Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › LCD-2 rev2 vs LCD-3 with lower quality music (but lossless)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

LCD-2 rev2 vs LCD-3 with lower quality music (but lossless) - Page 2

post #16 of 60

OP, what amp and DAC are you using at the moment?

post #17 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post

I held out so long on the LCD-3 because of the issues. I've always wanted to hear a veiled pair to know exactly what it sounded like.

 

At that time the amp that I had was the DACmini, I'm sure that the results would have been very different with the Mjolnir.

post #18 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taowolf51 View Post

OP, what amp and DAC are you using at the moment?

 

Well, I've had (and heard) several amps and DACs in sub1000USD class and found the O2 and ODAC combo working the best for me for their... well, because I cannot hear them. I would like to let my headphones colour the sound. But I haven't tried tube amps so far, only solid state...

 

Yes, I know that many of you will tell me that I am silly but I just prefer the "sound" of O2 and ODAC. Especially ODAC as the difference between ODAC and whatever I have tried was suble. It does not mean I cannot try for example Lyr to have a "fun" variant as an amp, or Mjolnir - an amp that is said to "work" very well with Audezes.

 

Still, I would like to know what the difference among LCD-3 and LCD-2 is as I want to own the most suitable headphone first, then do additional upgrades. I have read quite a lot on this topic and it does not seem clear. Many just say "it's better" but do not add why exactly FOR THEM (it's always a matter of preference, regardless the price difference). I have read Solude's review and discussed with him today (I have read other comparisons here or elsewhere). From what I've got, LCD-2 are less clear and not as good in soundstaging, but are more forgiving and engaging. LCD-3 should be more focused on highs and offer a more "passive" listening experience. Like closer to the character to phones like HD800, relatively. More analytical and less fullbodied.

 

The question still remains - which phone is the more forgiving? Are LCD-3 a lot more focused on highs? Which one is more fullbodied? The opinions differ on those... That quite confuses. Maybe someone who listen to modern music (for example metal as it is the worst genre in terms of recording quality) could help?


Edited by RustA - 1/10/13 at 1:28pm
post #19 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustA View Post

 

 

 

The question still remains - which phone is the more forgiving? Are LCD-3 a lot more focused on highs? Which one is more fullbodied? The opinions differ on those... That quite confuses. Maybe someone who listen to modern music (for example metal as it is the worst genre in terms of recording quality) could help?

Listening  to metal predominantly the LCD-2's are the more forgiving headphone. I wouldn't call the LCD-3 ruthless though.

The LCD-3's have the bigger soundstage and better details. It's also smoother. Bass is a wash both sound just as extended with the LCD-2 having

more of bass slam. 

 

Even with albums suffering from DRC I find them enjoyable with the LCD-3's. An important note, the LCD-3's are a bit pickier of gear.

Meaning, the LCD-2 is the easier road to take with getting good synergy between components.

 

And lastly, you'd be far better off trying to audition the LCD-3 before buying. As of course, you may not find the difference anything but marginal

or simply prefer the LCD-2's more intimate sound.

 

Another option would be to look at finding a complimentary can, like, the HD800 or HE-6. Although, they present their own obstacles.

post #20 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post

Listening  to metal predominantly the LCD-2's are the more forgiving headphone. I wouldn't call the LCD-3 ruthless though.

The LCD-3's have the bigger soundstage and better details. It's also smoother. Bass is a wash both sound just as extended with the LCD-2 having

more of bass slam. 

 

Even with albums suffering from DRC I find them enjoyable with the LCD-3's. An important note, the LCD-3's are a bit pickier of gear.

Meaning, the LCD-2 is the easier road to take with getting good synergy between components.

 

And lastly, you'd be far better off trying to audition the LCD-3 before buying. As of course, you may not find the difference anything but marginal

or simply prefer the LCD-2's more intimate sound.

 

Another option would be to look at finding a complimentary can, like, the HD800 or HE-6. Although, they present their own obstacles.

 

Wow, I am surprised you didn't bash my amp and DAC preference...

 

What do you find problematic with LCD-3 in terms of picking the right gear for them? How do they sound if not properly matched?

