Audeze LCD-3 Impressions Thread

[citraian]

If you don't notice it that much then it means that overall you have less bass impact and bass body

 

[Solude]

That I find hard to believe

 
And yet for the two LCD-3 and three LCD-2 I have owned that has been the case.

 

[screwdriver]

tug of war decision  lcd-3 vs lcd-x  - went for the lcd -3 . blind buy for me as i cant audition either 

 

[Solude]

Audeze didn't do themselves any favours pricing them so closely.  But who knows maybe there is a price bump coming for the LCD-3 to reassert that it is the top performer.

 

[roskodan]

 

That I find hard to believe

 
And yet for the two LCD-3 and three LCD-2 I have owned that has been the case.

not really unbelievable, having a source, amp, with recessed but quick punchy sub bass and bass and a very grainy treble and with overall less detail would make the 2 and 3 more similar than different
 
but what would be the point of having such lo-fi chain for 1k$+ cans

 
the lcd2 and lcd3 are very different indeed, on a competent chain
 
don't know what's the reason of so much debate, fuss, about the lcd2 being more punchy than the 3s, it's a fact, just look at their respective measurements
 
than again lcd3 does have more bass presence, especially in the sub bass, and it's more fun, liquid quick, more detailed
 
for those that looks for a better lcd2 and reach for the 3 as an upgrade, they might find it being an overall better can but consistently different in sound from the lcd2, and not liking the lcd3 sound, than it's hardly an upgrade from the 2
 
so far i found the lcd3 to be the more realistic sounding, and most emotional pair of cans i had to date in my setup
 
waiting for the he-6 to arrive, from looking at the measurements it's not difficult to tell that the lcd3 and he-6, and probably the lcd-x too, are indeed the "poor man's" stax sr-009

 

[negura]

I think the Lcd3 and X are more of a "poorman's" Sr007 mk1.He-6 yes those are more alongside the 009 sound signature. As useful as measurements are it is not easy drawing the complete picture.

 

[Solude]

  don't know what's the reason of so much debate, fuss, about the lcd2 being more punchy than the 3s, it's a fact, just look at their respective measurements

 
And what part of the measurements suggest to you that the LCD-2 is punchier?

 

[OPR8R]

I still have my LCD-2's but hadn't really listened to them since I got the 3's, until a few days ago.  On my setup the LCD-2's sound very good, but the 3's are another level in every regard (I care about).
 
When evaluating bass, I like to listen to something that has bass created from a synthesizer, but also something that has bass created from an analog, especially acoustic source.  I listen to the latter because I want to hear the the bass note in its entirety, eg., from the time the string is plucked until I can't hear the note anymore.  For me, LCD-3's are again, on another level in this department.  Bass notes sound more natural and have better extension.  As far as how hard bass hits and how deep it goes, LCD-3's just play what's there.
 
These Audeze's aren't like lesser headphones a lot of us have had.  Source, amplification, and even cables make a difference in the way they sound.

 

[Solude]

I think the Lcd3 and X are more of a "poorman's" Sr007 mk1.

 
Yup.  The LCD-2 Rev1 sent my O2 Mk1 out the door because they were cut from the same cloth but the O2 headband was was a torture device so... gone.

 

[negura]

   
Yup.  The LCD-2 Rev1 sent my O2 Mk1 out the door because they were cut from the same cloth but the O2 headband was was a torture device so... gone.

 
That is typical assessment on suboptimal downstream. The LCD-2s sound decent out of anything. On a higher-end system it's exactly the opposite. The 007MKI showed the LCD-3s the door.
 
Fitting is personal. Many people don't like the Audeze for example. I never had any confort problems with any headphones including Audeze. I guess I am just very average.

 

[Solude]

For me the O2 just didn't have the drive of the Audeze.  As for downstream, it wasn't summit fi but it was a HeadAmp KGSS and Stello DA220 mk2.

 

[negura]

  For me the O2 just didn't have the drive of the Audeze.  As for downstream, it wasn't summit fi but it was a HeadAmp KGSS and Stello DA220 mk2.

 
Well you named it. You may be surprised how lively and engaging they are on your PWD2 and with something like a KGSSHV.
 
That's not to dis the LCD-3s - I really enjoyed them. It's just that I think the 007 MK1 are better headphones, but unfortunately out of production.

 

[Solude]

Yup.  And Stax needs to work out some better headband designs  I had the metal arcs touching the top of my head and since the elastic under it pulls down... ouch/interesting hair impressions  But in a world where the HD650 was top dog... worth it!  If not for eventually knowing I would sell for another Stax or something else down the road I would have punched holes into the elastic to relieve some pressure.  To be fair I do change the arc on the Audeze cans so that you have to be 12 and older to wear them.  Why the headband has enough clamp that my 5 year can wear them, I never understood.  Can't be that much of a market for wealthy parents buying their toddlers LCD headphones /facepalm

 

[roskodan]

  I still have my LCD-2's but hadn't really listened to them since I got the 3's, until a few days ago.  On my setup the LCD-2's sound very good, but the 3's are another level in every regard (I care about).
 
When evaluating bass, I like to listen to something that has bass created from a synthesizer, but also something that has bass created from an analog, especially acoustic source.  I listen to the latter because I want to hear the the bass note in its entirety, eg., from the time the string is plucked until I can't hear the note anymore.  For me, LCD-3's are again, on another level in this department.  Bass notes sound more natural and have better extension.  As far as how hard bass hits and how deep it goes, LCD-3's just play what's there.
 
These Audeze's aren't like lesser headphones a lot of us have had.  Source, amplification, and even cables make a difference in the way they sound.

yes, the lcd3 are strangely darker and more detailed at the same time, and vocals sound much more convincing on the 3
 
when i listen to waterscapes, including rain, wind and storm recordings, the lcd3 is just the most realistic thing overall i ever heard
 

 

  don't know what's the reason of so much debate, fuss, about the lcd2 being more punchy than the 3s, it's a fact, just look at their respective measurements

 
And what part of the measurements suggest to you that the LCD-2 is punchier?

i had the lcd2 first, when i got the lcd3 first thing i noticed was the lack of the lcd2's signature punchy dry bass
 
for the measurements, you can look at the impulse response, the lcd2 have almost a perfect single first big peak, while the lcd3 have like two peaks almost the same size one after another
 
than the square wave response is much more sustained, linear, on the lcd2
 
which is probably why the lcd3 feels more sensible and detailed with music

 

[Solude]

It's the LCD-3 that has the larger overshoot then a smaller one.  Also a squarer graph indicates better sub bass.  The LCD-3 trades some sub bass in exchange for a greater reach into the presence region.  That said the better seal of the softer pads provides for better bass sustain and greater control in the same way it does an iem as opposed to with a poor seal.