[Noobmachine]

Hey guys, I've been struggling with the urge to upgrade and I've had the TH-900 in my sights for a while now, but since I own the LCD-2 I'm wondering if I should sell them to make way for the TH-900, or are they different enough in sound signature that it warrants me keeping it? I was planning to sell of my current 2 headphones (LCD-2 and W1000x) and picking up a TH-900 and a nice IEM for mobile use, but if the LCD-2 and TH-900 are nice compliments I may consider keeping it and just selling the W1000x. 
 
Any help would be appreciated! Thanks!

 

[HideousPride]

They sound quite different. Is there a financial burden if you keep the LCD 2s for a period of time? If not, you can just pick up the TH 900s and then compare to the LCD-2 yourself before making the decision.

 

[Greed]

Quote:

They sound quite different. Is there a financial burden if you keep the LCD 2s for a period of time? If not, you can just pick up the TH 900s and then compare to the LCD-2 yourself before making the decision.

 
+1 - You owe it to yourself to have both in house. There are major differences and only a few similarities. Buy the TH-900, have a listen, compare the two and see if it is worth have both. Personally, the TH-900 are a quite a bit better than the LCD-2

 

[preproman]

Quote:

. Personally, the TH-900 are a quite a bit better than the LCD-2

 
+1
 
I think so as well.

 

[Noobmachine]

Quote:

 
+1 - You owe it to yourself to have both in house. There are major differences and only a few similarities. Buy the TH-900, have a listen, compare the two and see if it is worth have both. Personally, the TH-900 are a quite a bit better than the LCD-2

Different how? Do you mind elaborating a little? I tried the TH-900 briefly at a meet recently and even in a noisy environment I could tell the soundstage was vastly superior to the LCD-2's but besides that are there any other differences?
 
Quote:

They sound quite different. Is there a financial burden if you keep the LCD 2s for a period of time? If not, you can just pick up the TH 900s and then compare to the LCD-2 yourself before making the decision.

Not particularly, I have enough moolah for the 2 to be around, it's just that I won't be able to afford a new IEM (which I might need considering I sold off my CIEMs to fund the TH-900) I can survive for a while without a mobile rig, so overall it it's a non-issue.

 

[LFC_SL]

Surely you would be considering the lcd3 if you have that much disposable income

 

[Noobmachine]

Quote:

Surely you would be considering the lcd3 if you have that much disposable income

I'm quite satisfied with the LCD-2's sound for the most part, and from what I've heard the LCD-3 is mostly a small little upgrade to the LCD-2. 
 
Im looking for more of a "side"grade? Like a broadening of my audio spectrum? I would have considered the HD800 as a contender but after an extensive demo I didn't find them to my liking, plus to get a new amp as well would be well above my budget....

 

[Greed]

Quote:

Different how? Do you mind elaborating a little? I tried the TH-900 briefly at a meet recently and even in a noisy environment I could tell the soundstage was vastly superior to the LCD-2's but besides that are there any other differences?
 
Not particularly, I have enough moolah for the 2 to be around, it's just that I won't be able to afford a new IEM (which I might need considering I sold off my CIEMs to fund the TH-900) I can survive for a while without a mobile rig, so overall it it's a non-issue.

 
The most immediate difference is the sound signature variance. The LCD-2 presents music in a warm, almost dark way that can sound quite congested and veiled in comparison. It has a shelved treble with liquid mids and pretty tight bass. The bass is a bit sloppy in comparison exhibiting some mid-bass bloom - but overall the LCD-2 bass is very good, and probably its best selling point. The TH-900 on the other hand, is a slight U shape. The treble is more extended and defined. The way the treble is done on the TH-900, is probably my favorite area. It has just the right amount of sparkle, but never sounds harsh or splashy. It is very refined and extends very well. Because the the TH-900 are somewhat U-shaped the mids can sound a bit lacking. They are slightly recessed and could stand to be more forward, especially with heavy vocal tracks, or complex passages with piano, violin, etc. This could be seen as the weakest point of the TH-900. It is interesting that even though the mids are somewhat distant, they still sound sweet and engaging. Very unique characteristic that I don't hear with many headphones that are U or V shaped. The bass is more prevalent, impactful, and full in comparison. It extends quite low and has a fast decay. I assume this is due to its very low distorsion rating. This leads to a fast, very dynamic sound that is really good for electronic music. The closed design also helps with resonance that can really give you that slam that is desired for that genre of music. 
 
