Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Audeze LCD-3 vs Fostex TH-900?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-3 vs Fostex TH-900? - Page 10

post #136 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meremoth View Post

I've been planning on keeping my amp and DAC neutral.  

Aren't the LCD-3's known for being pretty much neutral?  I know people call them "dark", but from all the graphs I've seen they're pretty neutral, no?  

And this is where I get confused with people saying to get an amp that adds coloration to make the LCD-3's sound better.  If the Mjolnir makes the LCD-3 more aggressive, then it's adding coloration, correct?  Wouldn't it make more sense to just EQ that sound in if that's what you really want, instead of gambling on an expensive colored amp to add what you want?  Or is there coloration in amps that aren't reproducible via EQ?

Now a question to jronan2 or anyone else that has this setup:  Does it take the Mjlonir to make the LCD-3's sound better than the TH-900's with electronica?  And when you say "electronica", are there any sub-genres you're focusing on, or do you just mean electronica in general?  

Also another question to anyone:  On a completely neutral chain, what genres do you consider the TH-900 better with, and which genres would you consider the LCD-3 better with?  

I still feel like I might prefer the TH-900's despite the technical capabilities of the LCD-3's.  Is it possible to EQ the LCD-3's to make them sound closer to the TH-900's, thus negating the need for the TH-900's?  

Both cans aren't very neutral. In fact, neutrality for the most part in headphones is a myth. Typically folks like one house sound over the other. So this whole line of reasoning to me is bogus.

Why is this?

Because the overwhelming majority of ears likes some attenuation and boost in various frequencies to sound musical. Manufacturers know this and apply this line of thinking to product development.

So to your chain questions, people tend to mix and match flavors of sound they prefer by augmenting their chain accordingly (and in fact most folks can save hundreds to even thousands of dollars by simply learning how to EQ but I digress...).
post #137 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meremoth View Post

I've been planning on keeping my amp and DAC neutral.  

 

Aren't the LCD-3's known for being pretty much neutral?  I know people call them "dark", but from all the graphs I've seen they're pretty neutral, no?  

 

And this is where I get confused with people saying to get an amp that adds coloration to make the LCD-3's sound better.  If the Mjolnir makes the LCD-3 more aggressive, then it's adding coloration, correct?  Wouldn't it make more sense to just EQ that sound in if that's what you really want, instead of gambling on an expensive colored amp to add what you want?  Or is there coloration in amps that aren't reproducible via EQ?

 

Now a question to jronan2 or anyone else that has this setup:  Does it take the Mjlonir to make the LCD-3's sound better than the TH-900's with electronica?  And when you say "electronica", are there any sub-genres you're focusing on, or do you just mean electronica in general?  

 

Also another question to anyone:  On a completely neutral chain, what genres do you consider the TH-900 better with, and which genres would you consider the LCD-3 better with?  

 

I still feel like I might prefer the TH-900's despite the technical capabilities of the LCD-3's.  Is it possible to EQ the LCD-3's to make them sound closer to the TH-900's, thus negating the need for the TH-900's?  

 

 

The Mjolnir is not a colored amp.  It's more transparent and a tad bit tilted towards the upper frequencies - maybe.  But I think the aggressiveness thing comes from it's ability to create a large dynamic swing.  It puts the dynamics into headphones.  This and being a tab bit tilted towards the upper frequencies makes it a bit aggressive.  Some feel this is what the LCD-3s need. 

 

The GS-X mk2 has the ability to provide large dynamic swings as well. but it's not tilted towards the upper frequencies at all, more dead on neutral.

 

IMO of course..

post #138 of 229
and if the mjolnir is neutral and aggressive i dont think its gonna add much bass, just attack and dynamics
post #139 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meremoth View Post

I've been planning on keeping my amp and DAC neutral.  

Aren't the LCD-3's known for being pretty much neutral?  I know people call them "dark", but from all the graphs I've seen they're pretty neutral, no?  

