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 13

post #181 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom25 View Post

 

 

Hey, I agree with you for most of the part. Although your comments about the LCD-2 vs LCD-2 is possibly a result of:

 

1) Veiled version as you suggested

 

2) Not enough time. I don't think two weeks is enough to get a handle on the Audeze sound, either model. Hifiman's are a bit easier to get used to. The LCD-3 impressions for me were in a toss for the first month. For the last week and a half, I'm finally getting more stabilized each day. I'd say that they are more smoother than the LCD-2 across the FR spectrum and more coherent. Although, despite the coherency and smoothness, the LCD-3 are actually more aggressive than the LCD-2. This is due to a better treble and transient response. The LCD-3 definitely extracts more detail, so I think it could be veiled. I was clear on that since the first week. The whole smoothness vs aggressive aspect took me much longer to get a handle on. 

 

I also felt kind of bad about the LCD-3 in the first few hours and sometimes during the first few days. Not anymore though. I think I have finally gotten used to it, or am almost there. The sub bass is ridiculous and noticeably better than the LCD-2. Although the LCD-2 hits harder in the mid-bass, which is why you think that the LCD-3 is creamier and smoother. I am quite confident if given time, you'll end up taking the LCD-3s

 

+1

 

i thought LCD-3 was creamier and smoother first time i heard it, its still better than LCD-2 though. 

post #182 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post

 

+1

 

i thought LCD-3 was creamier and smoother first time i heard it, its still better than LCD-2 though. 

 

Yea, we both had similar experience in the first few hours and even days, especially me LOL. Going from a -3 initially to a current +7 out of 10. I'm getting there with time. I'm sure equipment upgrade and then getting used to it over a few weeks will bump it to a 9 and who knows, maybe even a 10!?

 

The BHA-1 is high on the list which I randomly ended up testing. Still have to test out the Bursons and the TH-900 which I actually intended to test out. I don't know if I'll be selling the LCD-3s for TH-900s anymore, purely based on the LCD-3 sound. The TH-900 would have to offer something next level for me to buy them and sell the LCD-3. Otherwise, I'll have to play the waiting game and get the TH-900 next.

post #183 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom25 View Post

 

Yea, we both had similar experience in the first few hours and even days, especially me LOL. Going from a -3 initially to a current +7 out of 10. I'm getting there with time. I'm sure equipment upgrade and then getting used to it over a few weeks will bump it to a 9 and who knows, maybe even a 10!?

 

The BHA-1 is high on the list which I randomly ended up testing. Still have to test out the Bursons and the TH-900 which I actually intended to test out. I don't know if I'll be selling the LCD-3s for TH-900s anymore, purely based on the LCD-3 sound. The TH-900 would have to offer something next level for me to buy them and sell the LCD-3. Otherwise, I'll have to play the waiting game and get the TH-900 next.

 

TH-900 is good complement to LCD-3.

post #184 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post

 

TH-900 is good complement to LCD-3.

 

Yea, hoping for just that. After my desktop rig is complete, I want to get something like a Fiio E10, but more high-end, so I can use the TH-900 all around the house like I do with the D2000s.

post #185 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom25 View Post

 

Yea, hoping for just that. After my desktop rig is complete, I want to get something like a Fiio E10, but more high-end, so I can use the TH-900 all around the house like I do with the D2000s.

 

btw just noticed ur signature change biggrin.gif

post #186 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom25 View Post

 

 

Hey, I agree with you for most of the part. Although your comments about the LCD-2 vs LCD-2 is possibly a result of:

 

1) Veiled version as you suggested

 

2) Not enough time. I don't think two weeks is enough to get a handle on the Audeze sound, either model. Hifiman's are a bit easier to get used to. The LCD-3 impressions for me were in a toss for the first month. For the last week and a half, I'm finally getting more stabilized each day. I'd say that they are more smoother than the LCD-2 across the FR spectrum and more coherent. Although, despite the coherency and smoothness, the LCD-3 are actually more aggressive than the LCD-2. This is due to a better treble and transient response. The LCD-3 definitely extracts more detail, so I think it could be veiled. I was clear on that since the first week. The whole smoothness vs aggressive aspect took me much longer to get a handle on. 

 

I also felt kind of bad about the LCD-3 in the first few hours and sometimes during the first few days. Not anymore though. I think I have finally gotten used to it, or am almost there. The sub bass is ridiculous and noticeably better than the LCD-2. Although the LCD-2 hits harder in the mid-bass, which is why you think that the LCD-3 is creamier and smoother. I am quite confident if given time, you'll end up taking the LCD-3s

 

 

It didn't even take me an hour to decide I like the LCD-3s much better than the LCD-2s.  I owned them at the same time.  I had the LCD-2.2.s first.  As soon as I put the LCD-3s on. I know  I liked them much better.  