Overall:
LCD-2 - Warm (almost dark), mid-centric (sweet, lush, liquid mids), intimate presentation (small soundstage, laid back)
TH-900 - "Fun" sound (U shaped signature), fast - visceral type bass that shines with fast and dynamic music like electronic, larger soundstage both width and depth, better imaging, better clarity and detail retrieval, more energetic presentation (more aggressive sound)
 
Both headphones have their unique characteristics, but overall my preference is the TH-900. It does many things right, and only a few things average (notice I didn't say bad). I can't say that othera will feel the same, but generally speaking - the TH-900 is better. Some may prefer the more intimate sound, so YMMV. 

 

[Noobmachine]

Quote:

 
The most immediate difference is the sound signature variance. The LCD-2 presents music in a warm, almost dark way that can sound quite congested and veiled in comparison. It has a shelved treble with liquid mids and pretty tight bass. The bass is a bit sloppy in comparison exhibiting some mid-bass bloom - but overall the LCD-2 bass is very good, and probably its best selling point. The TH-900 on the other hand, is a slight U shape. The treble is more extended and defined. The way the treble is done on the TH-900, is probably my favorite area. It has just the right amount of sparkle, but never sounds harsh or splashy. It is very refined and extends very well. Because the the TH-900 are somewhat U-shaped the mids can sound a bit lacking. They are slightly recessed and could stand to be more forward, especially with heavy vocal tracks, or complex passages with piano, violin, etc. This could be seen as the weakest point of the TH-900. It is interesting that even though the mids are somewhat distant, they still sound sweet and engaging. Very unique characteristic that I don't hear with many headphones that are U or V shaped. The bass is more prevalent, impactful, and full in comparison. It extends quite low and has a fast decay. I assume this is due to its very low distorsion rating. This leads to a fast, very dynamic sound that is really good for electronic music. The closed design also helps with resonance that can really give you that slam that is desired for that genre of music. 
 
Overall:
LCD-2 - Warm (almost dark), mid-centric (sweet, lush, liquid mids), intimate presentation (small soundstage, laid back)
TH-900 - "Fun" sound (U shaped signature), fast - visceral type bass that shines with fast and dynamic music like electronic, larger soundstage both width and depth, better imaging, better clarity and detail retrieval, more energetic presentation (more aggressive sound)
 
Both headphones have their unique characteristics, but overall my preference is the TH-900. It does many things right, and only a few things average (notice I didn't say bad). I can't say that othera will feel the same, but generally speaking - the TH-900 is better. Some may prefer the more intimate sound, so YMMV. 

 
Ah, In that case I think I'll hold onto the LCD-2's in that case, I've grown rather attached to the intimacy of the LCD-2, though at times it gets a bit stifling. I also have come to find the treble not extending as far as I'd like, even the vastly less expensive W1000x's do a better job in the treble department. I always had this unfounded innate assumption that the TH-900 had a "warm-ish" sound, I remember reading something like that somewhere, but hearing this I think they'll compliment very nicely
 
Thanks so much for the detailed write-up Greed! Very much appreciated!

 

[Greed]

Quote:

 
Ah, In that case I think I'll hold onto the LCD-2's in that case, I've grown rather attached to the intimacy of the LCD-2, though at times it gets a bit stifling. I also have come to find the treble not extending as far as I'd like, even the vastly less expensive W1000x's do a better job in the treble department. I always had this unfounded innate assumption that the TH-900 had a "warm-ish" sound, I remember reading something like that somewhere, but hearing this I think they'll compliment very nicely
 
Thanks so much for the detailed write-up Greed! Very much appreciated!

 
I think some call it warm because they view warm as bassy, but I don't think warm ultimately equals bassy. It is a combination of both bass emphasis and mids forwardness that is "warm" to me. YMMV
 
The TH-900 are bassy, but in a good way. The bass doesn't bleed into the mids, a fatal flaw of the Denon series. Fostex has corrected that and has made the bass more accurate in the since that not every track will have mind boggling BASS. It is now more polite in comparison. Don't get me wrong, the TH-600 and TH-900 are still bassy, but not to the extent that every track will be overpowered by bass. Hope that makes sense. 

 

[NZheadcase]

They're not genre specific, like for electronic only, right Grred? I'm not verily into electronic myself.

What about the TH600 vs LCD 2? Would you be able to share your thoughts?

