[hawkwindx]

Just got my LCD-3. It is an upgraded from my LCD-2C. I only been using them for about 20hrs. I find that they are not as spacious as the LCD-2C, and more fatigue. The mid and high are more detail for sure with a good quality bass. However I would love to have the spacious of the LCD-2C.
So my question is if I would let the LCD-3 have more burn-in time would it increase the spaciousness? Or it is intended this way. Should I return this and get the LCD-2 instead.
Thanks in advanced for all the inputs.

Maybe you’re suffering a little from buyer’s remorse. I did. They’re expensive headphones. I’ve had mine for maybe 2 months now. I think they did burn in but maybe I’ve just gotten used to them. I really like my LCD-3’s. I don’t find them heavy or “fatiguing”. I’m very happy I have them now.

Haven’t tried the LCD-2. What kind of amp do you use you LCD-3 with? Let us know if you think they have “burned in”.

 

[BryanNguyen]

Maybe you’re suffering a little from buyer’s remorse. I did. They’re expensive headphones. I’ve had mine for maybe 2 months now. I think they did burn in but maybe I’ve just gotten used to them. I really like my LCD-3’s. I don’t find them heavy or “fatiguing”. I’m very happy I have them now.

Haven’t tried the LCD-2. What kind of amp do you use you LCD-3 with? Let us know if you think they have “burned in”.

Thanks for the response. I'm running it straight from the Hugo 2. The sound is great, I was just expected the soundstage to be as wide as the LCD-2C. So I thinking the LCD-2 would be closer to the sound of LCD-2C. However I would give the LCD-3 two to three weeks to see how it turns out.

 

[Liu Junyuan]

Thanks for the response. I'm running it straight from the Hugo 2. The sound is great, I was just expected the soundstage to be as wide as the LCD-2C. So I thinking the LCD-2 would be closer to the sound of LCD-2C. However I would give the LCD-3 two to three weeks to see how it turns out.

Without having heard the Hugo 2 nor the LCD-3,* take this with a grain of salt: I would think the LCD-3s would scale up significantly with more power. They have a rated impedance load of 110 ohms, up from the 70 ohms of the LCD-2C. The most positive pairings I've read over the years have been with the likes of the GS-X MKII and amps capable of similar power.

*I do, however, own the LC-2C and have years of experience between the HE-500 and HE-6, planars that respond noticeably well to clean, powerful amps.

 

[gLer]

Without having heard the Hugo 2 nor the LCD-3,* take this with a grain of salt: I would think the LCD-3s would scale up significantly with more power.

I was going to suggest the same thing. While the LCD-3 will sound fine out of the Hugo, you really should give it far more power to get the most out of it. The Hugo pushes ~740mW @ 32ohm, which is far shy of the minimum recommended 1W @ 110ohm. Try it out of a more powerful amp - even using the Hugo as a dac - and you should hear a significant difference.

 

[x RELIC x]

Without having heard the Hugo 2 nor the LCD-3,* take this with a grain of salt: I would think the LCD-3s would scale up significantly with more power. They have a rated impedance load of 110 ohms, up from the 70 ohms of the LCD-2C. The most positive pairings I've read over the years have been with the likes of the GS-X MKII and amps capable of similar power.

*I do, however, own the LC-2C and have years of experience between the HE-500 and HE-6, planars that respond noticeably well to clean, powerful amps.

This is what the LCD-3 (102dB SPL/mW sensitivity and 110 Ohms resistance) needs for power (they are quite efficient actually):

http://www.digizoid.com/headphones-power.html



To get 120dB peaks (threshold of pain) you only need 63.36mW of power (2.64V and 24mA). Feed them more power and you get more volume which I wouldn’t recommend if you don’t want to destroy your hearing in a few seconds. I suggest that the implementation / tuning / synergy with the upstream gear is more a factor than unused power, and the Hugo2 has plenty of Voltage and Current to drive them. Just keeping it down to Earth rather than recommending spending money on just the power spec of an amp.

Also to add, I don’t buy in to Audeze’s generic marketing claim that they need 1-4W to power them well. The physics make no sense to require 1-4W of power for the LCD-3’s sensitivity at normal listening levels.

Edit: The sensitivity of the headphone is the more important spec when determining how much power they need. The impedance is more of an indication of the ratio of Voltage:Current required. The lower the impedance then the more Current is required vs Voltage. Planar headphones are considered a purely resistive load so therefore Current is very important, but not in the amounts that many think.

