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 3

post #31 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post

Yep...now I see why you had the conclusions you came to. Those amps are certainly up to the task for the TH-900s, but are far from a solution for your LCD-3s. I would strongly suggest a good SS amp that can put about 2 W into 50 ohms. Then please report back with your findings. wink.gif

Yea you're right, do you have any amp advice? PanAm or burson soloist maybe?

post #32 of 229

I don't get the comments about the TH900 being too bassy. If anything, I think it could use more bass. From general comments on Head-Fi, one might think that the TH900 is a headphone for bass-heads, but that's totally not how I'd describe it. And I'd say it definitely has more treble than the LCD-3. In a sense I'd call the TH900 a sort of sonic opposite to the LCD-3 - clearer, more open & expansive, less mid-range quantity and more treble quantity. It's capable of strong & deep bass but unlike the LCD-3, it's not overall tilted towards the bass/lower mid-range, so it's not very "heavy" sounding in comparison. It's one of the few headphones that has what I call "driller"-like bass - it can certainly deliver bass but it does it through extension rather than by bloating the mid-bass for more impact, which is what the LCD-3 does.

 

I personally think the TH900 is the overall better headphone, and it's way more comfortable too. Substantially more light-weight and nowhere near as much head-clamp.

 

To answer the original question, the obvious solution is to buy both headphones and sell the one you don't want.

post #33 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post

I don't get the comments about the TH900 being too bassy. If anything, I think it could use more bass.

 

I disagree strongly. The TH900 does have high quality bass, but there is definitely a lot of it... too much sometimes. The only way I can justify it having more bass would be if I was a huge basshead, or if I had some form of hearing loss.

post #34 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by En_R View Post

 

I disagree strongly. The TH900 does have high quality bass, but there is definitely a lot of it... too much sometimes. The only way I can justify it having more bass would be if I was a huge basshead, or if I had some form of hearing loss.

 

+1

 

its a bass monster just like the d7k.

post #35 of 229

I ran my TH900's through the usual "bass test" and where all the other HPs I have tested have fallen the TH900's just kept on going as if it was a joke.  I have found that the TH900's deliver deep, impactful bass that is also well controlled and tuneful.  A favorite piece of mine features the ō-daiko (a giant Japanese drum) and when I first heard it through the Fostex's it made me jump.  Aside from the sheer power of the bass it still had the control to capture the details of the drum skin vibrating and the reverberations within the space.   I have found only a few recordings where the bass was a bit too much, but I am putting that down to sloppy mastering.  Listening to a well recorded church organ through the TH900's is just magical.

post #36 of 229

^^ What are all the other headphones and on what amp / dac may I ask?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by En_R View Post

 

I disagree strongly. The TH900 does have high quality bass, but there is definitely a lot of it... too much sometimes. The only way I can justify it having more bass would be if I was a huge basshead, or if I had some form of hearing loss.

 

 

Yes +2 on this..

post #37 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

^^ What are all the other headphones and on what amp / dac may I ask?

 

 

Yes +2 on this..

 

+3

post #38 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by D K A View Post

Yea you're right, do you have any amp advice? PanAm or burson soloist maybe?

Price range I guess is $1k, then the Mjolinir would be my choice. 

post #39 of 229
Which one is better for classical or movie music ?
post #40 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by En_R View Post
The only way I can justify it having more bass would be if I was a huge basshead

 

That's actually sort of what I meant. (I didn't mean that the TH900 was lacking bass in any way.) If I wanted a headphone to replicate the subwoofer-like experience of a speaker system, then I'd want more bass on the TH900. The TH900's bass is also sort of thin to me, whereas the LCD-3, for example, has much "fatter" bass. And to those who think the TH900 is bassy, have any of you heard the Grado PS-1, Audio-Technica L3000, or the bass-heavy version of the AKG K340? Those are what I'd consider some of the bassiest headphones ever made.

post #41 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post

 

That's actually sort of what I meant. (I didn't mean that the TH900 was lacking bass in any way.) If I wanted a headphone to replicate the subwoofer-like experience of a speaker system, then I'd want more bass on the TH900. The TH900's bass is also sort of thin to me, whereas the LCD-3, for example, has much "fatter" bass. And to those who think the TH900 is bassy, have any of you heard the Grado PS-1, Audio-Technica L3000, or the bass-heavy version of the AKG K340? Those are what I'd consider some of the bassiest headphones ever made.

 

.....

 

Quote:
I don't get the comments about the TH900 being too bassy. If anything, I think it could use more bass. From general comments on Head-Fi, one might think that the TH900 is a headphone for bass-heads, but that's totally not how I'd describe it.

 

 

As for the other phones..  I own the PS-1, the L3000, and the AKG340. The TH900 has just as much bass as the first two.

post #42 of 229
Thread Starter 

So I have some TH900s on the way. ;)

post #43 of 229
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio-Omega View Post

Which one is better for classical or movie music ?

If the TH900 has a larger soundstage, then those. They are also lighter / more comfortable so I would think would be easier to wear for the length of a movie. 

post #44 of 229

The mid/upper bass of the TH900s is prominent, but in a very un-abusive way that I find very satisfying and I get used to very quickly.

Other flagship phones I have owned in the past (Grado PS1000s, JVC DX100s, even Denon D7000s and Beyer T1s sometimes) suffered from

a painful bad car-subwoofer bass, losing control of the bass. I found the bass often unacceptable in these phones.

 

The TH900s may have a little more obvious bass than strictly neutral or natural, but, especially with a good amp that grips the lower frequencies well,

simply has transparent slam that adds what sounds like an appropriate foundation the to music.

 

Couple the bass with beautifully organic silky detailed mids and vocals and sweet highs and fine comfort (2nd only to R10 comfort), and the TH900s are a real winner,

a candidate for an only-one-phone if I was ever to go that route.

(And, as a bonus, no expensive after-market cable needed! So it may even be a bargain.)

The Th900 has grown on me very much over time, about 18 months.

post #45 of 229
I was a bit disappointed with the bass on the TH 900's. It is of good quality and deep, there seems to be some texture that I like or find exciting slightly missing. It might just be my bass head, as a lot of very respected ears are reporting otherwise.

Edited by Vespertine - 7/8/13 at 12:57pm
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?