Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › burson new soloist headphone amp
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

burson new soloist headphone amp - Page 43

post #631 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by NZheadcase View Post

[snip]

 

I figure I can always keep what I love, and sell the ones that don't mesh with my preferences. However...   ....This hobby is evil. lol!

 

 

I think we have all fallen victim to that line of thinking, to various degrees.  We make the purchases saying we will sell the lesser of similar products, but we end up creating headphone museums, instead!  

 

I like having the flexibility of changing up the signature for different types of music, but that has its downside, too, because freedom of choice can cause frustration.  

 

When you get the T1, I think you will really find yourself in a quandary.   Seriously, a T1 sounds very different from an LCD-2 and yet they are both very appealing.  

 

I think of the T1 as "the technician" and the LCD-2 as "the artist."    Accuracy vs. self-expression.  One is immediately acceptable as "real," while the other is at the edge of being "surreal."

 

 

 

 

Photo by Reno Gregory.

 

 

 

 

Photo by Stephen W. Oachs.

 

Of the gear that I have, the DACport LX (or DACmini CX' DAC section) + Soloist + LCD-2 is my favoirte all-purpose combination.  I know I could use it to get a lot of enjoyment out of every genre of music to which I listen, without really missing any of my other gear.  Logically, I am therefore convinced I should sell everything else, except perhaps one of my portable setups.  

 

Tick, tock, tick, tock....

 

biggrin.gif

 

Mike

post #632 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solude View Post

I still prefer the LCD-2 on the Soloist over the LCD-3.  LCD-3 needs a more aggressive amp unless you like laid back sound.  Source is obviously going to affect the result too ;)

 

I'll run an official A/B tonight but I think I prefer the Soloist to the First Watt F3 for the LCD-2 as well. :O

 

Wow Solude,  you've really piqued my interest in a follow-up on these comparisons.   LCD-2 vs. LCD-3 and Soloist vs. First Watt F3.  

 

Tell us more!    It could be we just have similar tastes, but I really wouldn't find it hard to ultimately discover that I have already reached "Nirvana" with my Soloist + LCD-2 rev.1.  

 

popcorn.gif

post #633 of 1226

I would shatter your dreams by saying the LCD-2 is a moving target and the latest Rev2 is quite a bit better than the Rev1, also better than early Rev2s.  The main 'fault' of the LCD-3 for me is the laid back nature, not quite HD800 passive but not lively, and the extra energy in the 1-2KHz range which is the Whack/Tinny range.  Probably why most if not all headphones drop down around 1KHz ;)

post #634 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solude View Post

I still prefer the LCD-2 on the Soloist over the LCD-3.  LCD-3 needs a more aggressive amp unless you like laid back sound.  Source is obviously going to affect the result too ;)

 

I'll run an official A/B tonight but I think I prefer the Soloist to the First Watt F3 for the LCD-2 as well. :O

 

 

What's that F3 sounding like?  What's the volume at on the PWD2 with the LCD-2?  I'm at 50 with the HE-6.

post #635 of 1226

80dB is 36/100 on the PWD2.

post #636 of 1226

Even with -14dB inline attenuators which makes it more or less unity gain... 67/100.

post #637 of 1226

You got a very capable headphone there. Keep it what ever happens. It pairs good with e.g. Soloist, V200 and Mjolnir from Schiit. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zilch0md View Post
LCD-2 rev.1.
post #638 of 1226

can i just ask, what exactly does "laid back" sound mean? does laid back refer to darkness in the headphone, or has it something to do with how lively and exciting the music is? if it's the latter, where is the line between lively and exciting vs. aggressive and bright?

post #639 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle00Jesse View Post

can i just ask, what exactly does "laid back" sound mean? does laid back refer to darkness in the headphone, or has it something to do with how lively and exciting the music is? if it's the latter, where is the line between lively and exciting vs. aggressive and bright?

 

I use the term laid-back to describe sound that sounds farther from your ears. The opposite of forward-sounding, or as some may put it (in a negative tone), aggressive-sounding. I'm not sure if sounding farther is a precise way to put it, as it may mislead one to assume that it means that same thing as having a wide soundstage.

post #640 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by songmic View Post

I use the term laid-back to describe sound that sounds farther from your ears. The opposite of forward-sounding, or as some may put it (in a negative tone), aggressive-sounding. I'm not sure if sounding farther is a precise way to put it, as it may mislead one to assume that it means that same thing as having a wide soundstage.

 

That's the problem with the term "laid back" - there seems to be about three definitions floating around here on Head-Fi, each of which can only be identified by their context:

 

1) "Laid back" means you're not in the front row, but rather a few rows back from the musicians (a reference to soundstage).

 

2) "Laid back" means the sound lacks punch, slam, or PRAT (a reference to dynamics).

 

3) "Laid back" means smooth, non-fatiguing (a reference to treble signature).

 

Unfortunately, I've seen all three definitions in use.

 

Stereophile's audio glossary offers this definition (supporting the first of the three, above):

 

Quote:
laid-back   Recessed, distant-sounding, having exaggerated depth, usually because of a dished midrange. See "Row-M sound." Compare "forward."