 

[LFC_SL]

OK back home and had a 20 min breather. My comparison was only 45 min so they are nothing more than that! There is also no planned order to this post, so apologies in advance for whatever mess it turns out in. Would say however I learned more in these 45 min than in 3 hours at the London Head-Fi meet. It was just me and the hifiheadphones staff so zero background noise. Perfect demo conditions. Have ead *every* post in the first W3KANV thread, the new W3KANV thread and also this thread(!) When concerned with this much money there is no such thing as too little research

I mention that only to say I disagree slightly with certain comments that have come out but equally respect those are made by owners or those who have had extended home demo. So I may be completely wrong and if I had longer listening time then my opinions may change.
 

---

 
The TH900 like everyone says is more beautiful in person. Photographs tend to oversaturate the red and may not capture the little flakes that is part of the unique lacquer finish. With that said my slight preference is for the W3KANV and the AT plug is nicer. But these are minor points. The TH900 is super comfy and instantly go near the top of my personal experience chart. The HD800 larger cups and incredibly light design edges it but the TH900 is really very well designed on first impressions. I got on fine with the wing design on the W3000ANV after everything that was written. There was clamping that is less so than with my KEF M500 or Senn Momentum, but noticeable when you have the TH900 and HD800 next to it. Do not want to overstate the point, I was fine wearing it on my head but the TH900 and HD800 are like wearing beanie hats. Made from clouds. Or angel dust. The point is they are light and comfortable.
 
For demo duties I used hifiheadphones' kit. The Roksan CD player and the Senn amp pictured. Not sure if HDVA600 or HDVD800 but the amp sections are the same anyway AFAIK. Brought my own CDs.
Adele Live At The Royal Albert Hall - Someone Like You
Hendrix Band of Gypsys - Machine Gun
Alison Krauss + Union Station Live - Maybe and When You Say Nothing At All
Hans Zimmer TDK Soundtrack - Why So Serious?
 
I will get straight to it about the TH900 as I have already said it has changed my life. On the demo set-up the soundstage was especially spacious. It felt like I was in the Royal Albert Hall watching Adele. You really got the sense of the voice extending to the back rows. Amazing. And from a closed back design. The voice was beautifully presented and nice detail throughout the spectrum. Bass has great depth and slam. When listening to Machine Gun the guitar chords have this extra weight that really brings to life the imagery of war. That may sound hyperbolic but it is seriously hard not to become fully immersed and engrossed listening to the track through the TH900. A lot has been said also about a "U shape signature" or recessed mids. I really do not see it that way at all. The midrange is beautiful and female vocals are extremely clear and spacious again. Rather to me, the bass has been pushed forward just a little and the treble extended a touch. Slight difference in emphasis but I hope explains how I hear the TH900 signature. I consider the TH900 as straddling that line between balance and slight colouration at the same time and on superficial impressions only, Fostex have done it. It is contradictory yes but as someone for whom female vocals commands 70-80% listening time it is a critical point to me. If midrange does not cut it then the headphone will be disregarded. As cold as that. And with that hint of colouration the TH900 is a fun enjoyable headphone also. K701 kind of line, look elsewhere. It reminds me of my home demo of the Invicta dac. Every element presented in its own sense of space and air, yet as a coherent package. The TH900 does that as a headphone.
 
The W3000ANV is even more beautiful in person than online photography. But next to the TH900 the sound does not do it for me. The intense midrange colouration for me make the headphone sound thin. No other way to put it. Heck female vocals are meant to be something the AT is aimed at and yet I did not enjoy the sound nearly as much as the TH900 natural sounding presentation. As an ex-ESW9 owner* I wanted to love the W3000ANV (*do not allow younger siblings near your headphones as manufacturers do not stress-test headphones that way :/ ). Put it this way, if you take away the killer looks then I would be underwhelmed paying that much money for the sound on offer.
 
I took along TDK soundtrack as from 3 minute 30 sec into 'Why So Serious', the music clears and there is a wonderful sub-bass. I defy anyone to tell me the HD800 or W3000ANV bass is acceptable after listening to the TH900. Yet at the same time I do not consider the TH900 a bass monster at all. From my memory of the D5000/D7000, the TH900 has less bass presence but I prefer it over signatures that artificially boost bass in songs.  The strangest thing is I prefer the TH900 driven on Sennheisers flagship amp than with the HD800. Yeah really. The airiness and space of the HD800 is wonderful and all but something is missing and that is filled by the TH900. And could I invest in a headphone that is so picky? I spent the last part of the session just enjoying Alison's voice. Incredibly clean recording and this foot-tapping dynamic sound from the TH900. I did switch in the HD800 and W3000ANV but not as if at this stage my base opinion was changing.
 
