Separate names with a comma.
Over-Ear item created by dBel84, Oct 31, 2011
Pros - sound quality. build quality
Cons - might be uncomfortable for some
When I heard the LCD 2, I thought is was pretty awesome. I did not think it can get much better from that. One complaint I had was the comfort and I did expect some kind of upgrade in terms of that. I have to say here is that, going into this review as someone who expected not much of significant upgrade in terms of sound, I was quite surprised.
From their website:
Audeze’s origins go back to 2008 when founders Sankar Thiagasamudram and Alexander Rosson met engineer Pete Uka who developed specialized flexible circuit materials for NASA. They quickly realized the material might be perfect for headphones. That’s when Dragoslav Colich, who has 30+ years’ experience in designing planar drivers, joined the team as CTO to create the LCD-1 headphone.
Then we created the legendary, award-winning LCD-2 and LCD-3 headphones, and the higher-efficiency LCD-X and XC models. More recently, we made planar magnetic technology accessible to a wider audience with the EL-8 and SINE series headphones. Audeze turned to their strategic partner Designworks, a BMW Group Subsidiary, for the cutting-edge industrial design for the new headphones as well as the Deckard DAC/Amplifier.
Audeze feature proprietary planar magnetic designs with extremely thin-film driver materials and powerful custom magnets. Planars overcome many limitations inherent in typical cone drivers; our lightweight diaphragms are, for example, faster and more responsive than heavier moving-coil or dome drivers. Planar magnetic diaphragm also have a voice-coil circuit spread across the diaphragm surface. The diaphragm’s voice-coil circuit interacts with the magnetic field to produce an electromagnetic force that moves the diaphragm back and forth creating the sound you hear when energized by an audio signal.
This review unit was lent to me by Bay Bloor Radio, for a review. Nevertheless, my review will contain no bias
Style Open circumaural
Transducer type Planar magnetic
Magnetic structure Proprietary push-pull design
Magnet type Neodymium
Transducer size 106 mm
Maximum power handling 15W (for 200ms)
Sound pressure level >130dB with 15W
Frequency response 5Hz – 20kHz extended out to 50kHz
Total harmonic distortion <1% through entire frequency range
Impedance 110 ohms
Efficiency 102dB / 1mW
Optimal power requirement 1 – 4W
THE BUILD QUALITY
All you will see on these headphones is wood, metal, and Leather (you can opt in for vegan - leather free pads) just like LCD 2. However, LCD 3 does come with an upgrade.
Some of the upgrade includes;
brown leather pads that I personally found to be more comfortable and more elegant looking
brown leather headband straps that I personally found to be more comfortable and more elegant looking
Zebrano wood that looks like tiger stripes giveing a very nice look to the headphones
I did find these headphones to be more comfortable than the LCD 2 which I had trouble leaving it on my head for a long time. However, LCD 3 still feels a bit heavy for my head.
[gallery ids="1548,1547,1546" type="rectangular"]
The drivers used are planar magnetic drivers and to me, this is a plus because other than the fact that Audeze has great experience tuning these types of drivers, these types of drivers can make a more impactful sound.
Included is also their latest technology, the “fazor,” which is a wave guide to increase the clarity and lower distortion.
[gallery ids="1539,1540,1544,1543" type="rectangular"]
Lower Frequencies: I praised the impact bass presence in the LCD 2 but I was surprised by the increased amount of impact in the LCD 3 even more ! And all controlled to excellence. Not much to say here, It was one of the best experiences I've had in this frequency range. Go check out my LCD 2 review and come back to this one to get a better impression
Mid Frequencies: I found this headphone to excel with micro detail in this range, even more so than the LCD 2. Very lush sounding and I cannot emphasize this more. This is the one of the most pleasant headphone I have ever heard in terms of layering. Vocals seemed a little bit distant than the LCD 2 at first before I got adjusted to the headphones.
High Frequencies: Falls short in the upper range compared to HD800s but excels in the lower ranges. Again, same thing with LCD 2 here basically. However more pleasant than the LCD 2 in every way possible.
Soundstage/imaging: The soundstage was larger than the HD650 or that of the LCD 2 and tad smaller than the HD800s and Hifiman edition x v2. However, the imaging was quite impressive, although this also fell short compared to the mighty HD800s. In terms of imaging, it was quite similar to the level of the Hifiman edition x v2. A lot of you will disagree or agree with me in these comparisons but remember one thing. “these are mild differences, these headphone are pretty similar in sound stage and imaging.” To the extent of you not being able to correctly analyze it unless you had them all side by side like me to go back and forth on the sound stage test tracks.
Bottom line, I would put these as my favorite planar magnetic headphones of this month. Perhaps this year - This is what I said for the LCD 2 review. I cannot say I stand by it now that I heard the LCD 3. LCD 3 is the clear new winner.
Pros - Provocative low-mid/bass, good EQ does wonders, classic design, great customer support.
Cons - Untamable bass, heavy, poorly designed headband, aftermarket cable required.
The LCD-2 pre-fazor was my first Hifi headphone, and so in that way Audeze holds a special place in my heart. Back then, I had them with a Norne Draug2 cable hooked into a Schiit Valhalla, which was directly plugged into my computer with no DAC. Not really a hifi setup by any measure, but it stole my virginity as far as deep bass was concerned. After listening to a few popular Gorillaz tracks on the headset, all other bass became petty and cheap to me. I figured that upgrading to the LCD-3 would be an upgrade in high-frequency response, and unfortunately for me I was wrong.
Now I have a Schiit Gungnir and Mjolnir 2 set up balanced and I don't mess around with low-fi file formats anymore, and a solid-core silver headphone cable into my LCD-3Fs. Admittedly, using a tube amp to power dark headphones is a poor way to pursue a crisp, clear sound. In that spirit, I'll refer to what this headset does well here and what would be wrong with the headset even if I had a solid-state amp.
The first issue is, as stated above, that no matter how aggressively one EQs this system, bass and low-mids reign in tyranny over your listening experience. If that's something you enjoy, then grab a good DAC and a tube amp of any decent manner and have a blast. For me, bass comes a dime a dozen and doesn't really impress me. Especially after having heard headphones that make you feel like you're in a massage chair, other speakers and headsets don't cut it in terms of bass response. Even headsets touting 'basshead' qualities lack even the ability to be compared to the massive and sometimes overwhelming atomic shockwave that is Audeze. In short, buy planars if you want to get that nice head massage you've always wanted out of your headphones.
