[oldson]

Quote:

I have just placed an order for the LCD 2 in bamboo... now the waiting process begins...
 

thats a coincidence so have i, 

 

[Mediahound]

Quote:

Of course that is true. I could easily see keeping the 2s if one is really into extreme metal and hard rock. Cranked up it is hard to beat those cans for that. For me though it was necessary to migrate to the 3s since I listen to a lot of genres and wanted improved soundstage and detailing etc. It's all good.

Is the soundstage a lot wider with the LCD-3s?

 

[Zoom25]

So far I have been finding the LCD-3's soundstage a bit bigger, however it is much more defined and natural than LCD-2. It took me a few hours to get used to it, but it is clearly evident.
 
Also, IMO soundstage isn't going to be a concern when going from LCD-2 to LCD-3. LCD-3 sounds far better in ALL aspects if you want to break it down like that. Although when listening on the whole, LCD-3 is in another league over LCD-2. Definitely worth that price tag.

 

[Mediahound]

Quote:

So far I have been finding the LCD-3's soundstage a bit bigger, however it is much more defined and natural than LCD-2. It took me a few hours to get used to it, but it is clearly evident.
 
Also, IMO soundstage isn't going to be a concern when going from LCD-2 to LCD-3. LCD-3 sounds far better in ALL aspects if you want to break it down like that. Although when listening on the whole, LCD-3 is in another league over LCD-2. Definitely worth that price tag.

Thanks. Are the highs a lot brighter on the LCD-3s? I actually don't like really bright/harsh highs. 

 

[Zoom25]

Quote:

Thanks. Are the highs a lot brighter on the LCD-3s? I actually don't like really bright/harsh highs. 

 
No, not at all. This was really confusing the **** out of me in the first two hours with them. These still have that "king of darkness" quality that David Mahler said in his 50+ review. It has more treble extension and air than LCD-2, but very smooth and in a way has a better blackground than LCD-2. It kinda took the HE-500's air, imaging and crispy treble while still retaining the darkness. Although at a much more enhanced level. I am not sure at the moment how the LCD-3 are managing to have this much detail without even remotely being fatiguing.
 
I've finally found a headphone that has truly impressed me for the first time. Finally found one that matches my expectations. The LCD-2 and HE-500 were both missing by a decent margin.

 

[M-13]

Quote:

 
No, not at all. This was really confusing the **** out of me in the first two hours with them. These still have that "king of darkness" quality that David Mahler said in his 50+ review. It has more treble extension and air than LCD-2, but very smooth and in a way has a better blackground than LCD-2. It kinda took the HE-500's air, imaging and crispy treble while still retaining the darkness. Although at a much more enhanced level. I am not sure at the moment how the LCD-3 are managing to have this much detail without even remotely being fatiguing.
 
I've finally found a headphone that has truly impressed me for the first time. Finally found one that matches my expectations. The LCD-2 and HE-500 were both missing by a decent margin.

Glad you're enjoying them so much Zoom. I saw some measurements/subjective impressions that the LCD-3s were even darker than the LCD-2 (even more recessed in the upper-mids). Are you hearnig this at all? How is the air? as much as the HE-500?

 

[Zoom25]

Quote:

Glad you're enjoying them so much Zoom. I saw some measurements/subjective impressions that the LCD-3s were even darker than the LCD-2 (even more recessed in the upper-mids). Are you hearnig this at all? How is the air? as much as the HE-500?

 
Not at all. The vocals are definitely more elevated. I actually like the upper mids a lot. They transition into the lower treble region quite nicely. Better than LCD-2. HE-500 was the worst of them all in this regard. It has more air than LCD-2, not as much as HE-500 but it's more energetic and engaging than either while still being darker than HE-500. LCD-2 did bass to mids transition quite nicely, although the treble was a bit unrefined respectively. So the LCD-2 seemed like it had two parts (bass+mids) and treble. HE-500 seemed a bit more like 3 separate parts. The LCD-3 is way more fluid with it's response throughout.

