and wide and the LCD-3s small and closed.

"Small and closed" is certainly a reasonable observation for any Audez'e headphone -- audiophile listeners who prefer breathtaking soundstage and pinpoint clarity probably won't find the LCD-X to their liking in any circumstances.

But... if your LCD-2 sound "huge and wide" vs. your LCD-3, then there's definitely something wrong. Even my veiled LCD-3 had substantially better staging, imaging and treble clarity than my 2.2s -- and the RMA'ed LCD-3s take the improvement to yet another level. I now find that the LCD-3's soundstage and clarity rival the HE-6 (which I why I sold my HE-6) and the T1.

Got the LCD-3 today and listened to them for 4+ hours and came to think about purrin´s research in the LCD-3s.

Thanks to purrin "who´s always plottin", I opened the FR that came with my LCD-2r2 (dated July 7th 2011) and compared it with the FR that came with the recent bought LCD-3 (dated April 6th 2012). Why? I needed objective confirmation if the LCD-3 was non-veiled-version. And according to purrin´s statements elswhere - these LCD-3 are indeed the non-veiled-version version.

I was quite surprised to see that these two FRs are so similar. Both flat up to just passing 1.5k and then sliding down quite linear (20dBSPL) to 4-4.5k. I really like the r2s and found the LCD-3 to be an upgrade in terms of "effortless presentation". The vocals conveyed by the LCD-3 is a tad more distant than the r2s, though. 

I like the LCD-3. I love the r1 and r2. 

If you find the LCD-3 soundstage to be on the level of T1, which is almost as wide as (and IMO better than) HD800 (which is the king of soundstage), how can you state that  "Small and closed" is certainly a reasonable observation for any Audez'e headphone" ??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olias of Sunhillow 

 

 

"Small and closed" is certainly a reasonable observation for any Audez'e headphone -- audiophile listeners who prefer breathtaking soundstage and pinpoint clarity probably won't find the LCD-X to their liking in any circumstances.

 

But... if your LCD-2 sound "huge and wide" vs. your LCD-3, then there's definitely something wrong. Even my veiled LCD-3 had substantially better staging, imaging and treble clarity than my 2.2s -- and the RMA'ed LCD-3s take the improvement to yet another level. I now find that the LCD-3's soundstage and clarity rival the HE-6 (which I why I sold my HE-6) and the T1.

 

Well put. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by purrin 

I am only stating this because I almost expect somebody with too much money to tell you that you need a $20,000 DAC and $10,000 amp to realize the full benefits of the LCD3 over the LCD2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardilla 

If you find the LCD-3 soundstage to be on the level of T1, which is almost as wide as (and IMO better than) HD800 (which is the king of soundstage), how can you state that  "Small and closed" is certainly a reasonable observation for any Audez'e headphone" ??

 

Because more than a few audiophiles find the T1 to be "small and closed" as well. I am not among them -- and did not mean to give the impression that I was, since I also prefer the T1's soundstage to HD800 -- but I don't really argue with folks that have legitimate disagreements with my observations.

Put another way, if one thinks the HD800 has the perfect soundstage, then they would probably conclude that the LCD-X is "small and closed" by comparison. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't try to change their mind either.

I have to be a bit nasal about this. HD800 is known as the widest soundstage ever dynamic headphone (except K1000), and T1 is just a step behind. So that leaves pretty much all other headphones behind T1. If you find LCD-3 at the level of T1, I insist that it is unfair to put LCD-3 (or even LCD-2 r2) in the "very much closed in soundstage" group of headphones. "Not as wide as HD800" is not the same as "closed in soundstage"

Anyway -  for preferring the T1 soundstage to the HD800. I think the T1 soundstage gets to little attention around here. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olias of Sunhillow 

 

 

Because more than a few audiophiles find the T1 to be "small and closed" as well. I am not among them -- and did not mean to give the impression that I was, since I also prefer the T1's soundstage to HD800 -- but I don't really argue with folks that have legitimate disagreements with my observations.

 

Put another way, if one thinks the HD800 has the perfect soundstage, then they would probably conclude that the LCD-X is "small and closed" by comparison. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't try to change their mind either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardilla 

If you find the LCD-3 soundstage to be on the level of T1, which is almost as wide as (and IMO better than) HD800 (which is the king of soundstage), how can you state that  "Small and closed" is certainly a reasonable observation for any Audez'e headphone" ??

 

 

Funny, I would rank these headphones in terms of sound staging:

HD800 > LCD-3 = T1 > LCD-2r.2 > LCD-2r.1

Just how I hears it I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacedonianHero 

 

 

Funny, I would rank these headphones in terms of sound staging:

 

HD800 > LCD-3 = T1 > LCD-2r.2 > LCD-2r.1

 

Just how I hears it I guess.

Looks right to me.

^ x4  The issue is how you hear the T1 it seems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardilla 

I think the T1 soundstage gets to little attention around here. 

Sorry, I have a hard time focusing on it w/ all the other issues.