The second issue is comfort. Honestly, seeing as how they've released the LCD-4 with the newer headband, I don't see why they don't do this with all their other LCD headsets, but maybe I'm just a Plebeian who doesn't know how marketing works. The headband is a thick leather strap that fits rather blindly over your head and feels often times like you've taken a rope and using both hands pulled down so the rope just digs into your head. Then there's the weight, which in itself is a ridiculous and often obnoxious reminder of how little product testing Audeze seems to have done. If they felt they had to keep the weight to provide some advantage, they're wrong. After hours on the head, both the LCD-2 and 3 put a crook in your neck that stays for hours after wearing. After making a habit of wearing these headphones, you begin noticing that your neck just aches more often. This is an issue that can be resolved easily enough by removing all these metals and dense materials from the construction, but I'm still waiting. However, at the end of the day, the Audeze look is still irrefutably timeless and modest.
I always say you can tell how serious a headphone manufacturer is by the cables that come in the box, and how well versed an enthusiast is by noticing the importance of this. Headphone cables make or break a driver's ability to be taken full advantage of. You want to hear the best out of your headphones? Get a silver plated or a silver-core cable from a reputable company. Norne's great at what they do, but their cables do add a pretty substantial weight. Find a cable that suits the headphone, not just in quality but in comfort as well.
My point here though is that some headphone companies don't bother to make substantial cables for their headphones, and unfortunately Audeze is one of those companies. If you choose Audeze, or indeed Sennheiser or Sony or just about any other (good) 'mainstream' headphone brand, take the time to account for the cost of the cable as well, because you'll be remiss without.
Audeze is a great 'statement' headphone, or rather it's a brand or series of products focusing on their entertainment value rather than absolute purity. Most headphones push or pull at the sound signature in different ways to provide the desired effect, and Audeze's desired effect is one that makes an impact (pun intended) on the user's perception of how a 'warm' headphone should sound. If you're looking for a headphone that focuses on the luscious, sensual aspects of the music it plays and sucks you into it's bass like a giant blob monster, then spend your ticket on Audeze. If you're looking for clarity and detail that feels like a microscope into the music, you should look elsewhere. For the buck, the LCD line provides a sound that is both warm but without prominent distortion or sibilance. With the right EQ, these headphones can almost give off the illusion that they give a damn about being resolving.
Pros - Incredibly wide and open soundstage, Fantastic balance of sounds, relatively forgiving to bad recordings
Cons - A bit heavy and fatiguing (due to physical heft) over long periods of time
Time for one more review–this one I've been thinking about for a while. I've been trying to think of how I can describe the LCD-3's in depth without just saying they sound AWESOME. Well, I think I'm finally ready to give some in-depth analysis.
I'd like to begin with everything included with the LCD-3's. When buying the LCD-3's brand new, you get the option of either the presentation box, or the rugged box. After seeing both in person, my personal recommendation would be to choose the rugged box. If you ever need to take your headphones out of your home, putting them in that massive, padded case will give you a lot of peace of mind. The presentation case looks nice, but it is not very practical. Audeze includes 2 cables: a 4 pin XLR cable, and a 1/4'' cable with a 1/4'' to 3.5mm adapter. Additionally, you get a little kit to take care of the wood. It includes a soft cloth, and some sort of lemon wax to coat the wood with.
Next, I feel as though the wood deserves its own paragraph. The wood that surrounds the ear cups on all of Audeze's headphones is absolutely gorgeous, and it is the perfect complement to the LCD-3. Aside from just being beautiful, though, I love that it adds a bit of personality to each unique LCD-3. Of course, the wood is real wood, not that I would expect anything less for $2,000. Just like any real wood, each cut is going to have a different pattern. A few months ago, I went to a Head-Fi meet up where there were several pairs of LCD-3's, and I loved how everyone's was unique, with its own special look revealed through the wood. Just like a fingerprint, no pair of LCD-3's is exactly like any other.
Every company has their own way of creating the "openness" on the ear cups of their open back headphones. There's the mesh of the Sennheiser HD600, unique styles like on the HD7/800, and the grill look, like how Audeze does it. However, Audeze does create their own unique style by incorporated the Audeze "A" into it. I think it all comes together very nicely.
The LCD-3's are a BIG headphone. It doesn't feel like it quite so much when you have them on, but if you ever look at yourself in the mirror, you'll realize that they borderline look ridiculous. However, Audeze has created such a beautiful product, no matter how big they are, it's impossible not to fall in love with them.
One thing that I feel I should mention here is that when I first got my LCD-3's, I had some issues with the yoke. When I moved the ear cups side to side, I would occasionally get some popping from the connection of the yoke to the headphone. However, when I mentioned this to Audeze, they were quick to replace the yoke for me.
Comfort is the only place where I can find a negative with the LCD-3's, and it's pretty minor. This headphone is big; as a result, it's heavy. For the first hour of listening, I never experience any fatigue. Once I get around the 1.5-2 hour mark, though, I begin to feel just a bit fatigued. At that point, it's not too much to stop listening, though. By about 3 hours, I usually find that I've had enough. It's not like I'm in pain and I take them off in frustration and discomfort, but it all kind of adds up, and I just feel as though I've had enough. I think this is reasonable for such a large headphone, though. If there had to be a hit in sound quality to make them lighter and more comfortable, then I don't think it would be worth it.
The ear pads on the LCD-3 are very nice. They're very big and "puffy" for lack of a better word, and I don't think most will have any issue with their ear touching the drivers–something I find very awkward and uncomfortable. Especially with the "ruffled" feel of the fazor drivers. Again, I don't think this should be an issue for most users since the ear pads are very wide.
Well, how do these bad boys sound? For $2,000 it must be pretty good, right? Well, they sound better than good. They sound better than amazing. They sound better than incredible. Listening to these headphones is a life-changing experience, and you'll never be the same afterward. All kidding aside, they really do sound amazing. I have made several of my friends quickly fall into the world of high-end audio after listening to just one song on these headphones. I'll dive into the specifics.
Lows: I really love the presentation of the low-end on planar magnetic headphones, LCD-3's included. The low end is very apparent, but not overpowering, and always remains controlled. What I really love about the low end though, and I feel this is a characteristic of planar magnetics in general, is that the low end carries a certain punch with it that is hard to match. It's not even necessarily that there is more low end than another headphone, but somehow the same amount of bass just carries more "umph" with it, and it is a great experience. I certainly wouldn't call the LCD-3's bass heavy, but I find them carrying plenty of power to suit the bass head in all of us. All in all, I think the low end is tuned just right.