And this is where I get confused with people saying to get an amp that adds coloration to make the LCD-3's sound better.  If the Mjolnir makes the LCD-3 more aggressive, then it's adding coloration, correct?  Wouldn't it make more sense to just EQ that sound in if that's what you really want, instead of gambling on an expensive colored amp to add what you want?  Or is there coloration in amps that aren't reproducible via EQ?

Now a question to jronan2 or anyone else that has this setup:  Does it take the Mjlonir to make the LCD-3's sound better than the TH-900's with electronica?  And when you say "electronica", are there any sub-genres you're focusing on, or do you just mean electronica in general?  

Also another question to anyone:  On a completely neutral chain, what genres do you consider the TH-900 better with, and which genres would you consider the LCD-3 better with?  

I still feel like I might prefer the TH-900's despite the technical capabilities of the LCD-3's.  Is it possible to EQ the LCD-3's to make them sound closer to the TH-900's, thus negating the need for the TH-900's?  

I would say I like trance and the like more with the LCD 3 and I like dubstep more with the TH 900. But I listen to almost all EDM sub genres and still like the LCD 3 a little bit more. I find the LCD 3 about on the same fun factor level as the fostex. The LCD 3 is neutral its just has a very full sound if that makes sense, imo their is nothing recessed. I have no idea if the Mjolnir is colored only tried ortho's with it. My point was the pairing is excellent, whether the Mjolnir is colered or neutral, doesn't matter to me.
post #140 of 229

Buying either of these headphones with the intention to EQ them to sound like the other is just wrong IMO. If you are researching headphones in this price range, buy them for their sound, not because they are "neutral" and can be EQ'd to sound like the other. Personally, EQ is not a true audiophile tool. It alters the sound from what the designer intended, thus making it more artificial. This is obviously IMO, YMMV. 

 

Also, I agree the Mjolnir is not a dead neutral sound. It adds plenty of dynamics as others have said, and it won't add much to your bass department other than control. So if that is what you wanted, you'll be somewhat disappointed. If you want as neutral as its going to get - your next upgrades should be - Master 7 + GS-X MK II. 

post #141 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

Buying either of these headphones with the intention to EQ them to sound like the other is just wrong IMO. If you are researching headphones in this price range, buy them for their sound, not because they are "neutral" and can be EQ'd to sound like the other. Personally, EQ is not a true audiophile tool. It alters the sound from what the designer intended, thus making it more artificial. This is obviously IMO, YMMV. 

 

Also, I agree the Mjolnir is not a dead neutral sound. It adds plenty of dynamics as others have said, and it won't add much to your bass department other than control. So if that is what you wanted, you'll be somewhat disappointed. If you want as neutral as its going to get - your next upgrades should be - Master 7 + GS-X MK II. 

 

Yeah, that's why I want my upstream gear to be neutral/transparent, to hear the headphones as the manufacturers intended.  

 

That's why I don't really understand the point of non-neutral amps and dacs, especially if the color added can be done via EQ.

 

Right now I'm considering the O2/ODAC combo with the TH-900.  Was also looking at the Concero HP, assuming it's neutral/transparent (is it?).  What are some other neutral/transparent combos that would be good for the TH-900, besides the Master 7 and GS-X?


Edited by Meremoth - 7/29/13 at 11:47am
post #142 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

Buying either of these headphones with the intention to EQ them to sound like the other is just wrong IMO. If you are researching headphones in this price range, buy them for their sound, not because they are "neutral" and can be EQ'd to sound like the other. Personally, EQ is not a true audiophile tool. It alters the sound from what the designer intended, thus making it more artificial. This is obviously IMO, YMMV. 

EQ is an invaluable tool used by engineers and other audiophile professionals to compensate for deficiencies in gear or add a certain flavor.

It's not meant to be used to make one headphone to sound like the other. No one is saying that.

But please don't say EQ is not a true audiophile tool. That is just not true.
post #143 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trogdor View Post


EQ is an invaluable tool used by engineers and other audiophile professionals to compensate for deficiencies in gear or add a certain flavor.