 

I have heard HD800 and didn't like it at all - too analytical, less bass and too much treble energy. Haven't heard HE-6 but if it has more treble than LCD-2 (and it seems like), I do not want them. I am very happy with Audeze, that's what I know.

post #21 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustA View Post

 

Wow, I am surprised you didn't bash my amp and DAC preference...

 

What do you find problematic with LCD-3 in terms of picking the right gear for them? How do they sound if not properly matched?

 

I have heard HD800 and didn't like it at all - too analytical, less bass and too much treble energy. Haven't heard HE-6 but if it has more treble than LCD-2 (and it seems like), I do not want them. I am very happy with Audeze, that's what I know.

Did I forget to do that. very_evil_smiley.gif

 

I think I as well other's have found the LCD-3 to sound "off" with certain gear that the LCD-2 sounds good with.

My firsthand experience was with the Lyr. Even with tube rolling the LCD-3's just did not sound as good.

 

Which is why you'll always hear the LCD-2 is an amp slut. It sounds good with a lot. While the LCD-3 is just a little pickier, although,

not as picky as HD800, if that means anything to you.

 

I have the same feelings with HD800. Just different preferences. The HE-6 does have more treble, but it's not harsh or fatiguing (HD800).

 

The LCD-2's are fine headphones, but I do get more enjoyment out of the LCD-3's. With that said, they're not worth 2x the price, personally.

 

So what I always say is if you've got the funds go with the LCD-3's. They are more refined, but who knows if it'll be to your taste.

I know you probably don't want to hear this, but if you don't like them, you can always sell 'em for minimal loss.

post #22 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post

Did I forget to do that. very_evil_smiley.gif

 

I think I as well other's have found the LCD-3 to sound "off" with certain gear that the LCD-2 sounds good with.

My firsthand experience was with the Lyr. Even with tube rolling the LCD-3's just did not sound as good.

 

Which is why you'll always hear the LCD-2 is an amp slut. It sounds good with a lot. While the LCD-3 is just a little pickier, although,

not as picky as HD800, if that means anything to you.

 

I have the same feelings with HD800. Just different preferences. The HE-6 does have more treble, but it's not harsh or fatiguing (HD800).

 

The LCD-2's are fine headphones, but I do get more enjoyment out of the LCD-3's. With that said, they're not worth 2x the price, personally.

 

So what I always say is if you've got the funds go with the LCD-3's. They are more refined, but who knows if it'll be to your taste.

I know you probably don't want to hear this, but if you don't like them, you can always sell 'em for minimal loss.

 

What you say seems reasonable... So while Lyr didn't do justice for you, you find Mjolnir as a very good pairing?

 

I am also glad to hear that LCD-3 do not have that much treble as HD800 or HE-6. Do you find anything more enjoyable with LCD-2, or LCD-3 are just completely better in your view?

post #23 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustA View Post

 

What you say seems reasonable... So while Lyr didn't do justice for you, you find Mjolnir as a very good pairing?

 

I am also glad to hear that LCD-3 do not have that much treble as HD800 or HE-6. Do you find anything more enjoyable with LCD-2, or LCD-3 are just completely better in your view?

The Lyr was good, but I have found the Mjolnir a significant step up. So yes, it's a very good pairing. 

 

That's a tough question for me to answer. While I do find the LCD-3 overall more enjoyable and pretty much improved across the spectrum,

there are times I'll pull the LCD-2's out for certain albums and get sucked into their mids. 

 

No headphone is perfect and at times I can prefer the presentation of the LCD-2's, but overall 

the LCD-3 is the workhorse for me.

 

Hell, sometimes I enjoy my Mad Dogs more than the LCD-3's, but that's more about mood and music than technical ability.

post #24 of 60

I have the 2 rev. 2's and what I'm fairly sure are good LCD-3's (they vary wildly.  from what I've read/seen mine might be "super" LCD-3's, as some call them. aka, what they all should be).  And the difference is more than subtle. 