Mids: I regretfully say that the mids are the weakest link of the LCD-3's. I say that regretfully, though, because they're the weakest link by about the width of a hair. No headphone is perfect, but when I was trying to come up with the negatives to this headphone, I was really struggling. The mids are right in your face, and it truly sounds like the artist is standing right there, performing a private concert just for you. The clarity of the mids is absolutely fantastic. The resolution of artists' voices is unreal–it's almost as though you can reach into their throat and hear the tiny vibrations of their vocal chords. So why are they less than perfect? As I will get to later, the soundstage of the LCD-3's is generally very open and wide, but while the lows and the highs feel as though they are engulfing you from all directions, the mids feel ever so slightly more narrow, and remain more toward either side of you. Again, this is very very slight–I'm in no way saying the mids are narrow, but they are more narrow than the rest of the sound, especially the shimmery highs.
Highs: Some may disagree with me here, but I honestly feel that the fine details in the highs are one of the strongest aspects of the LCD-3. This headphone is an example of treble shimmer at its finest. When I listen to a well recorded track, like some of Chesky's test tracks, or some of my favorites by Bon Iver, it just stuns me how much extension I can hear in every cymbal crash and beat of a snare drum. When I really think a headphone shines is when you do not just hear the sound of a particular instrument, but everything that goes into it. You hear when the drummer's stick hits the cymbal, the crescendo, and the sound extends until the final vibration. The LCD-3 represents this in every way. Not only that, but there is so much width of the soundstage in the highs. When highs are intentionally distant (I hate to go right back to Bon Iver, but they do this frequently), the LCD-3 perfectly represents that open distance that the artist intended.
Overall sound stage: As I alluded to earlier, the soundstage on the LCD-3's is very wide. It has one of those sound stages that is easy to get lost in. If I close my eyes, and let the music take over, I find myself in a complete other world, with my entire body surrounded by whatever I'm listening to. First, that "punchiness" that planar magnetics have takes over, and after a few minutes, the width and openness dominates, and I'm gone–lost in the airy soundstage Audeze has created. The only downside is that it's easy to lose track of time once you get put in that world, which will inevitably happen every time. I don't think I've ever had a listening session less than 2 hours. The sound is addicting; once you start listening, it's very hard to stop.
There is one question I always ask myself when I listen to a headphone. Is it fun to listen to? In the end, a headphone sounding good is not all that matters. Obviously, a headphone this expensive isn't going to sound bad. But why would you spend $2,000 on a headphone if you don't have fun listening to it? When I compared the LCD-X and the LCD-3, this was the question I always kept in mind. Not what sounded better, but what did I have more fun listening to? The answer I came to was the LCD-3, and I find the LCD-3 very fun to listen to in general.
Another thing that I find important with headphones is how well they allow you to connect with music. Everybody has certain songs that they pair with very intense memories and emotions, and certain headphones can help us connect to these songs better than others. I have listened to a lot of headphones, and the LCD-3 stands out to me as one of the easiest to channel an emotional connection to music with. To me, playing a song that carries a lot of memories and emotion, and having the headphone I'm wearing allow me to feel all of those memories again and put me right back in that moment, is absolutely priceless. When I want to connect to the music I'm listening to, I am always going to reach for the LCD-3.
One final thing I would like to return to is value. Are the LCD-3's really worth $2,000? I think that really depends on the person. If you are the kind of person who just wants good, even great audio quality, then I don't think the $2,000 price range is for you. However, if you are the kind of person who shares an emotional bond with the music you listen to, and you are looking for the best way to get the entire experience of music–not just the sound quality–then you are the kind of person the LCD-3 is meant for. For me, the way the LCD-3 allows me to feel the music I'm listening to and connect with memories I have is a priceless trait.
Pros - Excellent sublimely smooth sound throughout, cool design, made in the USA
Cons - A bit heavy and bulky, expensive.
These are simply the best sounding headphones I have ever owned (and I've owned and sold a lot of them). They are sublimely smooth, yet detailed without the least bit of harshness at all in the highs. You can really notice this in the vocals which when compared to other headphones, which sound a lot smoother and less thin or grainy. These have a very good bass presence although they are not bass head headphones. I would actually before a bit more bass as I'm a bit of a bass head myself although I've been able to get these to sound how I like them by adding a bit of bass boost via my eq settings. The mids are very smooth and tube-like while the treble is very articulate yet imparts no sense of graininess or harshness whatsoever.
The design of these is very cool with the wood earcup surrounds and leather ear pads and head band.
My one complaint is that these are quite heavy so wearing them for long periods of time can tend to get a bit uncomfortable. That said, you should probably give your ears a rest periodically anyways so that is a reminder to take them off every once in a while during long listening sessions.
Note- I have the slightly older non "fazor" version of these, which is 50 Ohms-works well with my headphone amps.
Pros - Not fatiguing, build quality, timbre, bass,
Cons - A bit too dark for my tastes, can sound congested sometimes, heavy weight, now I want to buy an LCD2
First off, before I begin this review, I would like to give a big thank you to the guys over at Audeze and Burson Audio for letting me demo their Conductor SL & LCD3. This review would not have been possible if it wasn't for their generosity. Stay tuned for a Conductor SL review soon.
Comfort/Build: Very good, the LCD3 does a good job at evenly distributing the weight around your head so that no specific area has more pressure on it causing fatigue. The lambskin earpads are very plush. This, coupled with modest padding towards the top of the headband offers you fair resistance against the heavy weight, which is the only comfort problem for me. The LCD3s feel well built in the hands and look stunning with the Zebrano wooden cups. Padding on the headband is adequate and the pads, again, are wonderfully plush and soft yet create a good seal on my head. A removable cable sporting mini XLR connectors is a definitely a plus. The LCD3 is nearly all metal/wood in the construction. Only cons (which are very minor nitpicks) is that the rodblocks where the gimbals are located are made of plastic. Also, the stock cable feels and looks a little cheap, but can be easily replaced.
Bass: The LCD3 is close to perfection. Bass has excellent extension, boasting a response that goes all the way down to 20hz. However, it rolls off at 30hz. The LCD3 lacks a mid-bass hump and has modest impact in the sub-bass regions with slightly less bloom in the mid/upper bass frequencies relative to the sub-bass. The low end is able to keep up with fast paced music (techno/metal/rock) and can deliver a nice rumble when the track calls for it. Listening to various electronic (house/dubstep), you really can appreciate the LCD3s sub-bass. You literally can feel the lowest bass notes with these.