It's not meant to be used to make one headphone to sound like the other. No one is saying that.

But please don't say EQ is not a true audiophile tool. That is just not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meremoth View Post

I've been planning on keeping my amp and DAC neutral.  

 

Aren't the LCD-3's known for being pretty much neutral?  I know people call them "dark", but from all the graphs I've seen they're pretty neutral, no?  

 

And this is where I get confused with people saying to get an amp that adds coloration to make the LCD-3's sound better.  If the Mjolnir makes the LCD-3 more aggressive, then it's adding coloration, correct?  Wouldn't it make more sense to just EQ that sound in if that's what you really want, instead of gambling on an expensive colored amp to add what you want?  Or is there coloration in amps that aren't reproducible via EQ?

 

Now a question to jronan2 or anyone else that has this setup:  Does it take the Mjlonir to make the LCD-3's sound better than the TH-900's with electronica?  And when you say "electronica", are there any sub-genres you're focusing on, or do you just mean electronica in general?  

 

Also another question to anyone:  On a completely neutral chain, what genres do you consider the TH-900 better with, and which genres would you consider the LCD-3 better with?  

 

I still feel like I might prefer the TH-900's despite the technical capabilities of the LCD-3's.  Is it possible to EQ the LCD-3's to make them sound closer to the TH-900's, thus negating the need for the TH-900's?  

 

 

Please re-read what he is suggesting. I'm not saying it isn't possible or it shouldn't be done. It is totally dependent of the individual.  

 

Regarding what you said about EQ. First of all, this is all IMO (as I said), so it is perfectly fine that you disagree with me. I'm not saying EQ isn't used, because its used very often when recording music, what I'm saying is EQ, IMO, is not a good tool to use from the listeners perspective. Said nothing about engineers. As I said, true audiophiles don't need EQ because it goes against exactly what they are trying to achieve, a sound reproduction that is true to the track (i.e nothing artificial). 

 

Regarding bold text - I don't believe in adding "flavor" via EQ. I buy headphones, amp, dacs, etc. that have the certain "flavor" that I want. I don't think buying a headphone and then trying to add flavor to it depending on mood, genre, etc. is a healthy practice if you consider yourself an audiophile (Not saying I'm one because I don't consider myself one... yet. Not enough experience). Those"deficiencies" you speak of are unique characteristics of the headphone. It's what makes each headphone unique and why many of us keep more than one headphone, because some headphones do things better than others. I don't try and compensate and make a headphone something its not. Using EQ, and LCD-2 will never be a LCD-3. Just like a LCD-3 will never be a TH-900. 

 

Hope that is enough IMO, I can add more if you want. Obv. YMMV, etc. 

post #144 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

 

Please re-read what he is suggesting. I'm not saying it isn't possible or it shouldn't be done. It is totally dependent of the individual.  

 

Regarding what you said about EQ. First of all, this is all IMO (as I said), so it is perfectly fine that you disagree with me. I'm not saying EQ isn't used, because its used very often when recording music, what I'm saying is EQ, IMO, is not a good tool to use from the listeners perspective. Said nothing about engineers. As I said, true audiophiles don't need EQ because it goes against exactly what they are trying to achieve, a sound reproduction that is true to the track (i.e nothing artificial). 

 

Regarding bold text - I don't believe in adding "flavor" via EQ. I buy headphones, amp, dacs, etc. that have the certain "flavor" that I want. I don't think buying a headphone and then trying to add flavor to it depending on mood, genre, etc. is a healthy practice if you consider yourself an audiophile (Not saying I'm one because I don't consider myself one... yet. Not enough experience). Those"deficiencies" you speak of are unique characteristics of the headphone. It's what makes each headphone unique and why many of us keep more than one headphone, because some headphones do things better than others. I don't try and compensate and make a headphone something its not. Using EQ, and LCD-2 will never be a LCD-3. Just like a LCD-3 will never be a TH-900. 

 

Hope that is enough IMO, I can add more if you want. Obv. YMMV, etc. 

 

Doesn't adding non-neutral amps and DAC's make the headphone "something it's not"?  