The good / bad news was that I have already splashed out on a dac and amp this month. That just about stopped me from buying the TH900 on the spot, despite the eye-watering price tag. And it gives me a chance to see how the HD600 scales against my new purchases

But I might as well put it on my "to buy" list, well unless I manage to get quality time with Audeze away from meet conditions and get swayed in that direction. For anyone interested, HifiHeadphones say they have *five* remaining pairs of the W3000ANV. Once it is gone, it is gone. Not that this post helps sell it in any way at all.

 

[Greed]

Quote:

They're not genre specific, like for electronic only, right Grred? I'm not verily into electronic myself.

What about the TH600 vs LCD 2? Would you be able to share your thoughts?

 
Hopefully this will answer any questions you have - http://www.head-fi.org/t/595683/fostex-th900-impressions-discussion-thread/4995#post_9688953
 
I just did a small comparison between the two for noobmachine. 
 
If not, PM me your specific questions and I'll try and answer them as thoroughly as possible. 

 

[Dubstep Girl]

Quote:

 
The most immediate difference is the sound signature variance. The LCD-2 presents music in a warm, almost dark way that can sound quite congested and veiled in comparison. It has a shelved treble with liquid mids and pretty tight bass. The bass is a bit sloppy in comparison exhibiting some mid-bass bloom - but overall the LCD-2 bass is very good, and probably its best selling point. The TH-900 on the other hand, is a slight U shape. The treble is more extended and defined. The way the treble is done on the TH-900, is probably my favorite area. It has just the right amount of sparkle, but never sounds harsh or splashy. It is very refined and extends very well. Because the the TH-900 are somewhat U-shaped the mids can sound a bit lacking. They are slightly recessed and could stand to be more forward, especially with heavy vocal tracks, or complex passages with piano, violin, etc. This could be seen as the weakest point of the TH-900. It is interesting that even though the mids are somewhat distant, they still sound sweet and engaging. Very unique characteristic that I don't hear with many headphones that are U or V shaped. The bass is more prevalent, impactful, and full in comparison. It extends quite low and has a fast decay. I assume this is due to its very low distorsion rating. This leads to a fast, very dynamic sound that is really good for electronic music. The closed design also helps with resonance that can really give you that slam that is desired for that genre of music. 
 
Overall:
LCD-2 - Warm (almost dark), mid-centric (sweet, lush, liquid mids), intimate presentation (small soundstage, laid back)
TH-900 - "Fun" sound (U shaped signature), fast - visceral type bass that shines with fast and dynamic music like electronic, larger soundstage both width and depth, better imaging, better clarity and detail retrieval, more energetic presentation (more aggressive sound)
 
Both headphones have their unique characteristics, but overall my preference is the TH-900. It does many things right, and only a few things average (notice I didn't say bad). I can't say that othera will feel the same, but generally speaking - the TH-900 is better. Some may prefer the more intimate sound, so YMMV. 

 
seems about right. except i found the LCD-2 is laidback and dark, but still has some aggressive sound to it. like passive-aggressive. 
 
and the mids on the TH-900 really depend on the amp. they scale up as you upgrade. they are more revealing of source than the previous denon line. poor amping will make the U shape even more U shaped. the mids will be extremely recessed, even more than old denons, and the bass becomes super strong and muddys everything up. with better amping, the mids really come out nicely as warm yet fast and dynamic, and the bass is massive, but doesn't get in the way, and is way less distorted and much more controlled than the older line of headphones.

 

[brunk]

Quote:

 
seems about right. except i found the LCD-2 is laidback and dark, but still has some aggressive sound to it. like passive-aggressive. 
 
and the mids on the TH-900 really depend on the amp. they scale up as you upgrade. they are more revealing of source than the previous denon line. poor amping will make the U shape even more U shaped. the mids will be extremely recessed, even more than old denons, and the bass becomes super strong and muddys everything up. with better amping, the mids really come out nicely as warm yet fast and dynamic, and the bass is massive, but doesn't get in the way, and is way less distorted and much more controlled than the older line of headphones.

@ DG - Sorry for the slight OT guys, but do i notice that you just added the Grado PS1K to your collection? If so, how does it compare?