 

I'm a treble energy head.  

 

The LCD-2.2s never did it for me in that area.  The LCD-3s although not the best, they are much better than the LCD-2.2 in that aspect and IMO.

 

Also, If I didn't need a closed headphone.  I would pick the LCD-3s over the TH-900s any day..

post #187 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

 

 

It didn't even take me an hour to decide I like the LCD-3s much better than the LCD-2s.  I owned them at the same time.  I had the LCD-2.2.s first.  As soon as I put the LCD-3s on. I know  I liked them much better.  

 

I'm a treble energy head.  

 

The LCD-2.2s never did it for me in that area.  The LCD-3s although not the best, they are much better than the LCD-2.2 in that aspect and IMO.

 

Also, If I didn't need a closed headphone.  I would pick the LCD-3s over the TH-900s any day..

 

Ya that aspect won me over as well in the first 2-3 hours. It was immediately noticeable from the first second as if someone had flicked the light on in the room. Although at times I can be a bass head, so that took some time for the LCD-3 to win me over.

post #188 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post

 

btw just noticed ur signature change biggrin.gif

 

Hehe it is what it is.bigsmile_face.gif

 

Also noticed yours. Liking the PS1000?

post #189 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom25 View Post

 

Hehe it is what it is.bigsmile_face.gif

 

Also noticed yours. Liking the PS1000?

 

mixed impressions so far. sounded really bad at first, its slowly getting better. seems like burn-in is actually taking a while on these. i like their sound, but hope the treble becomes smoother over time. its a nice headphone to have, but definitely overpriced at $1700, should be under 1k imo.

post #190 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post

 

mixed impressions so far. sounded really bad at first, its slowly getting better. seems like burn-in is actually taking a while on these. i like their sound, but hope the treble becomes smoother over time. its a nice headphone to have, but definitely overpriced at $1700, should be under 1k imo.

 

Yeah, your impressions sounds like what I heard previously from others. Hope that treble works out for you.

 

Just saw your updated sig... NICE! (I should probably trademark that biggrin.gif)

post #191 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom25 View Post

 

Yeah, your impressions sounds like what I heard previously from others. Hope that treble works out for you.

 

Just saw your updated sig... NICE! (I should probably trademark that biggrin.gif)

beerchug.gif

post #192 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubstep Girl View Post

beerchug.gif

 

LOL poor HE-500! What did you do to them!?

 

I got one better now biggrin.gif


Edited by Zoom25 - 8/17/13 at 12:54pm
post #193 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom25 View Post

 

LOL poor HE-500! What did you do to them!?

 

I got one better now biggrin.gif

LOL....+1

post #194 of 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoom25 View Post

 

LOL poor HE-500! What did you do to them!?

 

I got one better now biggrin.gif

 

l0l dubstep 2000

post #195 of 245
Interesting comments Zoom. However, the reason I feel that the LCD-3 is creamy/smooth is because of the midrange, not the bass. In fact, there are many professional reviewers who refer to the LCD-3's midrange with these adjectives.

In any event - I'm not new to technically proficient audio equipment, having spent time with other planar magnetic headphones and owning a home theater system featuring Heil motion tweeters (a close relative of planar magnetic drivers). While I agree that it does take some time to acclimatize to new audio gear, fifteen days is more than sufficient for an audiophile that is at or beyond the level of advanced-beginner. The key here is to not continuously A/B reference against your existing setup - but to give the new items time to reveal their nature. A good recommendation is to listen to new gear for three consecutive days before coming to any conclusions or cross-checking against other gear. Certainly I've done that and more.

One thing, you said: "The LCD-3 definitely extracts more detail, so I think it could be veiled". That doesn't really make sense, as the term "veiled" is used to describe a phenomena where something appears to be standing in the way of the audio detail and the listener - as if there were a thin cloth between the headphones and your ears. The 4db drop between 2-3kHz that Tyll from innerfidelity measured can cause this type of experience. I'm not sure if its acceptable to link out to other resources, but if you google for the following title, you can review his notes on the experience of veiled LCD-3's: "Preliminary Investigation of the Audez'e LCD-3 and LCD-2"

I suppose a shorter way of saying all that would be: I prefer the LCD-2.r2 over a veiled pair of LCD-3's.

Still - I live about 5 miles from the RMAF 2013 location, so I'll have another opportunity to listen to the LCD-3's there. I was a little bummed that I didn't see Audeze, Fostex, or WooAudio on this year's participant list. I'll give the 3's another listen at CanJam - but they'd have to sound significantly better than the veiled set I just had in order to come back onto my radar. For now, the TH900's will be my only flagship, unless they just don't have the technical chops of the LCD-2's.
Edited by the-kraken - 8/18/13 at 11:39pm
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?