Thanks for the response. I'm running it straight from the Hugo 2. The sound is great, I was just expected the soundstage to be as wide as the LCD-2C. So I thinking the LCD-2 would be closer to the sound of LCD-2C. However I would give the LCD-3 two to three weeks to see how it turns out.

Curious, why would you expect the soundstage to be the same between the LCD-2C and the LCD-3? I’m not sure you can expect the LCD-3 to change to match the LCD-2C over a few weeks, regarding soundstage, with burn-in. Disclaimer: I haven’t heard the LCD-2C but I own the LCD-2.2 (pre-fazor).

 

[Liu Junyuan]

This is what the LCD-3 (102dB SPL/mW sensitivity and 110 Ohms resistance) needs for power (they are quite efficient actually):



To get 120dB peaks (threshold of pain) you only need 63.36mW of power (2.64V and 24mA). Feed them more power and you get more volume which I wouldn’t recommend if you don’t want to destroy your hearing in a few seconds. I suggest that the implementation / tuning / synergy with the upstream gear is more a factor than unused power, and the Hugo2 has plenty of Voltage and Current to drive them. Just keeping it down to Earth rather than recommending spending money on just the power spec of an amp.

Also to add, I don’t buy in to Audeze’s generic marketing claim that they need 1-4W to power them well. The physics make no sense to require 1-4W of power for the LCD-3’s sensitivity at normal listening levels.




Curious, why would you expect the soundstage to be the same between the LCD-2C and the LCD-3? I’m not sure you can expect the LCD-3 to change to match the LCD-2C over a few weeks, regarding soundstage, with burn-in. Disclaimer: I haven’t heard the LCD-2C but I own the LCD-2.2 (pre-fazor).

Thank you. I have neither had the pleasure to experience the Hugo 2 nor the LCD-3. I am sure some might find the paring enjoyable.

"Feed them more power and you get more volume which I wouldn’t recommend if you don’t want to destroy your hearing in a few seconds. I suggest that the implementation / tuning / synergy with the upstream gear is more a factor than unused power, and the Hugo2 has plenty of Voltage and Current to drive them."

Your last comment on synergy basically covers you from the following critique, but it should not be buried by the volume/power requirements listed first. Synergy is essential for achieving a desirable experience, and that is what is ultimately at debate.

Regarding theoretical power requirements: as a long-time HE-6 user, I have been wizened by experience to very seriously throw out the window advice about spl levels vs nominal power requirements for planar headphones. Nominally, the Schiir Lyr 1 was marketed to drive the HE-6, so were several headphone amps, and on paper, they were perfectly capable of doing so, but I have tried this alongside of power amps, and it was just nowhere near in comparison. The HE-6 from the Lyr, let alone any headphone amplifier I've tried, which I should add are usually much more expensive than power amps, sounded horrible, shrill, lacking in bass, claustrophobic, etc. The multi-thousand pages dedicated to amping the HE-6 can attest to the depth of this debate over time.

Just because it says on paper the Hugo 2 can drive the LCD-3, which it sounds like it obviously can, doesn't mean that it will be as enjoyable from an amplifier with cleaner, more powerful amplification. Thankfully, it is less intense of a requirement than the HE-6 and can be driven by a variety of amps. However, I need to experience both to be able to make a definitive claim here.

If you have experience with both, that would be great to counter my suspicion. Maybe the pairing really is excellent!

"Just keeping it down to Earth rather than recommending spending money on just the power spec of an amp."

Chord products are not cheap. While it is true that I threw out the HeadAmp flagship, also not cheap, one might buy an amp along the $1k or <$1k range that might power the LCD-3 amp better. The issue would then be losing the source, and purity, of a straight Hugo 2 connection. I am using a $200 vintage Bryston 2B to power my HE-6 beautifully, better than what I have heard from multi-thousand dollar headamps. Achieving high-power and headroom is not as expensive as it was years ago.

My bet is that a Bryston BHA-1 paired with a Modi Multibit would be a better pairing with the LCD-3 than the likes of the Hugo 2, while the Hugo 2 would be better with the likes of the Utopia than with the former components.

 

[x RELIC x]

Thank you. I have neither had the pleasure to experience the Hugo 2 nor the LCD-3. I am sure some might find the paring enjoyable.

"Feed them more power and you get more volume which I wouldn’t recommend if you don’t want to destroy your hearing in a few seconds. I suggest that the implementation / tuning / synergy with the upstream gear is more a factor than unused power, and the Hugo2 has plenty of Voltage and Current to drive them."

