[Strat1117]

For the last 4 months, I have been using LCD2C instead of LCD3 and the magic is gone: guitar loses the plucking sound, piano and vilion dont sound as smooth, female voices lose the trembling feeling, drums sound bloated and not very realistisc, I think bass has muscles but lacks texture, music feels less airy on LCD2C. Kate Bush no long sounds like a seductive witch, Dave Brubeck Quartet sounds dull and sleepy. Timbre is just not very accurate, instruments just do not sound the same as in real life. Instrument seperation is also clearly worse than on LCD3. In general, LCD2C just sounds wrong to me, in some way.

Came back to LCD3 just now and wow, I found all those that I have been missing again. Maybe LCD3 just goes extremely well together with Schiit Yggdrasil OG + Ragnarok 2? Or maybe LCD3 is a different league from LCD2C?

Different league, IMHO. I never had LCD-2C, but I had LCD-2 (and 2 different versions of LCD-X), and the LCD-2, while very nice, was ultimately unsatisfying. The LCD-3, on the other hand, seems always to satisfy.

 

[Strat1117]

Just added a basic 15ft. Fog City Audio balanced cable to my LCD-3, which I picked up from @vinylrecordust on the BST (thank you!): 1. Because I wanted to try the balanced output on my MHA200 amp and 2. Because my comfy couch is across the room from my system and I wanted to eliminate the extension cord I needed with the oem cable. Not night and day difference, but subtly and noticeably cleaner, more spacious, (better separation and definition), and overall more relaxed (not softer but, rather, more effortless). No way for me to know if the improvements I hear are attributable to the cable itself, the balanced connection or the elimination of the extension cable and the extra connectors that go with it (or all of the above), but that’s a discussion for the engineers, not me. Extremely well-made cable for an exceptionally reasonable price (especially pre-loved), IMHO. Very happy!

NB: I would be most obliged to anyone who could help me figure out why suddenly, after all these years, I am unable to post photos or use any of the “quick links” at the top of the posting box (bold, italics, photos, links, etc.) when posting from my iPhone. They work fine as usual from my laptop, but most of the time I’m on my iPhone, and now I can only add photos, etc., as attachments, which is not as pretty, and a PIA. I posted this in the help section a few days ago but got no response. (I added the bold above manually.) HELP! Thanks, Neil

 

[kid vic]

Cross post from the MM-500 thread where I went into more detail.

I got the chance to audition the MM-500 versus my LCD-3 at my local headphone shop for an hour and a half, using the single-ended out of a Hifiman EF400.

The first thing I noticed was that the MM-500 is very fast with an intimate but open sound. Everything sounds like it is happening in or right against your head with images being very large. Though the separation is good, it is offset tremendously by the fact that the images are packed so closely together; nothing really has the space to breathe. The second thing I noticed was that it can be a bit shouty with vocals. Some of this has to do with the mixing/mastering of the music while the rest of it has to do with a peak somewhere in the lower treble and upper mids. For context, I find the ZMF Eikon to have a very similar peak and fatiguing nature, but I don't find the HD800S or Focal Clear to be fatiguing; chock that up to ear shape and hearing loss I guess. I am not a mixing/mastering engineer, just a music enjoyer with an over-eager headphone budget, but I do think that this would be a very strong choice for a studio environment given its strengths.

In direct comparison, my LCD-3 sounded overly smooth, dark and warm (basically like an LCD-3 should sound) it's not that the LCD-3 lacks details, rather it is a much more "lay back and relax" sound signature that also includes details. Between the two, the LCD-3 has a worse timbre but a much richer midrange; it's kind of a hard truth on one hand and a seductive lie on the other. The bass on the LCD-3 is more prominent and forward but the MM-500 feels tighter and quicker down low. I think that if you already love the LCD-3 and old house sound of Audeze (like I do) you should not sell your old Audezes to fund an MM-500 or LCD-5. This new direction is focused on resolution as opposed to musicality. That's not to say that the MM-500 is not musical, it just isn't willing to lie and butter up your music for increased enjoyment.
The LCD-3 also staged further away than the MM-500 but seemed to have slightly smaller image size. Coupled with the dense black background of LCD-3, it made everything stand out more in the soundstage when compared to the MM-500. I think some of this has to do with the larger double-sided magnets of the LCD-3 versus the smaller single-sided magnets of the MM-500. I suspect that this difference coupled with the more aggressively angled earpads made up the majority of the differences between the two in presentation.