 

Head-Fi's glossary has the same definition.

 

But I'm not sure Solude is talking about sound stage.  

 

So...  Can you please elaborate on your use of the term "laid back," Solude?

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

post #641 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loevhagen View Post

You got a very capable headphone there. Keep it what ever happens. It pairs good with e.g. Soloist, V200 and Mjolnir from Schiit. 

 

Thanks for that encouragement.  I will indeed hang onto the LCD-2 rev.1.   wink.gif

post #642 of 1226

I use it mostly with the LCD-3 to mean:

 

2) "Laid back" means the sound lacks punch, slam, or PRAT (a reference to dynamics).

 

But the HD800 certainly fits the:

 

laid-back   Recessed, distant-sounding, having exaggerated depth, usually because of a dished midrange.

post #643 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solude View Post

I use it mostly with the LCD-3 to mean:

 

2) "Laid back" means the sound lacks punch, slam, or PRAT (a reference to dynamics).

 

But the HD800 certainly fits the:

 

laid-back   Recessed, distant-sounding, having exaggerated depth, usually because of a dished midrange.

 

Ahhh... Thanks for that Solude! 

 

And thank you Uncle00Jesse for requesting a clarification.

 

I can't prove it now, but from your context, I was pretty sure you were talking about dynamics (the 2nd definition.)

 

I've heard that the LCD-3 went through some improvements, but I never followed that history closely enough to know if a lack of dynamics plagued the earlier models of the LCD-3.  

 

Do you know where your LCD-3 sits in that history of changes Audeze applied?

 

Given all the gear you've owned and your obvious experience (sincerely, with all due respect), I find myself wanting to trust your ears, but this is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that the LCD-3 lacks dynamics.  So, I'm asking myself if you've got a lemon LCD-3.

 

Thanks,

 

Mike

post #644 of 1226

It's all about reference.  My LCD-3 was the latest and greatest from June 2012.  Compared to the HD800 the LCD-3 is dynamic.  Compared to the LCD-2 it isn't.  So for me the list of amps you can use with the LCD-3 to restore life is very short, where the list of amps that work with the LCD-2 is huge and about the only ones not on the list are the one's that are LCD-3 approved.

 

The big 'problem' with the LCD-3 is the extra energy in the 1-2KHz range which happens to be the whack/tinny range which gives them a greyish noisy character.  It's pretty much unique to the LCD-3 and I think there is a reason for that.

post #645 of 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solude View Post

It's all about reference.  My LCD-3 was the latest and greatest from June 2012.  Compared to the HD800 the LCD-3 is dynamic.  Compared to the LCD-2 it isn't.  So for me the list of amps you can use with the LCD-3 to restore life is very short, where the list of amps that work with the LCD-2 is huge and about the only ones not on the list are the one's that are LCD-3 approved.

 

The big 'problem' with the LCD-3 is the extra energy in the 1-2KHz range which happens to be the whack/tinny range which gives them a greyish noisy character.  It's pretty much unique to the LCD-3 and I think there is a reason for that.

 

That's beautifully written, Solude.  I get it.  And it reveals just how experienced your ears are.  You're talking about subtle differences (differences that others might miss) when comparing the dynamics of the LCD-3 to LCD-2 or HD-800.  I find your assessments to be very credible.  Forgive me for judging you (even positively), but In this hobby, where we are trying to avoid spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on gear that we've never seen, we have to judge each other's skills and tastes.  

 

An Australian friend, whose ears I've come to trust, owns a killer HiFi system (Nelson Pass, Focal, Gutwire, etc.) the sonics of which he can describe very succinctly.  He's an engineer/scientist at heart, makes no assumptions, takes a lot of notes, changes out only one variable at at time, researches everything to death, exhibits tremendous patience, allowing things to burn in and then some, making no rash decisions, etc.  When he speaks, I listen. I got to know him after I had already been using the LCD-2 with DACmini CX and he had already spent about a year exploring headphone systems and settled on using the DACmini CX (with default 10-Ohm output impedance) + LCD-3, after buying and selling a lot of stuff - including the Ultrasone Edition 8 and HD800, and LCD-2.

 

Have you ever heard your LCD-3 with the DACmini CX?   I'm wondering if you'd find this combination an exception to your contention that those amps which work well with the LCD-2 don't work well with the LCD-3. Which also begs the question:  Have you heard the LCD-2 with the DACmini CX?  I think they sound great together, as does HeadphoneAddict (Larry), who last I heard, doesn't own the LCD-3, but says he could sell everything he owns (and he has a lot of gear) as long as he was allowed to keep his DACmini CX, his LCD-2, and his RSA SR-71B.  It was Larry's enthusiasm for the DACmini CX and LCD-2 that led me to ordering the DACmini CX.  I've identified that he likes a slightly darker signature than I do, but Larry is another Head-Fi member I trust, along with Skylab (Rob), who likes a darker, warmer, smoother signature, still (if I read him correctly.) 

 

Lastly, you may have said it previously, but which amps do you like with the LCD-3?

 

Thanks!

 

Mike


Edited by zilch0md - 1/27/13 at 7:49am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphone Amps (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › burson new soloist headphone amp