[visualguy]

 
HE-6 vs. LCD-2 rev. 2 soundstage is splitting hairs. Yes, the HE-6 is slightly better, but we aren't talking HD800 or SR-009 (or even just T1) size soundstage here in either case.
 
Is the LCD-3 better than the LCD-2r2 in this area? Not that I can tell in 3 hours of listening, so even if I find it to be better after further listening, it can't be by much because it doesn't stand out.
 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

 
HE-6 vs. LCD-2 rev. 2 soundstage is splitting hairs. Yes, the HE-6 is slightly better, but we aren't talking HD800 or SR-009 (or even just T1) size soundstage here in either case.
 
Is the LCD-3 better than the LCD-2r2 in this area? Not that I can tell in 3 hours of listening, so even if I find it to be better after further listening, it can't be by much because it doesn't stand out.
 

Properly powered, I found the HE-6s had a good advantage over the LCD-2 Rev. 2s. But yes, the HD800s still are kings of the heap in that regard. Do you own the HE-6s to A-B directly? I've been doing A-B-C comparisons between my LCD-3s, HE-6s and LCD-2 R2s (shipped out today to their new owner) over the past few days.
 
What is your upstream rig? I am very quickly finding that the LCD-3s are more sensitive to upstream changes than my LCD-2s ever were. I've had to play with some tubes that I didn't really find made much changes with my LCD-2s to get the sound I really like.
 

 

[visualguy]

 
Yes, I have the HE-6 and have done direct comparisons. I find the HE-6 to be somewhat better overall than all the incarnations of the LCD headphones, including the LCD-3, but I like both.
 
I've been using mostly my GS-X and 4-channel Beta 22 amps with these headphones. Sources are SACD players - Marantz SA-7S1 and Sony SCD-XA5400ES.
 
 
 

 

[dyl1dyl]

Quote:

No I don't have the 007 Mk II.

 
Okay, no problem. Haha, I'm pretty interested in some comparisons against the 007 as it falls into roughly the dame price range and I have found the 007 to be a great headphone.
 
 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

 
Yes, I have the HE-6 and have done direct comparisons. I find the HE-6 to be somewhat better overall than all the incarnations of the LCD headphones, including the LCD-3, but I like both.
 
I've been using mostly my GS-X and 4-channel Beta 22 amps with these headphones. Sources are SACD players - Marantz SA-7S1 and Sony SCD-XA5400ES.
 
 
 

 
I'm listening to Patricia Barber with my LCD-3s right now (The Premonition Years) and the sound staging of the LCD-3s is phenomenal...right up there with the HE-6s and T1s. Something I felt both the R1 and R2 LCD-2s had a hard time keeping up with (though they were still very good in their own right).

 
 

 

[olor1n]

Quote:

 
Yes, I have the HE-6 and have done direct comparisons. I find the HE-6 to be somewhat better overall than all the incarnations of the LCD headphones, including the LCD-3, but I like both.
 
I've been using mostly my GS-X and 4-channel Beta 22 amps with these headphones. Sources are SACD players - Marantz SA-7S1 and Sony SCD-XA5400ES.
 
 
 

It'd be wise to fill out your profile/sig with the components you own if you're going against the grain. It'll save you having to address these questions ad nauseam.

 

[n3rdling]

Looking at the graphs and reading some impressions, are we sure the LCD3 isn't just a dressed up LCD2 rev2?  I know they changed the diaphragm on the rev 2 but did they change it again for the LCD3?

 

[dyl1dyl]

Hey, would anyone who has both the LCD-3s and the HD800 care to comment on the respective differences with regard to soundstage and instrument placement? This was one of the nitpicks I had with both the LCD-2 rev1 and rev 2. Thanks

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

Looking at the graphs and reading some impressions, are we sure the LCD3 isn't just a dressed up LCD2 rev2?  I know they changed the diaphragm on the rev 2 but did they change it again for the LCD3?

"The all new LOTUS diaphragm that uses a special alloy for conductive traces gives us greater control, lower distortion."
 
http://audeze.com/audeze-lcd-3

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Hey, would anyone who has both the LCD-3s and the HD800 care to comment on the respective differences with regard to soundstage and instrument placement? This was one of the nitpicks I had with both the LCD-2 rev1 and rev 2. Thanks

The LCD-3s have certainly kicked it up a notch in this regard...similar to my T1s and HE-6s, but the HD800s are still the better for this IMO.

 

[dyl1dyl]

Quote:

The LCD-3s have certainly kicked it up a notch in this regard...similar to my T1s and HE-6s, but the HD800s are still the better for this IMO.

Okay, that sounds great. I've always loved the HD800 for their soundstage but found the LCD-2s to present everything else better.
 

 

[johnwmclean]

Quote:

Looking at the graphs and reading some impressions, are we sure the LCD3 isn't just a dressed up LCD2 rev2?  I know they changed the diaphragm on the rev 2 but did they change it again for the LCD3?

Interesting...
 
Audeze had been developing the LCD-3 driver for quite a while.
When driver failures and reliability problems started to emerge, Audeze commented;
“We have developed new diaphragm material that offered several benefits over the existing material. We decided to pass along the improvements to customers. The issues we had with some older stock gave us the impetus to move to the new diaphragm quicker than expected.”
 
Would it make sense to develop and test a new diaphragm for the LCD-2 rev1 or simply use what was on the table, the LCD-3.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[Olias of Sunhillow]

Quote:

 
HE-6 vs. LCD-2 rev. 2 soundstage is splitting hairs. Yes, the HE-6 is slightly better, but we aren't talking HD800 or SR-009 (or even just T1) size soundstage here in either case.
 

I strongly disagree with this. For me, the HE-6 soundstage is miles beyond the LCD2.2 and bested only by the T1 (the HD800 going too far and presenting what I found to be an artificially exaggerated soundstage).
 
I've only had my LCD-3s on for literally minutes, so I can't report on them yet... but let's just say that if they don't have considerably better soundstage than the LCD2.2, they'll be going back to Las Vegas.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Interesting...
 
Audeze had been developing the LCD-3 driver for quite a while.
When driver failures and reliability problems started to emerge, Audeze commented;
“We have developed new diaphragm material that offered several benefits over the existing material. We decided to pass along the improvements to customers. The issues we had with some older stock gave us the impetus to move to the new diaphragm quicker than expected.”
 
Would it make sense to develop and test a new diaphragm for the LCD-2 rev1 or simply use what was on the table, the LCD-3.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I remember reading that the thickness of the LCD-3's diaphragm is 1/6th that of the LCD-2 rev. 2.

 

[grokit]

I really doubt that they would say "all new LOTUS diaphragm" when describing the LCD-3 if it is the same one that is in the LCD-2, that would be really bad manners on their part