Mids: Lush would be the way I would describe the midrange. Vocals and instruments sound full bodied and timbre is pristine. I find that the LCD3 can reproduce the sound of instrumentation accurately and it sounds very close to real life on a good recording. Drum cymbals and hi-hats however are my only gripe, they are not reproduced well due to the Audezes slightly dark sound. I find the HD600, which is a fifth of the cost of the Audeze, sounds better with cymbals/hi hats (though the 600s don’t reproduce bass drum as well) I feel that overall the HD600 has better timbre on the drums.
Treble: The treble is the achilles heel of the LCD3 and it's sort of a love it or hate it affair. Simply put it, the highs are not fatiguing and are laid back. Sibilance, if present, is slightly attenuated. The issue with the treble is that it slightly lacks in air and overall aggressiveness, making it boring and too laid back for some. However, others without the highest quality sources will appreciate that it is very forgiving and treble sensitive users will also love that the LCD3 has a laid back sound. I personally would prefer more bite on electric guitars, the harp, and violin. I find that a slight bump with equalization in the 3-5k/10-14k area really helps the Audezes shine.
Soundstage: The LCD3 lacks the width and size of other offerings. However, it provides an excellent balance between intimacy and space. I never felt that the music sounded diffused and too far away. The LCD3 gives you the impression that you are fairly up close and intimate with the music, yet, not so much so that it sounds excessively forward and in your face (HD600 is like this). Instrument separation is good and I could distinguish where certain instrumentation was easily in small jazz ensembles but the LCD3 sounded slightly claustrophobic with large orchestras.
Amping and Synergy: I found that LCD3 to be driven easily with the Burson Conductor SL. Using high gain, I usually had the volume half way for music with a large dynamic range. With modern music, the volume was set at 25-35%. Getting to a good volume is easy on the LCD3, mobile devices I tested it with were an iPhone 5, Note III, and Fiio E7 which were able to drive it to near deafening volumes (but had to be set near max volume to get decently loud on recordings with a large dynamic range) But of course on a mobile device the Audezes were obviously were not driven to their full potential and lacked sound wise. The first thing was a slight bass loss and distortion.
Versus others: Unfortunately, I don’t own anything similar like the LCD2/LCDX/HE6/etc. This is an apples to oranges comparison, the HD600 is a completely different phone, but it’s relatively popular and I know many have heard it so it may be a good reference point. The HD600 has a brighter sound overall and treble/ timbre on the drums is the only thing it happens to beat the LCD3 on. Both offer about the same amount of detail, yet the HD600 has a way of presenting it in a more assertive manor. Immediately switching to the HD600 reveals it sounds narrow and congested, brighter, less bassier, and slower. However, I still enjoy them. I actually prefer some songs on the HD600 over the LCD3. Take for instance Little Tuesday, by The Flashbulb, it’s mainly all drums and I find that the HD600 sounds much clearer and more true to life on this track.
Final words: The LCD3 is a superb headphone if you’re looking for something that is smooth and easy on the ears. It does everything well except for its slight treble deficiency. However, that’s sort of the magic of the LCD3. They never fatigue and rarely are they harsh. You just enjoy the music with them while any recording flaws (while still present) are modestly attenuated.
Song tests (320kb MP3/FLAC via Burson Conductor SL w/ 9018 DAC via optical input)
Miles Davis, Freddie Freeloader, Kind of Blue
Like: Excellent timbre and bass texture. Instrumentation sounds full bodied, natural, and quite real. Soundstage is perfect, you feel relatively intimate and close to the ensemble.
Don't Like: Cymbals could be more prominent, trumpet lacks slightly in air.
Richard Wagner, Ride of the Valkyries, Apocalypse Now Soundtrack
Like: Again, excellent timbre, the instruments sound very true to life. The warmer signature of the LCD3 makes the instrumentation sound very full as well.
Don't Like: Slightly congested sound made instruments sound mashed together during complex parts of the song due to the warm signature.
Avenged Sevenfold, Victim, Nightmare
Like: Immediately in the towards the start of the song the bass from the drums are perfect, you can almost feel it. I feel immersed in the atmosphere and actually with the artist in the studio. Guitars sound full and lush as well as vocals. Sibilance is present in the vocals, but attenuated slightly.
Don't Like: Cymbals could be just a touch brighter and more present. More bite on the guitars would have been welcomed.
Gorillaz, Latin Simone, Self Titled Album
Like: A full sound with an overall pleasant tone. Instrumentation such as the piano have good timbre. Vocals dead in the center and focused with respective instruments towards the left and right.
Don't Like: None.
Couple of quick picks
Pros - Heavy & powerful bass, very full mid-range
Cons - Lack of clarity & musical dynamics, moderate scale, physically heavy & uncomfortable
Originally published on February 6, 2012
Note: this review is an exact cross-post from post #1 of this thread on Head-Fi, which contains some user discussion on the review that may be relevant to read: http://www.head-fi.org/t/594426/mini-review-audeze-lcd-3-vs-lcd-2-r2-sr-007-et-al
- download a printable 5-page PDF version of this review (right-click the link & save target)
- download a printable 5-page PDF version of the notes that were written for this review (right-click the link & save target). The notes should be considered a supplement and not a replacement for this review (as the review is not straight from the notes).
This is basically a mini-, multi-way review of the Audeze LCD-3 headphones, which were announced and demonstrated at CanJam@RMAF 2011. Though I also included the AD2K and HD800 for the sake of calling this a multi-way review, the most extensive comparisons were made specifically against the LCD-2 r2 and Stax OII MKI (SR-007 from here on out). The LCD-2 r2 and SR-007 comparisons were done specifically to address what I thought would be two of the most common questions about the LCD-3: (1) What does the LCD-3 offer over the LCD-2 r2? (2) Is the LCD-3 competitive with the SR-007?
To clarify my "mini-review" heading, I always call my reviews "mini-reviews" when the review period is a relatively short length of time, as my reviews are usually done over months. In this case for the LCD-3, the review period was approximately 4 weeks.
