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 5

post #61 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by phototristan View Post

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.  

The vocals on the LCD-3s are definitely smoother than both the LCD2 and TH-900s. About as "smooth" and grain free as there is.

post #62 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post

The vocals on the LCD-3s are definitely smoother than both the LCD2 and TH-900s. About as "smooth" and grain free as there is.

 

Do you notice on your TH900s the vocals have a bit of high-end grain to them? Did it ever diminish over time? This is something I also noticed with the HD800s when I tried them. 

 

It's just not a sound my ears agree with. 

 

Sounds like I would  like the LCD3s though. 

post #63 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by phototristan View Post

 

Do you notice on your TH900s the vocals have a bit of high-end grain to them? Did it ever diminish over time? This is something I also noticed with the HD800s when I tried them. 

 

It's just not a sound my ears agree with. 

 

Sounds like I would  like the LCD3s though. 

Not really, but could be recording/source/amp? Have a look at my sig for my setup.

 

Maybe some burn-in?

post #64 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post

Not really, but could be recording/source/amp? Have a look at my sig for my setup.

 

Maybe some burn-in?

I probably need to burn them in a bit more. 

post #65 of 235

Vocals are completely smooth and liquid (AND detailed) on my TH900s with 2 different amps. 

I don't detect any roughness; in fact I find them very natural, right up there with AT W3000-ANV vocals and R10 vocals.

I think the gorgeous organic mids of the the TH900s are their greatest strength.

(It was Senn HD650s that had some dry vocals and somewhat cardboard mids for me.)

 

I should note that my TH900s have been burning in for a year and a half now and they have gotten better with time,

at least I do like them more (love is more accurate) than when I first got them.


Edited by rgs9200m - 7/15/13 at 8:48pm
post #66 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

Vocals are completely smooth and liquid (AND detailed) on my TH900s with 2 different amps. 

I don't detect any roughness; in fact I find them very natural, right up there with AT W3000-ANV vocals and R10 vocals.

I think the gorgeous organic mids of the the TH900s are their greatest strength.

(It was Senn HD650s that had some dry vocals and somewhat cardboard mids for me.)

 

I should note that my TH900s have been burning in for a year and a half now and they have gotten better with time,

at least I do like them more (love is more accurate) than when I first got them.

 

Good to know. I think I have 2 things going on b/c my amp is also still burning in so I guess time is on my side. 

post #67 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by phototristan View Post

 

Good to know. I think I have 2 things going on b/c my amp is also still burning in so I guess time is on my side. 

Yeah, don't let those TH900s go; give'em a good chance and time. They really are extraordinary and even in a class by themselves to my ears.

post #68 of 235

IMO the TH900s vocals don't compare to the vocals on the W3000s, to my ears that's about the only thing the W3000s would win over the TH900s. The mids seem a bit recessed in comparison.  

 

Also, the highs on the LCD-2.2 seem a bit shelved and don't really extend out - not so on the TH900s and the LCD-3s to my ears.  

post #69 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

IMO the TH900s vocals don't compare to the vocals on the W3000s, to my ears that's about the only thing the W3000s would win over the TH900s. The mids seem a bit recessed in comparison.  

 

 

It's funny, I thought exactly the same thing for quite a while, always wishing my Th900s, already fine in the midrange, could have that extra bit of analog, continuous, silky sound I hear in vocals of my W3000s.

And then, after a few months, somehow they did. Now the Fostexes are just sweet and compelling in voices and they draw me in completely.

I think it may be break-in, and not something psychological or just wishful thinking, as I really concentrated on this and listened hard and critically to the same recordings over and over.

post #70 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

It's funny, I thought exactly the same thing for quite a while, always wishing my Th900s, already fine in the midrange, could have that extra bit of analog, continuous, silky sound I hear in vocals of my W3000s.

And then, after a few months, somehow they did. Now the Fostexes are just sweet and compelling in voices and they draw me in completely.

I think it may be break-in, and not something psychological or just wishful thinking, as I really concentrated on this and listened hard and critically to the same recordings over and over.

 

Could also be the synergy with your gear.

 

Personally, I find the TH-900 a step above the LCD-2.2 in pretty much every aspect. I guess if your preference is dark/lush sound than the LCD-2.2 would do it for you, but the TH-900 is just better for me. I never find the mids lacking other than with strong vocal tracks (not to say I like it the best, but it still is very good), with those I prefer the LCD-3, but the smooth treble and powerful bass really makes the TH-900 something unique. Paired with the right gear, it can compete with the best of them IMO. I've found that tubes play nice with the TH-900 as well. I still want to hear it with the ZDSE, to experience what all the fuss is about.

post #71 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

It's funny, I thought exactly the same thing for quite a while, always wishing my Th900s, already fine in the midrange, could have that extra bit of analog, continuous, silky sound I hear in vocals of my W3000s.

And then, after a few months, somehow they did. Now the Fostexes are just sweet and compelling in voices and they draw me in completely.

I think it may be break-in, and not something psychological or just wishful thinking, as I really concentrated on this and listened hard and critically to the same recordings over and over.

 

Most likely wishful thinking.  The mids on the TH900 are a bit recessed.  The mids on the W3000anvs are to die for..  The TH900s wins on just about everything else.

 

IMO of course..

post #72 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

 

Could also be the synergy with your gear.

 

Personally, I find the TH-900 a step above the LCD-2.2 in pretty much every aspect. I guess if your preference is dark/lush sound than the LCD-2.2 would do it for you, but the TH-900 is just better for me. I never find the mids lacking other than with strong vocal tracks (not to say I like it the best, but it still is very good), with those I prefer the LCD-3, but the smooth treble and powerful bass really makes the TH-900 something unique. Paired with the right gear, it can compete with the best of them IMO. I've found that tubes play nice with the TH-900 as well. I still want to hear it with the ZDSE, to experience what all the fuss is about.

 

Even on other amps.  The TH900s are still going to be the TH900s.  

post #73 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

 

Even on other amps.  The TH900s are still going to be the TH900s.  

 

That's true, the difference is subtle, but I feel tubes brings the mids forward enough to even out the signature. I haven't heard the W3KANV, but in comparison to the LCD-2.2, the mids are just right with a tube amp on the TH-900, IMO. 

post #74 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

 

That's true, the difference is subtle, but I feel tubes brings the mids forward enough to even out the signature. I haven't heard the W3KANV, but in comparison to the LCD-2.2, the mids are just right with a tube amp on the TH-900, IMO. 

 

Or tubes "Color" the mids more biggrin.gif

post #75 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post
 

 

Have you tried the Alpha Pads on the TH900s yet?  I'm waiting on your impressions before I buy a pair. 

 

popcorn.gif

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?