Your last comment on synergy basically covers you from the following critique, but it should not be buried by the volume/power requirements listed first. Synergy is essential for achieving a desirable experience, and that is what is ultimately at debate.

Regarding theoretical power requirements: as a long-time HE-6 user, I have been wizened by experience to very seriously throw out the window advice about spl levels vs nominal power requirements for planar headphones. Nominally, the Schiir Lyr 1 was marketed to drive the HE-6, so were several headphone amps, and on paper, they were perfectly capable of doing so, but I have tried this alongside of power amps, and it was just nowhere near in comparison. The HE-6 from the Lyr, let alone any headphone amplifier I've tried, which I should add are usually much more expensive than power amps, sounded horrible, shrill, lacking in bass, claustrophobic, etc. The multi-thousand pages dedicated to amping the HE-6 can attest to the depth of this debate over time.

Just because it says on paper the Hugo 2 can drive the LCD-3, which it sounds like it obviously can, doesn't mean it can drive it to its full potential. I am talking less about SPL levels but about synergy, which as seemed to correlate positively, and strongly so, with increased power and power supplies in amplifiers in reference to planar headphones like the LCD-3. However, I need to experience both to be able to make a definitive claim here.

"Just keeping it down to Earth rather than recommending spending money on just the power spec of an amp."

Chord products are not cheap. While it is true that I threw out the HeadAmp flagship, also not cheap, one might buy an amp along the $1k or <$1k range that might power the LCD-3 amp better. The issue would then be losing the source, and purity, of a straight Hugo 2 connection. I am using a $200 vintage Bryston 2B to power my HE-6 beautifully, better than what I have heard from multi-thousand dollar headamps. Achieving high-power and headroom is not as expensive as it was years ago.

Regarding the HE-6, those have very low sensitivity and DO require a lot of power to drive them well.

Speaking to your point of synergy, that’s exactly what I’m pointing out. One may purchase a powerful amp just based on the max power spec but that doesn’t mean it will be enjoyable for the system synergy. That’s my whole point, which has nothing to do with the Hugo2 or any other specific gear.

Recommendations were made to get a more powerful amp, and I’m saying find one that will complement the transducer for the sound one is looking for, once you know there is enough power on tap with around 20% headroom. I wouldn’t ever buy the Schiit Jotunheim because it’s reportedly a bright amp from people I trust. I do own a Liquid Gold, not because of it’s insane power output but I like the Cavalli sound from it. Now, many quality amps also happen to have a high power rating, but, again, I’d look at distortion, crosstalk, separation, slew rate, tuning, etc., before the max power spec. Regarding ‘cleaner power’ I doubt you can find measurably cleaner than Chord gear... they measure incredibly well but may not be everyone’s cup-of-tea.

 

[Liu Junyuan]

Regarding the HE-6, those have very low sensitivity and DO require a lot of power to drive them well.

Speaking to your point of synergy, that’s exactly what I’m pointing out. One may purchase a powerful amp just based on the max power spec but that doesn’t mean it will be enjoyable for the system synergy. That’s my whole point, which has nothing to do with the Hugo2 or any other specific gear.

Recommendations were made to get a more powerful amp, and I’m saying find one that will complement the transducer for the sound one is looking for, once you know there is enough power on tap with around 20% headroom. I wouldn’t ever buy the Schiit Jotunheim because it’s reportedly a bright amp from people I trust. I do own a Liquid Gold, not because of it’s insane power output but I like the Cavalli sound from it. Now, many quality amps also happen to have a high power rating, but, again, I’d look at distortion, crosstalk, separation, slew rate, etc., before the max power spec.

Yeah, I'd avoid the Jotunheim. I just edited this to conclude my previous reply: my bet is that a Bryston BHA-1 paired with a Modi Multibit would be a better pairing with the LCD-3 than the likes of the Hugo 2 alone, while the Hugo 2 would be better with the likes of the Utopia than with the former components.

Of course, one's reception of the pairings is ultimately subjective.

More power does not automatically mean synergy. On this, we agree. I have always wanted to hear how the Hugo 2 pairs with my Utopia. Maybe some day.

 

[x RELIC x]

Yeah, I'd avoid the Jotunheim. I just edited this to conclude my previous reply: my bet is that a Bryston BHA-1 paired with a Modi Multibit would be a better pairing with the LCD-3 than the likes of the Hugo 2 alone, while the Hugo 2 would be better with the likes of the Utopia than with the former components.