 

I would personally never EQ just because I do not have the patience to do something that meticulous, but I'm still interested to know if there is any type of coloration an amp or DAC can add that isn't possible via EQ.  Anyone know?

 

I personally just want something completely neutral and transparent as far as my upstream gear is concerned.  If the O2/ODAC can offer me everything the TH-900's have to offer, then that's probably what I'll get.  If not, then I'll consider spending more moolah on the amp and DAC.  The Concero HP looks pretty neat in this regard.  Is there a thread that specifically lists what amps and DAC's are considered neutral and transparent?  If not, perhaps I should make one, if no one objects.

 

One of my biggest concerns is that the TH-900 isn't open, and I'm really use to open headphones.  My current pair is the ATH-AD900X.  You think this will bother me?  I keep hearing the TH-900's are some of the most open sounding closed headphones available, but I haven't worn a closed-back pair of headphones in a very long time. 

 

And not that anyone is, but I hope no one takes my questions as argumentative.  I'm seriously here to learn and gain more knowledge, as I'm a complete and total noob while it comes to audiophilia.  


Edited by Meremoth - 7/29/13 at 12:41pm
post #145 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meremoth View Post

 

Doesn't adding non-neutral amps and DAC's make the headphone "something it's not"?  

 

I would personally never EQ just because I do not have the patience to do something that meticulous, but I'm still interested to know if there is any type of coloration an amp or DAC can add that isn't possible via EQ.  Anyone know?

 

I personally just want something completely neutral and transparent as far as my upstream gear is concerned.  If the O2/ODAC can offer me everything the TH-900's have to offer, then that's probably what I'll get.  If not, then I'll consider spending more moolah on the amp and DAC.  The Concero HP looks pretty neat in this regard.  Is there a thread that specifically lists what amps and DAC's are considered neutral and transparent?  If not, perhaps I should make one, if no one objects.

 

One of my biggest concerns is that the TH-900 isn't open, and I'm really use to open headphones.  My current pair is the ATH-AD900X.  You think this will bother me?  I keep hearing the TH-900's are some of the most open sounding headphones available, but I haven't worn a closed back pair of headphones in a very long time. 

 

And not that anyone is, but I hope no one takes my questions as argumentative.  I'm seriously here to learn and gain more knowledge, as I'm a complete and total noob while it comes to audiophilia.  

 

Technically, no. Most headphones scale with better gear. Adding a good DAC and amp will improve the SQ, but IMO, shouldn't alter the overall tone of the headphone. Also, "flavor" can be neutral, natural, a combo of both, etc. Just like ice cream. Vanilla = Neutral tongue_smile.gif 

post #146 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meremoth View Post

 

 

I personally just want something completely neutral and transparent as far as my upstream gear is concerned.  If the O2/ODAC can offer me everything the TH-900's have to offer, then that's probably what I'll get.  If not, then I'll consider spending more moolah on the amp and DAC.  The Concero HP looks pretty neat in this regard.  Is there a thread that specifically lists what amps and DAC's are considered neutral and transparent?  If not, perhaps I should make one, if no one objects.

 

One of my biggest concerns is that the TH-900 isn't open, and I'm really use to open headphones.  My current pair is the ATH-AD900X.  You think this will bother me?  I keep hearing the TH-900's are some of the most open sounding closed headphones available, but I haven't worn a closed-back pair of headphones in a very long time. 

 

 

I've got the 02/0DAC and it doesn't offer me everything I can get out of my headphones - not a single one. That's the d7k, k167, T1, mad dog, Sig Pro, Sig DJ.......which all sound better allround when used with my desktop amps/dacs. The fiio e9 is definitely and audibly better than the 02 (remarkably the fiio e9 is very close to amps I've got that are over 6 times it's price - such an awesome little amp). The 02/0DAC is good for a small portable unit, though again it's beaten in SQ ever so slightly by the audinst mx2 (when used with the third pary power supply I have). I really wanted it to be much better, but my opinion is now formed of this little thing. 