This mini-review can be considered as a companion/follow-up piece to my Audeze LCD-2 multi-way review, which can be read here: http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd2-planar-magnetic-headphones/reviews/10299
Note: the review LCD-3 unit is one I bought. I usually write reviews on stuff I buy, as I'm averse to manufacturer loans—IMO this removes any manufacturer expectations on the review, and it allows me to take as much time as I want as well.
Reviewer Biases & Info
My view of a headphone system is "source first" followed by headphones and then amp. In other words, a source of highest quality possible (assuming recordings of high quality also) should be paired with the most preferential-sounding headphone(s), to be driven by the most technically-optimal amp. In my view, the most technically-optimal amp is the one that provides sufficient power for all headphones being used without inflecting its own sonic signature, or minimally at least.
Some portions of the review/notes below refer to the sound of live instruments. As an FYI to put those references into the proper context, I'm a trained violinist (learned via the Suzuki method for 12 years starting at age 6, then quit lessons at 18 and have been playing on and off since, and I'm 30 now) and have had the opportunity several times to play in a symphony or chamber orchestra, and I've attended classical-music concerts as well.
- Source component: Plinius CD-101 (CD player) (power cord: Signal Cable Silver Resolution Reference - directly into wall)
- Analog interconnects: Analysis Plus Silver Oval XLR
- Headphone amplifiers: HeadAmp GS-X for the dynamic headphones, HeadAmp Blue Hawaii SE for the SR-007 (OII MKI)
- Comparison headphones: Audeze LCD-2 r2, Audio-Technica AD2000, Sennheiser HD800, Stax SR-007
- Aftermarket headphone cables: Moon Audio Silver Dragon V3 XLR on Audeze headphones and HD800, APureSound V3 XLR on AD2000
It should also be noted here that I used the LCD-3, LCD-2 r2, and AD2000 solely in balanced mode. I never once used the stock ADZ-6 or ADZ-6-B4 cables. I used balanced mode because I expected the LCD-3 to sonically benefit from it, as I previously compared the LCD-2 r2 balanced on my GS-X versus unbalanced on the Schiit Lyr and found that it sounded better when balanced on the GS-X.
CDs by the following artists/bands, by genre:
- Americana/Bluegrass/Folk: Alison Krauss & Union Station, Priscilla Ahn
- Blues: Eva Cassidy
- Classical: Carlos Kleiber & VPO, Julia Fischer, Nicola Benedetti
- Electronica/Trip-Hop/Industrial: Andrea Parker, Fluke, Front Line Assembly, Future Sound of London, Hybrid, Massive Attack, Neotropic, Orbital, Portishead, The Crystal Method, The Prodigy
- Jazz: Dave Brubeck, Lee Morgan, Tord Gustavsen
- Rock: Porcupine Tree, Tool
- Metal: Amon Amarth, Anthrax, Arch Enemy, Behemoth, Dimmu Borgir, Emperor, Helloween, Lacuna Coil, Meshuggah, Soilwork
- Soundtracks: Batman Begins (film OST), Descent II (PC game)
Specific tracks on the CDs are given in the review notes (see the PDF, linked at the top).
vs LCD-2 r2
When I first started informally comparing the LCD-3 to the LCD-2 r2, I wasn't sure there was a huge difference between them—the differences seemed subtle, primarily in the soundstaging.
However, after extended critical comparisons I ended up concluding that the LCD-3 was more different than I initially thought—and in some ways, better, though not in every aspect. The primary differences that I found between the two were: more treble quantity and more of a treble tilt on the LCD-2, accordingly less bass and mid-range quantity on the LCD-2, and a suffocating forward/up-front/closed-in soundstage on the LCD-2—specifically, too-close positioning of musical elements that made music sound more directly in front (as well as directly to the left & right sides), plus just a slight sense of trapped sound-wave reverberation (sort of like the acoustics of a small soundproofed room). The LCD-3's soundstage, on the other hand, wasn't as suffocating and for me was a step in the right direction—adding just enough breathing room and pushing everything away so nothing felt too close.
The more listening I did between the LCD-2 and LCD-3, the more I came to like the LCD-3—for specifically its added mid-range body and bass quantity. Though it did seem to sacrifice a bit of treble quantity in comparison, the LCD-3 sounded even more full, visceral, and tactile, traits that I thought were already done fairly well on the LCD-2. Not that this was a day & night type of difference, but for me it was noticeable enough to increase my enjoyment of certain music genres like electronica/trip-hop and metal.
Based on my cumulative headphone experience since 2006 (dynamic & electrostatic), I'd call the LCD-3 one of the most visceral-, tactile-sounding headphones that I've heard to date. To me it represented almost exactly what I originally wanted from Audeze when I first heard the LCD-2 r1—a ballsy, gut-driving, bass-focused, and very assertive-sounding headphone. I'd probably sum it up as a less-suffocating, heavier-, and darker-sounding version of the LCD-2 r2—sort of like the LCD-2 r2 tuned down for even more mid-range/bass presence, and with more spatial dimension at the same time (primarily in z-axis depth, but also x-axis lateral span). In other words, the LCD-3 offered more physical-, deeper-sounding vocals (mostly male, but also female) and brought out instruments like bass guitars more. For me this made the LCD-3 an even more obvious choice than the LCD-2 for electronica/trip-hop, heavy/hard rock, and metal music—it just made everything sound more atmospherically "dark" or malevolent. In fact, I think I'd recommend the LCD-3 for listeners of dark or malevolent music in general, it was that awesome. By the end of my LCD-3 ownership, I was seriously enjoying the LCD-3 on industrial music as well—I'll just say it was bad-ass! I can't think of a reason why anyone who listens to electronica/trip-hop, hard rock, or metal, would be dissatisfied with the LCD-3.
Not that the LCD-3 didn't also do well with other genres like classical and jazz, because it did—it was completely fine. Acceptable for most people I'm sure, and for me it was probably among the best dynamic headphones I've heard for this music type—but that's not really saying all that much for me, as the only other full-size dynamic headphones that I think are the best for classical & jazz are the Grado HP1000 and Sennheiser HD600.