Of course, one's reception of the pairings is ultimately subjective.

More power does not automatically mean synergy. On this, we agree. I have always wanted to hear how the Hugo 2 pairs with my Utopia. Maybe some day.

The Utopia actually has a very uneven impedance curve and rises to 300 Ohms at 50Hz, so not exactly low from an impedance perspective regarding bass performance. The more important spec, sensitivity, is only 2dB more sensitive (104dB SPL/mW) than the LCD-3 so I imagine they’d be close in volume settings from most gear.

Funny, I love the LCD-2 from the Hugo2, even more so than from the Liquid Gold - gets a little too thick for me but that ‘thickness’ is added to every headphone I play through the Liquid Gold. I do prefer the Utopia from the Liquid Gold sometimes over the Hugo2 (strictly speaking of tonality and not transparency performance), but the Utopia from the DAVE is the best for my tastes. Again, it all depends on the synergy and preference. It would be great if we dug deeper in our posts describing what we are looking for... soundstage, transparency, imaging, bass thump, etc., so that appropriate suggestions can be made to help others. It’s all a balance of compromises until the perfect transducer is made.

Sorry for not using the LCD-3 in my examples but it’s been an age since I’ve heard one.

 

[Articnoise]

Just got my LCD-3. It is an upgraded from my LCD-2C. I only been using them for about 20hrs. I find that they are not as spacious as the LCD-2C, and more fatigue. The mid and high are more detail for sure with a good quality bass. However I would love to have the spacious of the LCD-2C.
So my question is if I would let the LCD-3 have more burn-in time would it increase the spaciousness? Or it is intended this way. Should I return this and get the LCD-2 instead.
Thanks in advanced for all the inputs.

LCD3 needs to be burn in at normal listening level for at least 200 hours before sounding “good/right”. The biggest burn in change are IME smoother treble and a more transparent and open overall sound.

Btw LCD3 is harder to drive than the LCD2, and LCD4 is even harder to drive. Harder to drive is not so much about the SPL level, it is more about real power (muscles) on tap.

 

[Phronesis]

When I compared the LCD-2F vs LCD-3, I perceived the LCD-3 to have substantially bigger stage. Haven't tried the LCD-2C.

 

[SLC1966]

I was so underwhelmed with my lcd 3 until I got the right power to it. Then it just Sweatened up and got the creamy sound going. My 4 cents.

 

[gLer]

I concur with the two posts above. I also had the LCD-2F and the LCD-3 by comparison is not only more spacious but also holographic in a way that very few headphones can be. But to get it there takes good synergy AND plenty of power, which has nothing to do with getting them loud (my dap can get them loud but they’re not really LCD-3s in the true sense with a dap). It also helps to have them balanced.

Once you’ve heard what they can do with the right amp pairing, it becomes obvious. Until then it’s easy to dismiss them as meh.

 

[BryanNguyen]

I concur with the two posts above. I also had the LCD-2F and the LCD-3 by comparison is not only more spacious but also holographic in a way that very few headphones can be. But to get it there takes good synergy AND plenty of power, which has nothing to do with getting them loud (my dap can get them loud but they’re not really LCD-3s in the true sense with a dap). It also helps to have them balanced.

Once you’ve heard what they can do with the right amp pairing, it becomes obvious. Until then it’s easy to dismiss them as meh.

Thanks for all the inputs. As I love to listen to my music around the house. Therefore I am looking at a more portable setup. So the Hugo2 fits this purpose. I am not ready to invest in a Desktop Setup.
I thought that the Hugo2 should have plenty power to drive the LCD-3 to archive the holographic imaging that I expect. I guess I may be wrong. I think the LCD-2 would be a proper choice at this point.
Thanks again.

 

[Phronesis]

Thanks for all the inputs. As I love to listen to my music around the house. Therefore I am looking at a more portable setup. So the Hugo2 fits this purpose. I am not ready to invest in a Desktop Setup.
I thought that the Hugo2 should have plenty power to drive the LCD-3 to archive the holographic imaging that I expect. I guess I may be wrong. I think the LCD-2 would be a proper choice at this point.
Thanks again.

I have a Hugo 2. Given what it costs and how hot it gets, if it doesn't have enough power for the LCD-3, it's poorly designed and overpriced. I heard that Chord uses the LCD-4 when they demo the Hugo 2 at shows, so something isn't adding up if the some people think the Hugo 2 is underpowered for the LCD-3.