 

The d7k, with lawton pads doesn't sound 'closed' to me really, so I guess the th900 shouldn't sound closed either. Yea, the T1 sounds more 'open' but the size of the soundstage is pretty much the same I would say. I guess the beyer injects the soundscape with a lighter, airy touch but the size of the stage pretty much is equally as vast. 

 

The thing that's holding me back from the th900 is this - exactly how much better would I find it to the d7k with lawton pads. That's with the pads as without these don't sound as great to me. I know it's not going to be worth over twice the cost, and I know that they've been compared in this thread, but it's still holding me back. If I were to get and keep the fostex, I'll get rid of the d7k - but I can't imagine getting rid of this headphone.......doesn't seem like a possibility. 

post #147 of 229

I had D7000s (2 pairs, one recabled/balanced) and to me the TH900s just LOOK similar. The sound is completely different (read: better) I really, in a blind test, would not hear a family resemblance. 

The mids are rounded/organic/natural/full of texture on the Fostexes and really stand out as special.

They are easily a $2K phone and well worth the $1500 street price to me (I like'em significantly better overall than my HD800s, which I mention because they have the same price now).

 

(By the way, I'm with Greed above in his comments about using EQ in post 143. I tried some EQ in the digital and analog domains and it always added some blur/distance that I couldn't stand, like a layer of glass was in the way.)


Edited by rgs9200m - 7/29/13 at 4:47pm
post #148 of 229

i feel the TH-900s are well worth it, though a better price would be around $1200. anyways, they're slightly less resolving than beyerdynamic T1, have equal or slightly better transients, alot more bass and warmer mids, slightly less treble. similar soundstage, imaging, and separation, though the T1's are still more open.

 

the HD 800s are still the better headphones, though they are not as forgiving or as smooth as the TH-900s.

post #149 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post

i feel the TH-900s are well worth it, though a better price would be around $1200. anyways, they're slightly less resolving than beyerdynamic T1, have equal or slightly better transients, alot more bass and warmer mids, slightly less treble. similar soundstage, imaging, and separation, though the T1's are still more open.

the HD 800s are still the better headphones, though they are not as forgiving or as smooth as the TH-900s.

eek.gif
post #150 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

Please re-read what he is suggesting. I'm not saying it isn't possible or it shouldn't be done. It is totally dependent of the individual.  

OK.
Quote:
Regarding what you said about EQ. First of all, this is all IMO (as I said), so it is perfectly fine that you disagree with me. I'm not saying EQ isn't used, because its used very often when recording music, what I'm saying is EQ, IMO, is not a good tool to use from the listeners perspective. Said nothing about engineers. As I said, true audiophiles don't need EQ because it goes against exactly what they are trying to achieve, a sound reproduction that is true to the track (i.e nothing artificial). 

Let's agree to disagree.
Quote:
Regarding bold text - I don't believe in adding "flavor" via EQ. I buy headphones, amp, dacs, etc. that have the certain "flavor" that I want. I don't think buying a headphone and then trying to add flavor to it depending on mood, genre, etc. is a healthy practice if you consider yourself an audiophile (Not saying I'm one because I don't consider myself one... yet. Not enough experience). Those"deficiencies" you speak of are unique characteristics of the headphone. It's what makes each headphone unique and why many of us keep more than one headphone, because some headphones do things better than others. I don't try and compensate and make a headphone something its not. Using EQ, and LCD-2 will never be a LCD-3. Just like a LCD-3 will never be a TH-900. 

Yes EQ is not going to make one headphone sound like another. I am not advocating that position.
Quote:
Hope that is enough IMO, I can add more if you want. Obv. YMMV, etc. 

It varies. Fankly, this whole quest for neutrality is insane without a reference. One man's neutral is another man's Grado!

I am 100% certain that neither the LCD-3 or TH-900 would be classified neutral. Believe it or not, from a purely FR perspective the Sony MDR-V6 is probably closer to "neutral."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Audeze LCD-3 vs Fostex TH-900?