However, classical music is where I started noticing most of the LCD-3's recurring flaws from the LCD-2 (r1 & r2). The LCD-3 continued to lack in the aspects that I criticized the LCD-2—specifically scale, dynamic range, soundstage accuracy, clarity, and diffusion. To be more specific on scale, dynamic range, & clarity:
- Scale: This is a subjectively nebulous term admittedly, but on orchestral recordings, usually you want the orchestra to sound "big"—i.e., to generate a wall of sound that fills up the acoustic space and sounds like every instrument section is contributing to it left to right, back to front (violins to cellos, including percussion and brass from the back). The LCD-3 never sounded like anything more than mid-sized, while the SR-007 consistently generated that filling wall of sound from a massive-sounding symphony orchestra. For me, scale also alternately means a single instrument (or a few at most) sounding small as well, which the LCD-3 didn't convincingly portray and made single instruments stick out way too much in the soundtrack mix.
- Dynamic range: The LCD-3 rehashed the LCD-2's relative inability to produce really quiet versus really loud volumes, in contrast to the SR-007, which is extremely adept at this. Pianissimo-level violin parts, for example, simply sounded not very quiet on it, and likewise fortissimo volume levels weren't tear-off-the-ceiling loud. Additionally, everything in between quiet and loud all sounded at similar volume levels with barely any audible modulation. In fact, it seemed like there were only 3 volume settings on the LCD-3: slightly quiet, moderate, and slightly loud. This actually negatively affected my enjoyment of recordings like Carlos Kleiber's Beethoven 5 & 7 with the VPO, Nicola Benedetti's Fantasie (specifically "Spiegel Im Spiegel"), and Julia Fischer's Bach Concertos & Paganini: 24 Caprices. In contrast to the LCD-3's might-as-well-have-been 3 volume settings, the SR-007 rendered everything from barely-there quiet to intensely loud, and every music piece sounded way better because of it.
For those familiar with the musical terms, I'd describe the dynamic range of the LCD-3 vs SR-007 this way: the LCD-3's seemed like it went from mezzo-piano (mp) to mezzo-forte (mf). The SR-007's seemed like it went from pianissimo possibile (ppp) to fortissimo possibile (fff). The LCD-3 was completely incapable of rendering sforzando, which the SR-007 handled easily. Other musical dynamics that were also mostly lost on the LCD-3 but properly conveyed on the SR-007: crescendo/diminuendo, fortepiano, & marcato (among others as well, but notably these).
- Clarity: I expected this to be a large improvement on the LCD-3 from the LCD-2 given its new "Lotus" driver as reported by Audeze, but found that in actuality it was actually largely exactly the same and didn't offer any improved clarity. As in the case of LCD-2, there was a severe noticeable disparity between the LCD-3 and SR-007 in this aspect. I ended up concluding that its lack of clarity was completely unacceptable for a $2K headphone—it should have been much better considering the ~100% price increase over the LCD-2.
Ultimately the LCD-3 failed just about as much as the LCD-2 in approaching the level of my SR-007 electrostatic system for classical & jazz, barely sounding like any kind of progress over the LCD-2. Though it was certainly at least one step closer with the improved, less-suffocating soundstaging, it needed at least 100 more steps (if not more) to even get on the same plane of existence as the SR-007. It had less-realistic-sounding violins than the LCD-2 as well (not enough treble quantity), which to me was a step backwards.
I wrote in my LCD-2 multi-way review that I thought the LCD-2 had a yin-yang relationship with the HD800, with the two as sonic opposites—the HD800 being clear and treble-tilted with a very open soundstage, the LCD-2 being more mid-range- and bass-tilted with a compressed soundstage.
I ended up thinking that the LCD-3 was even more yin to the HD800's yang. It was even more opposite to the HD800 thanks to its increased, heavier mid-range & bass and dulled treble, contributing to a fuller, more "assertive" sound compared to the HD800's thinner, "passive" sound. The two headphones seemed like a good complementary pairing and I could easily believe that a Head-Fier would want to own both for different reasons.
I wrote of the LCD-2 in its multi-way review that it was heavier-, deeper-, and more physical-sounding versus the AD2K, with less treble quantity as well. This was even truer for the LCD-3, enough that it was almost an opposite to the AD2K in only the frequency-balance aspect. It was clearly a darker-, heavier-sounding "version" of the AD2K as well with much more of a fill in the lower mid-range and bass. It was a very nice difference, as this made the LCD-3 sound more "mean".
Although the LCD-3 got substantially closer than the LCD-2 to unseating the AD2K as my favorite headphone (disturbingly close, actually), it failed mostly because it just didn't have the AD2K's forward-moving insistent sound that I've gotten used to. If the LCD-3 had that elusive quality from the AD2K, that would probably be my ideal headphone—or to put it another way, if the AD2K had the LCD-3's bass, that'd be my ultimate electronica/rock/metal headphone, period.
I really enjoyed my short time with the LCD-3. So much that I actually kinda miss it a little bit now (sold it just after my 4th week with the headphones). It kicked serious ass on especially electronic, industrial, and metal music.
Some might ask why I sold both the LCD-2 r2 and LCD-3. There were two major reasons: (1) Neither of them were very comfortable to wear and exerted too much clamping pressure, and (2) Neither of them sonically offered much beyond the AD2K or HD800 for my music preferences while downright detracting my enjoyment in certain ways (lack of forward-moving insistence versus the AD2K, lack of treble versus the HD800) and as a dynamic counterpart to my electrostatic system it wasn't remotely good enough. For all the times I tried listening to music I would've otherwise used my electrostatic system for, I couldn't get past the LCD-3's sub-standard portrayal.
I think anyone seeking more high-end options than the LCD-2 should seriously consider an electrostatic system instead of the LCD-3, like an SR-007 & KGSS, or just not bother upgrading at all. For me personally, I can easily get just about all of the LCD-3 enjoyment through my Audio-Technica AD2K instead, which is ~25% the cost. I do admittedly miss the heavy bass and extreme tactility of the LCD-3 now, but the AD2K is awesome in its own way. My current headphone system comprised of the balanced AD2K and HD800 plus the SR-007 & BHSE, with the JH13 IEMs thrown in for good measure, meets my preferences just about perfectly for every music type that I listen to. I can live without the LCD-3, but that doesn't mean I didn't think it was awesome—it was, but it was also a severe let-down to me at the same time. Despite that, the LCD-3 easily earned a place on my personal above-average headphone ranking, which also includes the HD800, T1, LCD-2 (r1/r2), and Grado HP1000, but for me it's too bad it couldn't transcend to my excellent ranking, which includes the SR-007, Qualia 010, and JH13 (IEMs).
