Battle Of The Flagships (57 Headphones Compared) UPDATE: Ultimate Ears UERM added (4/14/13) - Page 87

He said they were a top performer on the MEASUREMENT front.  What is 'relevant evidence' in your case?  Is it measurements?  Hopefully not.  Honestly this is getting to the point that's well beyond comical.  You've already sorta disowned the LCD-3 multiple times just because its FR and square wave graphs weren't as pretty as the LCD-2.

Amplifiers/DACS do make a big difference. 

I had the HD650 paired with the Meyers' Corda Cantate2. It was way better than on Asus Essence ST. Then I paired it with the Burson HA-160ds. Before the Burson i liked the hd650. With the burson I loved them.

Then I "betrayed" the Hd650 and got the LCD2 rev3 which I paired with the HA-160DS.

I had both the HD800 and the LCD2 rev 2 each for a week to test before I decided to go with the LCD2 rev3.

I have liked the HD800 very much. I have felt the technical masterpiece, but i liked much more listening to music with the LCD2.

Very little time afterwards, Darku gave me the chance to listen to both cans paired with Bursons' new product : The Conductor (which has a better and powerful amplifier and better dac).

The differences were huge. I always felt that the LCD2 can do better. On the Conductor i felt they gave their best. It felt like I truly listened to the cans for the first time.

The interesting thing is that I also loved the HD800 with the Conductor. I changed my opinion of it . It was much more musical. It had a wider soundstage, a better bass impact, the brightness was gone. I started liking listening to rock for the first time on HD800. 

So the amplifier/dac makes a huge difference!

I subscribe. I am very interested in your opinion about it too, David . :D

Didn't you read my post?  The majority of amps will measure with the exact same dead flat frequency response, and distortion or noise floor numbers far below the audible threshold, yet they all sound different.  Unless the measurements show something EXTREMELY off, they are not what you should be looking for from an amp.

Why would you not be satisfied with the LCD-3?  It's well regarded as a complete step up from LCD-2. Honestly, your obsession with measurements is ridiculous.  I like a good looking set of measurements, but this is comical.

You know there's more to having a conversation that talking and waiting to talk.  (there's a listening part somewhere in there).

Again, read Currawong's link about measurements (and my article on innerfidelity). Where measuring the EXACT same pair of headphones yielded different measurements. 

The LCD-2s and LCD-3s measure about the same with a slight edge to the LCD-3s (deeper bass and better %THD). The older LCD-3 plots were from pre-RMA pairs and ARE NOT VALID!!!!! But when you actually PUT THEM ON YOUR HEAD, the differences are quite stark in favour of the LCD-3s. Of course you can't say much more as you've NEVER heard them. 

For the LAST TIME:

Measurements Only:

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD3Rev2sn2613375circa2012.pdf

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2Rev2.pdf

LCD-2 and LCD-3:

1.) Bass goes deeper on the LCD-3s and doesn't drop off until 40Hzish, while on the LCD-2 Rev. 2s its 60Hz.

2.) The upper mids roll off faster on the LCD-2s (not a good thing as female vocals can sound withdrawn and too laid back). On the LCD-2s, the roll off starts at 1kHz and on the LCD-3s its closer to 2kHz.

3.) Treble is a bit too subdued on the LCD-2s when compared to the LCD-3s. 

The 30kHz square wave responses seem within the tolerances of the measuring devices, so let's call them about the same. But on the 300Hz graph, you will see that the first spike on the LCD-3s is larger than on the LCD-2s. This is a good thing. Its what likely gives the LCD-3s the better ability to image. When I was talking to Tyll, he thought that was why the LCD-2s imaged so poorly. That equal double spike likely caused one to hear the same thing twice and thus collapse the sound stage.

Now % THD, the difference in %THD between 90 and 100dB on the LCD-3s shows that the drivers are better responding to the inputs while on the LCD-2s, they're more jumbled together (not as good as the LCD-3s, though still very good).

Now even with everything I mentioned above, there is the limitations of the measurement systems. I STRONGLY suggest you read both of these BEFORE commenting further to help open your horizons on the subject:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/632286/aes-2012-paper-relationship-between-perception-and-measurement-of-headphone-sound-quality

and

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/expert-tests-innerfidelitys-headphone-measurement-repeatability-and-reproducibility

Now, how does one quantify, imaging, transparency, PRaT, detail retrieval, etc....? These are all very valuable pieces of information that you're totally missing!

So, please just move on. Yes, your LCD-2 r.2s are fantastic headphones, but not the last word in terms of being the best there out there. Nor is your opinion or ability to interpret these graphs the last word. So please start your own thread (as the Moderator asked you to) and stop ruining this brilliant thread.