[sling5s]

I currently have the LCD-2 Rev. 1.  I had the Rev. 2 but preferred the Rev.1.
I love the lush thick mids and bass of the Rev.1. 
 
While I love the LCD-2 rev. 1, I crave more separation, detail and soundstage. So:
 
1. Should I, sell the LCD-2 and get the LCD-3 which just improves on the LCD-2? 
2. Should I keep the LCD-2 for the midrange and bass quantity and get the LCD-X to complement the LCD-2?
 
thanks in advance. 

 

[sling5s]

bump

 

[sling5s]

thread title changed and bumped. 

 

[setamp]

I am trying to make a similar decision.  I really like my LCD2.1 but have the itch to move to the LCD3.  I am afraid, however, it may be too unforgiving of poor or average recordings.

 

[sling5s]

From what know, LCD-3 is more forgiving than the LCD-X.  

 

[Keithpgdrb]

I personally like the lcd 2 better then the 3, and the X better then all of them.  the X removes the dark veil on top.

 

[sling5s]

  I personally like the lcd 2 better then the 3, and the X better then all of them.  the X removes the dark veil on top.

Does the LCD-X retain the texture and tactile of the LCD-2/3 while being more open in the upper midrange and treble.  From the LCD-X reviews, I get the impression that the LCD-X loses some of that realism that LCD-2/3 possessed. 

 

[Keithpgdrb]

  Does the LCD-X retain the texture and tactile of the LCD-2/3 while being more open in the upper midrange and treble.  From the LCD-X reviews, I get the impression that the LCD-X loses some of that realism that LCD-2/3 possessed. 

actually, I found that because of the more open treble and midrange, everything sounds much more natural.  It still has the bass impact of the 2 & 3 in my opinion, but the improved clarity gives everything more texture and life.
 
to my ears of course.

 

[sling5s]

  actually, I found that because of the more open treble and midrange, everything sounds much more natural.  It still has the bass impact of the 2 & 3 in my opinion, but the improved clarity gives everything more texture and life.
 
to my ears of course.

Thanks.  That input helps.  Leaning now towards the LCD-X!

 

[setamp]

My confusion comes from reading so many opinions of the LCD2 vs LCD3.

I really like my LCD-2.1's but would like to correct a couple of aspects:
     1.  More refined upper mids / lower treble.  I detect a little harshness in the LCD2's
     2.  Less bloat in the lower mids / upper bass.

My understanding is the LCD3's have a smoother treble.  It seems to me this should make them more forgiving than the LCD2's not less.

 

[sling5s]

In my LCD-2.1, I feel there's a slight bump in the 1-2khz and than a dip in the 3-4khz.  I also think that the upper midrange and lower treble is kind of grainy making it less smooth. 
 
The LCD-3 I heard has a dip in the 5-6khz but overall, it's much smoother than the LCD-2. 

 

[setamp]

This relative smoothness is why I would expect the LCD3 to be more forgiving than the LCD2, not less.  This is what is confusing to me.

 

[sling5s]

The LCD-3 is smoother but from what I read, it is more detailed and revealing.  So while it reveals poor recordings, it is more forgiving doing it.  If that makes sense.  But that's just my guess. 

 

[Barry S]

I owned the LCD-2.2 for a year, and have the LCD-X now. This past weekend, I tried the LCD-3 again--in a direct comparison against the LCD-X. There is no such thing as lush thick mids and a large soundstage in any headphone. You have to decide what you value more.
 
The LCD-3 has the lushest thickest mids in the Audeze line, with good detail, but a very intimate soundstage. The LCD-3 is all about the mids. The bass is nicely defined, but takes a back seat to the mids. The LCD-3 treble is very subdued. I consider the LCD-3 the most forgiving, compared to the LCD-2 and LCD-X.
 
The LCD-X has the the most neutral balance of the three, and the largest soundstage by a mile. The LCD-X mids have body and substance, but don't have the lush thick character of the LCD-3. To my ears, the LCD-X easily has the most detail of the three. This may be because there's no focus on any one aspect of the signature. The LCD-X treble definition, smoothness, and coherence spanks the LCD-3 and LCD-2.
 
I see no reason to own an LCD-2 and LCD-X. The LCD-2 signature lies between the LCD-X and LCD-3--but with less overall detail, looser sub-bass and a bit of grain in the treble. Price aside, the LCD-X and LCD-3 would be the best complement--due to their very different signatures.
 
It would be insane to choose the LCD-X or LCD-3 without hearing both yourself.

 

[jerg]

  I owned the LCD-2.2 for a year, and have the LCD-X now. This past weekend, I tried the LCD-3 again--in a direct comparison against the LCD-X. There is no such thing as lush thick mids and a large soundstage in any headphone. You have to decide what you value more.
 
The LCD-3 has the lushest thickest mids in the Audeze line, with good detail, but a very intimate soundstage. The LCD-3 is all about the mids. The bass is nicely defined, but takes a back seat to the mids. The LCD-3 treble is very subdued. I consider the LCD-3 the most forgiving, compared to the LCD-2 and LCD-X.
 
The LCD-X has the the most neutral balance of the three, and the largest soundstage by a mile. The LCD-X mids have body and substance, but don't have the lush thick character of the LCD-3. To my ears, the LCD-X easily has the most detail of the three. This may be because there's no focus on any one aspect of the signature. The LCD-X treble definition, smoothness, and coherence spanks the LCD-3 and LCD-2.
 
I see no reason to own an LCD-2 and LCD-X. The LCD-2 signature lies between the LCD-X and LCD-3--but with less overall detail, looser sub-bass and a bit of grain in the treble. Price aside, the LCD-X and LCD-3 would be the best complement--due to their very different signatures.
 
It would be insane to choose the LCD-X or LCD-3 without hearing both yourself.

Revision 2 of LCD2 is quite different in tonal balance to Rev1 though. Rev1 is (IMO) quite a bit more muffled-sounding, meaning treble takes a noticeable step back compared to Rev2. If OP actually prefers that, then LCDX is counter-intuitive even if it is the most balanced of the bunch.