As highly as I thought of the LCD-3 in certain aspects, at the same time I thought it was very mediocre too. It took some steps forward from the LCD-2—wider & deeper soundstaging, fuller mid-range contributing to increased tactility; but it made no progress at all in other aspects including scale, dynamic range, and clarity. As awesome as it was for the music types mentioned above, it didn't sound like the improvement it should have been over the LCD-2 at approximately twice the price, and for that I can't recommend it for any kind of critical listeners who'd be expecting the LCD-3 to be "better" than the LCD-2.
- LCD-2 multi-way review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/audeze-lcd2-planar-magnetic-headphones/reviews/10299
- Audio-Technica AD2K 5-year re-review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/audio-technica-ath-ad2000/reviews/10293
- Beyerdynamic T1 review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/beyerdynamic-tesla-t1/reviews/10295
- Sennheiser HD800 review: http://www.head-fi.org/products/sennheiser-hd-800-headphones/reviews/10294
Pros - Balanced Sound, Warm, bassy, detailed
Cons - Weight, price compared to 2.2, Build durability, not as clear as other reference
Audeze is currently one of the headphone audio pioneers in this field. They don't just farm out drivers from OEM's and what not. They design, tune and sell them for the purpose of mastering audio. The LCD-3 is one of the world's best headphone right now next to the HD800's, Orpheus, SR-009 and many other units. The LCD-2 skyrocketed Audeze to being one of the most bought summit-fi cans. I wish to thank Audeze for jumping in with Burson to send the LCD-3 to me for review. And I wish to thank Burson as well for even making this possible.
Read the review here:
The quality of the LCD-3 is marvelous and at the same time worrying. Everything on it is either shiny or Earthy. the wood used for the 'faceplate' is real and of high quality. Custom made and designed by Audeze. It feels sleek and has the air of quality around it. The pads used are soft, and show no signs of being flaky, and the headband is the same. No cracks are detected in them(I've only had them for short time) but it also doesn't seem like they will develop them for a long time if ever. The LCD-3 has personal quality to it. Quality that gives it a feel of legitimacy, expense, and of nobility. However in terms of how well built this is in terms of not breaking. The LCD-3 is worrisome. The joints leading from the headband to the drivers were meticulously designed but of course still feel very weak to me. Pictures have also shown that I am right to be worried about that part as well. The good thing is that that is also probably the cheapest part to replace as no audio wires are up there. The termination into the dual cables also worry me in terms of how one should place the LCD-3 on a table and if something pushed against it head on by accident. But of course, this is a $2,000 marvel so there is some leniency towards it in terms of it needing protection.
The LCD-3 of course is open and is a planar magnetic. This means that you can't use it easily on the go (unless you are as awesome as ALO Audio ). Placing your hands in front of the LCD-3's front grills also distorts the sound due to the design of the drivers (some planar magnetics don't need an open back plate like the T50RP) and so this also means that you are limited in use to it. This headphone obviously was not designed for any of those situations where you can get comfy with the LCD-3. I am just mentioning the obvious as some want to know and as it is part of the usability. How one can put the LCD-3 down is also an issue. I personally had to resort to using the soft case of my Macbook Pro as the throne of the LCD-3 for the past two weeks.
Audeze gives you an XLR terminated plug along with a Quarter inch (TS) terminated cable. So you have the option to go balanced or not. The Audeze units themselves have mini xlr male terminations on each side of the driver facing forward. The cable is of good quality, and the termination of the cable is a bit DIY-ish in where you can take it apart. I have no qualms with the cable for the most part.
Isolation and Leak:
You are reading the wrong review for the wrong headphone if you want to actually know about this section. But for the record, these are open and can get quite loud. Outside sounds also penetrate in.
The pads themselves were very comfortable, but the headband started to get annoying. This is not the headbands fault. Audeze made the headband as comfy as they could, but this was to only help with the other issue. The weight of the LCD-3's. All the weight is thus on your head and it does make you hate the headbands. Although that hate is a bit wrong. They are good for about 3-4 hours without taking them off at the max I think. I don't have much hair, and those that do may want to do it sooner. The only softer pads my ears touch are my pillows. And even then, the LCD-3's driver pads are still much comfier than my pillows.
I do not use many high end parts. I have owned the Audio-gd NFB 12.1 and have been sent review samples of many other units. The whole point of this tour was to give people that don't use $2000 headphones the chance to do a write up on them and what not. So this will just be my own thoughts and do not reflect an actual professional review where the reviewer would have had a plethora of knowledge and experience with units at this price point.
For this review, I used the AKG Q701 and Burson Soloist SL. The constant DAC was the Cirrus Logic CS4398. I have had experience with the LCD2.2 for a home demo thanks to Justin at Headamp and wil include that.
The lows of the LCD-3 are absolutely fantastic. They extend far while having great feel and presence to them. Many call it greatly textured and I can not agree more. You can finally hear and 'feel' the actual lows. Almost as if you could touch them. They don't accentuate the mid bass and keep it fairly smooth throughout. The mids on the LCD-3's are amazing. I was less than impressed with the LCD 2.2's but these are great. The vocals are forward and have good presence to them. The lower end of the vocals isn't as thick as the mid vocal range which is good in my opinion. And what is even better is the layering of the mids from the vocals. The instruments are very noticeably seperated from the vocals. No, this is not the song I am listening to. This is two weeks of listening to music from every genre, watching movies, watching videos and what not with them. The layering of the mid instruments from the vocals is really just out of this world. And finally the highs. The highs of the LCD-3 are there. It won't satisfy those that want the frequency to be well represented and bright(but not fatiguing). But what it does have is a mellow high frequency range that is smooth but without much presence to them.
Compared to AKG Q701:
There is close to no competition now with the LCD-3. The only two thing the Q701's have for it are the light weight of it so it can be 'thrown' anywhere and comfort. All due to its lightness. And being a better light sounding can for those that prefer it. The LCD-3's are dark and add that sound sig to nearly everything it plays. Some want a very light sound signature that doesn't carry the entire weight of the music behind it, and that is where the Q701's can shine. However everywhere else the Q701 loses out. The Q701's won in the mid range from the 2.2(depending on what you like) but the Q701's layering of the mids to vocals is nowhere near the level of the LCD-3s. And now that the vocals are also forward, the Q701's have really nowhere to run. The vocals are well presented on the LCD-3's and have depth. The low end of the Q701's is laughable compared to the LCD-3's. But keep in mind that there is nearly a 7X-10X cost difference between the two.
