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

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustA 

 

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". 

Sure. The O2 is a good amp for the money, however I found it to lack in overall resolution, details and soundstage. Much of what I like about the

Mjolnir is the transparent and detailed nature of the amp. Comparatively the O2 was anemic to my ears, it just doesn't have the control or clarity.

The LCD-2's have the ability to mask some of these traits where as with the LCD-3 things were much more apparent and unenjoyable for me.

Synergy maybe. Specifically the LCD-3 have more articulation, better soundstage and a much welcomed treble lift (not bright) just detailed.

There's more clarity overall and with the O2 I just didn't enjoy the shortcomings.

It's all just a matter of preferences. I'm sure there are many who enjoy that combo. I just found other amps better suited, personally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustA 

 

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 :-)

From what brief auditioning experience I had comparing the 2 vs 3, the LCD3 just sounded less stringent, and its treble behaviour was ultra-smooth and clean (not saying LCD2's treble wasn't, it just fell short in relative terms). With highly resolving headphones like these, you can easily discern any roughness in the FR and decay, as a disruption of otherwise unbroken smooth sound, simply due to the sheer detail presented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoupRKnowva 

 

That is certainly the right attitude to have, the transducer(the headphone in this case) has the most impact on what youre hearing.

 

I would say that the step up from the LCD-2 to the LCD-3 is certainly more than subtle. Upgrading DACs is subtle, specially once you get to the high end. I would say the difference between my Anedio D2 and a Buffalo III DAC was subtle. The last word i would use to describe the difference between the LCD-3 and the LCD-2 is subtle.

Agreed. 

i want to throw my two cents in here again.

The treble on the LCD-3 certainly isnt higher in level than the 2s. The 2s have more treble energy and are quite a bit harsher in the treble. The 3s though have much more apparent treble becuase it is so much smoother, basically no harshness and are significanly more open. so they appear to be higher in level on some ways, but they arent actually. they are just much more pleasing.

I have mine with the Mjolnir and i think it is a lovely pairing. I also find it to be pretty brutally honest and appreciate that. I have had chances to hear it with more headphone amps but i didnt really give the comparisons the time they needed to say anything for sure. Though i can compare it to the built in headamp in the Anedio D2 which is a very well implemented. The main difference is in the soundstage, and also in the "3D-ness" of the performers. with the built in headamp the performers are more like flat paper cutouts, whereas with the Mjolnir instruments get fleshed out into 3d performers in the space. The space is also just larger and more open. The thing would be that the bass isnt as tight nor as deep and impactful. I would highly reccomend the Mjolnir with the LCD-3s the.

On the topic of styles of music. I spend something likie 85% of my listening time listening to metal of very extreme varieties, which never have very good mastering and have pretty abysmal dynamic range. Ive never found the 3s to be too revealing or anything with the music that i listen too. BUt then again, i am of the opinion that nothing can be too revealing, i want the honest truth of my music, and if the mastering is bad or the recording has poor dynamic range so be it.

Once again, i dont think the difference between the 2s and the 3s are subtle.

also, they arent a perfect headphone, the only ones ive heard that earn that title are the Sr-009s

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustA 

 

That's what I find confusing... Many people say it's a lot better, many that it's only a bit better (subtle improvement) and I have even found several who kept LCD-2 rev2 and prefer it over LCD-3.

 

I thought it should be in a different league if it costs twice more!

Nothing is better, it's all subjective. Some prefer the SR-007 to the SR-009. And some prefer the LCD2 (And now LCD-3) to the SR-007, etc...

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustA 

 

That's what I find confusing... Many people say it's a lot better, many that it's only a bit better (subtle improvement) and I have even found several who kept LCD-2 rev2 and prefer it over LCD-3.

 

I thought it should be in a different league if it costs twice more!

Im not sure anyone would argue that the 3 doesnt have better technicalitites than the 2s do. As far as which someone might prefer, that would come down to which one they like the frequency response of. Im not someone that cares so much about FR as long as its relatively flat and smooth, i care more about the technicalities so i definitely favor the 3s. Its just a more refined headphone than the 2s are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustA 

 

I haven't heard LCD-3 but I am sure it is technically more advanced... However, as you can see from my previous posts, I am much more concerned about FR than about technical ability. I do not need additional detail with LCD-3, I am happy with LCD-2's soundstaging (do not care about width, depth is what is important). I was wondering if LCD-3 offer a lot more balanced listening experience along with the same forgiving nature as LCD-2. Additional depth, better imaging and more spatial performance could be welcome but it's much more important for me if LCD-3 still have the fullbodied sound of LCD-2 that is focused on bass and mids. I am not fan of treble to be honest and find LCD-2 to be about right in this regard... Rather less treble than more would be welcome.

 

That's why I decided to not purchase Mjolnir... I do not want LCD-2 to be more bright or aggresive. I like laid-back presentation much more.

 

 

But does anybody prefer DT880 over T1, HD600 over HD800 or D5000 over D7000? You know what I mean... It's strange that 2000USD phone do not destroy 1000USD phone. The price difference is HUGE!

It has a similar tonal balance as i said before, the main difference is in a larger sound stage with more fleshed out performers. The treble is of a lower quantity on the 3s than on the 2s, its just more more clear and open and smooth. The 2s have more treble than the 3s do.

Edit: also, the mjolnir isnt a bright amp, though i guess you could describe it as being aggressive, if you want something more laid back, maybe look at the Burson Soloist, ive heard good things about that one, but that it is laid back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustA 

 

So LCD-2 have more treble? I have seen frequently stated that LCD-3 are more treble oriented and LCD-2 are more full in mids... Like LCD-3 are more airy and LCD-2 more fullbodied with more apparent bass and mids.

 

Yes, I do not want anything that is aggresive - I am perfectly happy about the level of detail or "dynamics" LCD-2 offers.

The 2s definitely have a higher level of treble. the 3s treble is just smoother and more open, but it is lower in level and way less harsh.

I dont really know how many more times im willing to say the same exact thing

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustA 

 

Interesting... I guess I need to hear them myself one day since everyone speaks differently. It's confusing.

It is kind of hard to explain, but i stand by the fact that the 2s have more treble than the 3s do. the 3s just have way way way better treble

Do you have a picture of your graph?