Just so people don't start allowing this sort of thing to get blown out of proportion, while I said in my review that the LCD-3 were a "big improvement" over the LCD-2, and I remain convinced that this is the case in at least the way I hear it, I never said this was in any way revolutionary, or anything of the sort. The context, which I made very clear in my review, is that I already felt the LCD-2 were one of the best headphones out there, in terms of sonics (as opposed to comfort). I have had them for a long time ranked just a little below the Sony MDR-10 in the list of headphones I own. The LCD-3 is enough better for me that I prefer it, taken as a whole, over the R-10. But that does not make it's improvements over the LCD-2 "revolutionary". For me, the differences are very plainly audible. and sonically meaningful.
When we get to the rarefied air of the high end, however, such differences don't immediately impress. They come out over long listening sessions. They are details, and nuance. They are not "OMG the bass!" type of things. So the comments I have been reading from people so far seem right in line with what I would expect.