Compared to LCD-2.2:
I do not have the LCD-2.2 side by side. So this is the most probably possibly in-accurate section. Bear that in mind please, but I personally felt like the mid bass of the LCD 2.2 was more pronounced and louder than the LCD-3s. The LCD-3's are more like reference headphones where everything is smoothed out and made equal. The vocals of the LCD-2.2 are also laid back and fairly mellow which just wasn't my cup of tea. That is the most I can maybe remember between the two.
Pros - Bass Quality, perfect coloration
Cons - weight, upper region, stereo imaging width
A preview spot for my LCD-3 review coming soon.
This review will be extensive, in depth and as thorough as possible. I don't want to bore you with specification and details in the beginning of this review, you can read the details afterward. That is just how I roll. #likeaboss
The End Credits
Every once in a while, the audio deities bestow upon us a very special product. Praise worthy of the highest order, shining bright upon the summit of Mt. Audiophile. No question or doubts in my mind that no other manufacturer of Hi-Fi products has been able to take over the Audiojunky community so effectively, efficiently and as quickly as Audeze has. Seemingly overnight, the LCD-2 won the hearts and ears of the majority of those who listened to it. A while back, decades in Audiophile years, the LCD-3 was released. To the shock and dismay of most of the other headphones out there, they had swiftly taken over the pack as The Alpha. The Audeze LCD-3 experience is nothing short of incredible. From top to bottom, no other headphone in existence that I've ever listened to has been able to sucker punch me with that much class and style. T.K.O. Done. I give up. Audeze wins.
Pros - King of bass, excellent dynamics, tactile feel of sound, very good imaging, good soundstage
Cons - Very expensive, I do not own one yet
I have re-auditioned the Audeze LCD3 and I have been very impressed.
I had to get the HD800 to really understand the LCD3 . First time I have heard it, it impressed me, but I did not think it to be that much above LCD2.
In the last month with HD800 and LCD2 I found myself listening a little more to the sennheisers. LCD2 seemed to lack in dynamics, details and soundstage compared to HD800.
Darku was kind enough again to lend me his LCD3 for a week. I must say these days my impressions of LCD3 had completely changed from the first time I have listened to them.
It has exactly what I found to be lacking in LCD2.
They feel more refined than the LCD2. Also they are more comfortable. Their pads are softer, the zebra wood gives them a nice look and feel and they fit better on the head.
Let’s get to what is really important: the sound.
Here are my impressions on a few songs:
(The tests have been made with the Burson Conductor and the Toxic Silver Widowcable)
Leonard Cohen – Dress Rehearsal Rag
The first thing that popped out was the change of tonality and the soundstage. LCD3 seem more neutral to me. The sound really opened up to a level you cannot find the music to be congested any more. Leonards’ voice has an excellent texture and body. The guitars were much more apparent on LCD3 and had a tactile feeling on them.
Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon – Time
Again the soundstage was considerable wider. The positioning of the bells was better on LCD3 and they had more sparkle. The drums from the beginning had again a tactile feel on LCD3. You can feel the music with it.
ABBA, Mamma Mia Slipping Through My Fingers
I just loved this song on LCD3. All blended in with great musicality. The voice was brilliant and had wonderful texture and presence. The chorus and instruments behind had a very well placed position. The sound was so better layered and you could hear all the voices in the chorus distinctively. Excellent round sound. It was so good it gave me goosebumps.
Dire Straits, Brother In Arms – Ride Across The River
Wow, the dynamics are absolutely awesome on LCD3. You can really enjoy music on lower volumes because of this. And the bass…so deep, so well controlled so full & detailed …. mesmerizing. Somewhere on a back, a guitar told magical story that makes you weep of joy, while all the instruments around it make you feel there.
Franz Schubert -Piano Trio No. 1 in B flat Major D898 – Andante un poco mosso
The instruments are excellently put into space and have a lot air between them. You can hear every one of them and each with different intensity and feel. The instruments have great extension and a very important tactile feeling.
Infected Mushrooms, Army of Mushrooms – Wanted to
The bass is absolutely incredible. I think this is the best bass I have ever heard in a headphone and there is no doubt about it. It has an incredible body, goes incredible low and is very detailed! The sound is very well rounded, not too much of anything keeping a very good balance.
Is it better than LCD2? It definitely is. It will be hard going back to it knowing what these new babies can do.
You can feel that the LCD3‘s drivers are more thin and are faster.
The dynamics are one of the most important thing they bring over LCD2. You can hear the full extension of the instruments now. Every sound has a fuller life . You can hear it born and you can hear it disappearing in the dark.
The soundstage is considerably wider than LCD2, the instruments are better separated and have more air between them.
The bass is more detailed and refined than LCD2 and is the best bass I have heard in a headphone till date.
They are more neutral and the treble is more defined than with LCD2.
There are somethings that I like about LCD2 as well. The lower midrange and bass have a little more impact. Also the sound has a nice warmer color on them. The voices are a little fuller.
You will ask yourself if they are better than Sennheiser HD800. I, for one love them both and don’t consider one to be better than the other. They sound very different and both are excellent in their own way.
Even after LCD3 when you put HD800 on your head, the sound opens a lot.
HD800 is still more detailed, has a wider soundstage , better positioning and instrument separation.
However, LCD3 has a fuller sound with the best bass I have ever heard, a creamy, tactile sound and great musicality.
King of the bass
Detailed, yet very smooth and musical
Tactile feel of sound
Multi layered sound
Very good imaging
I do not own one )
Pros - Great bass extension; incredible transparency; very musical
Cons - Price - need I say more?
When $$$ is no consideration - these cans need to be at the top of your list. I have been an avid Sennheiser listener for years. Most recently with the HD600. My amps are Joseph Grado Signature (battery operated), Aspen Audio (model 823 - tube amp) and most recently The Pan Am (ALO Audio of Portland OR - also tube amp). I compared the new Sennheiser HD 800 to the Audeze LCD-3 recently and here is what I found. The HD 800 is surgical, quick and a bit bright. Musical but without the bass extension. Very clear but could cause fatigue due to its sharp edge. The LCD-3's are liquid, musical, stunning clarity, deep/powerful bass and present a full articulate soundstage. I must admit I have never heard anything quite like these cans. I am in love. I feel like I am listening to the same old stuff for the first time. Wow - they are that good. Yes they are crazy expensive - but an audiophile never considers money!!! Just sound quality. Why else would we spend thousands on power cables... My musical tastes cover the full spectrum of analog and digital - from metal to classical. Highly recommended.