 

[chesebert]

Hifiman EF400 is junk driving LCD-3 (or any other Audeze cans). LCD-3 does not sound overly warm, dark or smooth.

To clarify, I am not saying that you didn't accurately describe what you heard, I am just venting about headphone dealers like to demo high end cans using low-fi/mid-fi components. Why is it so hard to get a mid range dCS, MSB, Playback Designs, Emm Labs, Bricasti, BAD or the like source and pair it with a good $3k amp. LCD-3 for example sounds totally different on mid-fi system vs top shelf system.

 

[kid vic]

Hifiman EF400 is junk driving LCD-3 (or any other Audeze cans). LCD-3 does not sound overly warm, dark or smooth.

To clarify, I am not saying that you didn't accurately describe what you heard, I am just venting about headphone dealers like to demo high end cans using low-fi/mid-fi components. Why is it so hard to get a mid range dCS, MSB, Playback Designs, Emm Labs, Bricasti, BAD or the like source and pair it with a good $3k amp. LCD-3 for example sounds totally different on mid-fi system vs top shelf system.

I actually don't fully disagree with your assessment of the EF400 and its pairing with the LCD-3, it definitely wasn't sounding as good as it does in my system.

However I did say "in direct comparison" before "overly smooth, dark, and warm." The reason I said it that way is because the MM-500 is supposed to be neutral to bright and it is successful at that; the LCD-3 is not supposed to be neutral or bright and when compared this difference is stark, hence overly smooth, dark, and warm.
From my understanding, the MM-500 is supposed to be a revealing studio tool, and against the LCD-3 I thought it was successful at that.

 

[Strat1117]

Cross post from the MM-500 thread where I went into more detail.

I got the chance to audition the MM-500 versus my LCD-3 at my local headphone shop for an hour and a half, using the single-ended out of a Hifiman EF400.

The first thing I noticed was that the MM-500 is very fast with an intimate but open sound. Everything sounds like it is happening in or right against your head with images being very large. Though the separation is good, it is offset tremendously by the fact that the images are packed so closely together; nothing really has the space to breathe. The second thing I noticed was that it can be a bit shouty with vocals. Some of this has to do with the mixing/mastering of the music while the rest of it has to do with a peak somewhere in the lower treble and upper mids. For context, I find the ZMF Eikon to have a very similar peak and fatiguing nature, but I don't find the HD800S or Focal Clear to be fatiguing; chock that up to ear shape and hearing loss I guess. I am not a mixing/mastering engineer, just a music enjoyer with an over-eager headphone budget, but I do think that this would be a very strong choice for a studio environment given its strengths.

In direct comparison, my LCD-3 sounded overly smooth, dark and warm (basically like an LCD-3 should sound) it's not that the LCD-3 lacks details, rather it is a much more "lay back and relax" sound signature that also includes details. Between the two, the LCD-3 has a worse timbre but a much richer midrange; it's kind of a hard truth on one hand and a seductive lie on the other. The bass on the LCD-3 is more prominent and forward but the MM-500 feels tighter and quicker down low. I think that if you already love the LCD-3 and old house sound of Audeze (like I do) you should not sell your old Audezes to fund an MM-500 or LCD-5. This new direction is focused on resolution as opposed to musicality. That's not to say that the MM-500 is not musical, it just isn't willing to lie and butter up your music for increased enjoyment.
The LCD-3 also staged further away than the MM-500 but seemed to have slightly smaller image size. Coupled with the dense black background of LCD-3, it made everything stand out more in the soundstage when compared to the MM-500. I think some of this has to do with the larger double-sided magnets of the LCD-3 versus the smaller single-sided magnets of the MM-500. I suspect that this difference coupled with the more aggressively angled earpads made up the majority of the differences between the two in presentation.

Hifiman EF400 is junk driving LCD-3 (or any other Audeze cans). LCD-3 does not sound overly warm, dark or smooth.

To clarify, I am not saying that you didn't accurately describe what you heard, I am just venting about headphone dealers like to demo high end cans using low-fi/mid-fi components. Why is it so hard to get a mid range dCS, MSB, Playback Designs, Emm Labs, Bricasti, BAD or the like source and pair it with a good $3k amp. LCD-3 for example sounds totally different on mid-fi system vs top shelf system.