 

That said, though, I agree with most of what paradoxper's saying in regards to the LCD-3's being pickier.  I didn't like them out of the Lyr either and they left something to be desired with all but a few tubes I used with my old WA22.  The Burson Conductor/Soloist works well, though, and I want to say the ECBA's good too, but I haven't listened to it with the LCD-3's enough to be sure.

 

The TH900's might make more sense in that price range if you don't want to upgrade from the O-stuff. 

post #25 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustA View Post

 

Well, I've had (and heard) several amps and DACs in sub1000USD class and found the O2 and ODAC combo working the best for me for their... well, because I cannot hear them. I would like to let my headphones colour the sound. But I haven't tried tube amps so far, only solid state...

 

Yes, I know that many of you will tell me that I am silly but I just prefer the "sound" of O2 and ODAC. Especially ODAC as the difference between ODAC and whatever I have tried was suble. It does not mean I cannot try for example Lyr to have a "fun" variant as an amp, or Mjolnir - an amp that is said to "work" very well with Audezes.

 

 

*shrug* Sounds good, just making sure you were using something. I use an ODAC and M-Stage on my LA7000's.

post #26 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post

The Lyr was good, but I have found the Mjolnir a significant step up. So yes, it's a very good pairing. 

 

That's a tough question for me to answer. While I do find the LCD-3 overall more enjoyable and pretty much improved across the spectrum,

there are times I'll pull the LCD-2's out for certain albums and get sucked into their mids. 

 

No headphone is perfect and at times I can prefer the presentation of the LCD-2's, but overall 

the LCD-3 is the workhorse for me.

 

Hell, sometimes I enjoy my Mad Dogs more than the LCD-3's, but that's more about mood and music than technical ability.

 

Does Mjolnir work great with LCD-2 as well, or rather with LCD-3? I see you had O2, have you managed to compare LCD-3 and LCD-2 with this amp?

post #27 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by driver 8 View Post

I have the 2 rev. 2's and what I'm fairly sure are good LCD-3's (they vary wildly.  from what I've read/seen mine might be "super" LCD-3's, as some call them. aka, what they all should be).  And the difference is more than subtle. 

 

That said, though, I agree with most of what paradoxper's saying in regards to the LCD-3's being pickier.  I didn't like them out of the Lyr either and they left something to be desired with all but a few tubes I used with my old WA22.  The Burson Conductor/Soloist works well, though, and I want to say the ECBA's good too, but I haven't listened to it with the LCD-3's enough to be sure.

 

The TH900's might make more sense in that price range if you don't want to upgrade from the O-stuff. 

 

I didn't enjoy D7000 very much... I doubt I would enjoy TH900 then.

 

What exactly do you find to be different/better with LCD-3? People often just say it's better, that's all. But it would be more helpful to describe what exactly you prefer to give me an idea :-)

post #28 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustA View Post

 

Does Mjolnir work great with LCD-2 as well, or rather with LCD-3? I see you had O2, have you managed to compare LCD-3 and LCD-2 with this amp?

I think they work equally well on Mjolnir, I just find the LCD-3 more refined and enjoyable overall comparatively. 

 

The O2 was fine with LCD-2, however I didn't like it at all with LCD-3 (much like Lyr).

With the Mjolnir there is complete control of the bottom end (most important to me), as well as having better details and soundstage.

This is both in comparison to O2 and Lyr.

 

But again ,we agonize over gear too much, the music could be enjoyed in full on any of the aforementioned.

post #29 of 60
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post

The O2 was fine with LCD-2, however I didn't like it at all with LCD-3 (much like Lyr).

With the Mjolnir there is complete control of the bottom end (most important to me), as well as having better details and soundstage.

 

Could you describe why didn't you enjoy LCD-3 with O2? One thing is to have a more suitable amp (Mjolnir) but you say that you "didn't like it at all".  smily_headphones1.gif

post #30 of 60

The LCD-2's sound dry to me in a way the 3's don't.  The 3's also have more/nicer treble without being bright or problematic.  I've kept my 2's, though, because there's a certain character to their sound I enjoy sometimes.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › LCD-2 rev2 vs LCD-3 with lower quality music (but lossless)