 

[commtrd]

Quote:

So far I have been finding the LCD-3's soundstage a bit bigger, however it is much more defined and natural than LCD-2. It took me a few hours to get used to it, but it is clearly evident.
 
Also, IMO soundstage isn't going to be a concern when going from LCD-2 to LCD-3. LCD-3 sounds far better in ALL aspects if you want to break it down like that. Although when listening on the whole, LCD-3 is in another league over LCD-2. Definitely worth that price tag.

Well said...

 

[jibzilla]

.

 

[Zoom25]

Another thing that I'll add is that LCD-3 is more open sounding than LCD-2. No awkward walls or weird reverbs. Not that LCD-2 had any, but this does it better. The soundstage isn't as wide as the HE-500, yet it seems more boundary less than either LCD-2 or HE-500.

 

[Zoom25]

Quote:

So I have thought about the lcd-3, hd-800, th-900 2k level headphones. Has anyone here compared them to the stax sr-009? With the yen taking a tumble the 009 is 2k off, and not as much of a price dif. as before. The yen is rebounding though. I do know the stax amps are quite expensive. Has anyone had great results with the 3 2k headphones I mentioned above and an inexpensive amp/dac combo?

 
AMP: Emotiva Mini x-a-100 ($219 +/- with sale) 
Marantz CD5004: $349 average
 
I have yet to try this out with a Fiio E10.
 
I am not sure if it's great, but it's definitely enjoyable at the moment. Also, I can find easily find differences between LCD-2 and LCD-3. On the other hand some people have found very marginal changes, so take it for what you will.
 
The guy who I got my LCD-3 from also had SR-009 and HD 800. He basically told me that Stax is more of a learning process and offers a different experience. It's more of a detail freak (in a good way). Although for fun and electronic music, the LCD-3s are the way to go. He said to go LCD-3 over HE-6 for electronic music and bass stuff. HE-6 can be off at times for that, especially with treble fatigue. These were his thoughts.
 
No clue where TH-900 fits in.

 

[kothganesh]

Only problem with LCD2r2 is it leads directly to LCD3!

Been there, done that. It's all good.

 

[DefQon]

Personally I did not find much difference between the LCD3 and my LCD2's. Although I own a pair of modded rev.1's which sound most closely to the sound of the LCD3 but improved only in a few areas not all as some people here are claiming to be such a big difference too be. 
 
There is still 3 area's that LCD3's still don't do right, lack of treble extension and problems with the upper mids, there is this congestion that is still there even with the LCD2's, this can lead to poor instrumentation on complex tracks. Soundstage, if the LCD2's rev.2 is a 7/10 for soundstage, the LCD3's is a 7.4-7.5 only due to the slight sense of clarity to to most of the sound spectrum. This is all from the latest batch of LCD3's, from what I've read the first batch was pretty bad, sound and QC wise.
 
I'm still going to stick by what I said as my amp recommendation for the LCD2's, Audeze headphones + tubes = does not sound right, so best to stick with a good solid state from my personal experience. The best ortho is still the HE-6 or the HE-5 for me or a modded pair of rev.1's. The rev.2's can also sound good with the mods I applied to my rev.1's but imvho it takes too much away.

 

[jibzilla]

.

 

[Zoom25]

I have seen a lot of people here say that the LCD-3 is only a X percent improvement here over the LCD-2 in terms of sound. I usually read 20% on average. I've read anywhere from 25% to 5%. I honestly am not sure how these numbers are generated but nonetheless I'll agree that the change in the physical sound is a little, so let's go with 20% - I'll agree with that.
 
However, those 20% to an already very good sound equated to a FAR more than a 20% increase in overall enjoyment for me. These 20% marginal changes translate to much more excitement when the baseline is already quite high. Now if the same 20% increase in sound quality or even a 80% increase to something like Beats, ATH M-50 or whatever would still result in far less excitement and appreciation than a 20% or 10% at a high level. I personally don't find the relationship between improvement and enjoyment as a linear one, with varying performance baselines. ****, somehow I ended up bringing math into it. My bad guys.