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 4

post #46 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

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.

 

 

Put a balanced cable on the T1s and use them with a balanced amp and you wont have any loss of control with the bass.  

post #47 of 229
Thread Starter 

I have the LCD-2s (which I believe have very similar bass as the LCD-3), so it will be interesting to compare the bass on the TH900s with my LCD-2s on the Burson Conductor. 

post #48 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by phototristan View Post

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. 

Properly driven, the LCD-3s offer slightly wider imaging. That said, the TH-900s are easier to "properly" drive.

post #49 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

 

 

Put a balanced cable on the T1s and use them with a balanced amp and you wont have any loss of control with the bass.  

 

+1

 

also just depends on the amp.

 

on my WA2, the bass is never uncontrolled. but depending on the tubes i roll, i can make the bass much more lighter, or i can make them bass monsters as muddy as DT 990s 

post #50 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post

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


I can't found it Indonesia, I guess i will go with PanAm

post #51 of 229
Thread Starter 

I'm hearing conflicting things about the LCD-3s. Are they brighter or darker than the LCD-2s? I've heard they have 'better' highs than the LCD-2s, but not sure in what way better. 

post #52 of 229

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by phototristan View Post

I'm hearing conflicting things about the LCD-3s. Are they brighter or darker than the LCD-2s? I've heard they have 'better' highs than the LCD-2s, but not sure in what way better. 

3s have better cleaner treble response and somewhat "airier". Some better staging as well. Not as dark a phone which definitely made them better for me. Tend not to be muddy sometimes into mid-bass and lower on some selections as were the 2.2s (I found infrequently anyway). The 3s are definitely worth the extra money to acquire as they are considerably more than say 10% better I would say at least 50% better but then that is my opinion and you know what they say about opinions... Good fast hard hitting bass and beautiful birth/decay from blackness... Nice instrumental placement and very musical while maintaining a great level of detail rendering. I would definitely recommend getting the LCD3s. Very happy with the phones I have.

post #53 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by commtrd View Post

 

3s have better cleaner treble response and somewhat "airier". Some better staging as well. Not as dark a phone which definitely made them better for me. Tend not to be muddy sometimes into mid-bass and lower on some selections as were the 2.2s (I found infrequently anyway). The 3s are definitely worth the extra money to acquire as they are considerably more than say 10% better I would say at least 50% better but then that is my opinion and you know what they say about opinions... Good fast hard hitting bass and beautiful birth/decay from blackness... Nice instrumental placement and very musical while maintaining a great level of detail rendering. I would definitely recommend getting the LCD3s. Very happy with the phones I have.

This to me is the biggest difference in relative terms. The bass is all there but slightly more nuanced.

 

Caveat: I don't own them but listened to friends' headphones on many occasions under good conditions (read that, quiet environment, not meet).

post #54 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by phototristan View Post

I'm hearing conflicting things about the LCD-3s. Are they brighter or darker than the LCD-2s? I've heard they have 'better' highs than the LCD-2s, but not sure in what way better. 

Here are my thoughts between the LCD-2R2 and the LCD-3s:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/a/comparisons-of-the-lcd-3-and-the-lcd-2-rev-2

post #55 of 229
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post

Here are my thoughts between the LCD-2R2 and the LCD-3s:

http://www.head-fi.org/a/comparisons-of-the-lcd-3-and-the-lcd-2-rev-2

Thanks, I wonder how the LCD2 r3 would differ? I believe that's what I have since mine have the angled metal connectors.
post #56 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by phototristan View Post

Thanks, I wonder how the LCD2 r3 would differ? I believe that's what I have since mine have the angled metal connectors.

There is no such thing as a LCD-2 r3. The rev denotes new drivers! New covers were the cables exit the headphones won't change the sound. wink.gif

Your pair has the rev2 driver.
post #57 of 229
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post


There is no such thing as a LCD-2 r3. The rev denotes new drivers! New covers were the cables exit the headphones won't change the sound. wink.gif

Your pair has the rev2 driver.

Got it, thanks. 

post #58 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post


There is no such thing as a LCD-2 r3. The rev denotes new drivers! New covers were the cables exit the headphones won't change the sound. wink.gif

Your pair has the rev2 driver.


Awwww! ....and I was about to pull the pin on some covers made from unobtainium forged by albino sherpa's born in the spring of '57.

jks...he he.

post #59 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by phototristan View Post

Got it, thanks. 

No worries. smile.gif

post #60 of 229
Thread Starter 

Hi folks. So I've been listening to the TH900s for a few days now and comparing them to my LCD2s. I have to say that I find both headphones as fun to listen to. TH900 has more bass impact for sure, but bass impact is still fun on the Audeze too as it is certainly not lacking bass. And yes, long wearing comfort is way better on the TH900s. 

 

The main area where I notice a larger difference is with vocals. Vocals on the TH900 have a lot more graininess/harshness to them. I was hoping that would settle down over time, however I'm not sure it would.

 

Soundstage is better on the TH900s but at least with my Burson Conductor, it's not that lacking with my LCD2s.

 

I guess now I'm going to have to try the LCD3s. Question - do they have smooth vocals or a bit harsh/grainy? This is one sticking point for me with the TH900s. Vocals just sound like they have some added high frequency 'breath' to them, which makes them sound not quite as liquid as the Audeze LCD2.  


Edited by phototristan - 7/15/13 at 7:48pm
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?