I actually don't fully disagree with your assessment of the EF400 and its pairing with the LCD-3, it definitely wasn't sounding as good as it does in my system.

However I did say "in direct comparison" before "overly smooth, dark, and warm." The reason I said it that way is because the MM-500 is supposed to be neutral to bright and it is successful at that; the LCD-3 is not supposed to be neutral or bright and when compared this difference is stark, hence overly smooth, dark, and warm.
From my understanding, the MM-500 is supposed to be a revealing studio tool, and against the LCD-3 I thought it was successful at that.

Thank you for that well thought out comparison @kid vic. It very much mirrors my own experience with the ‘21 rev LCD-X (which has a similar ‘pro’ voicing to the MM-500, though probably slightly less overall technical sophistication). The only thing I’d add is don’t underestimate the contribution of the wood body to the overall sonic picture. As a long time audiophile (50 years in the hobby), hack guitar player, and gear head in general, I am very aware of the subtle and not-so-subtle differences between materials used in speaker cabinets and the different tone woods used musical instruments. As an exaggerated example, take a top of the line Ovation, with its composite carbon body; it will never sound like a good Martin, with a Brazilian rosewood body. They are both fabulous guitars, but they generally appeal to a completely different set of players. Neither is necessarily better or worse, just very different, and each has its own cadre of devotees. To each his own. The body of a headphone contributes to the overall sound in a similar, if less overt way.

I also agree with @chesebert that the ef400 (although I’m not familiar with it specifically), probably struggled with the LCD-3’s somewhat more difficult load, giving the MM-500 a slight advantage in your comparison. A better amp would have allowed the LCD-3 to open up and strut its stuff more - it would ‘scale’ better than the MM-500 with its easier load, but that’s by design - the MM-500, as a studio tool, has to give its all on even a modest amp, because you never know what it’s going to be plugged into in any given studio situation. That’s not a cut against the MM-500. Quite the contrary, it’s a testament to its having been designed well and for a specific purpose. It’s also, however, one of the things that ultimately turned me off about it’s sibling, the LCD-X, but, again, that’s just my personal taste, not a matter of right vs wrong. I would think (hope) that most people who go for an LCD-3 would be putting it into a very high end system with an appropriate amp that would eliminate many of the things you didn’t like so much. I’ve said it a million times all around this site - a headphone doesn’t make sound by itself, you have to judge it in the context of a system. Some amps will work better with some headphones than others, and vice versa - it’s a matter of finding the right combination. There are too many guys around here who think that all they need to do is buy a better pair of cans and everything will be wonderful, when just the opposite is true - the better cans will more likely reveal the shortcomings of your upstream components and, in the case of an amp mismatch in particular, might even sound worse.

Anyway, I’m rambling. Suffice it to say that there are a lot worse things an audiophile could do with ~$2k than buy either of these wonderful offerings from Audeze, and I can say from long personal experience that the CS at @Audeze is first rate - the kind of company you want to do business with.

So, what’s your favorite flavor, Coffee Heathbar Crunch or New York Super Fudge Chunk? Or maybe you’re a Carvel soft vanilla aficionado? Personally, I like ‘em all, each on its own terms, and I don’t care if you serve them in a cup or a cone - but please don’t think they’ll taste the same if you serve them in a bowl of clam chowder.

Enjoy!

IMHO, YMMV, just my $.03, etc., ad nauseum.

 

[dan3952]

Hifiman EF400 is junk driving LCD-3 (or any other Audeze cans). LCD-3 does not sound overly warm, dark or smooth.

To clarify, I am not saying that you didn't accurately describe what you heard, I am just venting about headphone dealers like to demo high end cans using low-fi/mid-fi components. Why is it so hard to get a mid range dCS, MSB, Playback Designs, Emm Labs, Bricasti, BAD or the like source and pair it with a good $3k amp. LCD-3 for example sounds totally different on mid-fi system vs top shelf system.

Though there's no doubt in my mind that people should spend more than $500 on their amplifier, and in particular, get one that has enough current to drive planars, I have had fix pairs of headphones since 2018, and three amps, and the LCD-3 was the darkest, smoothest, and warmest, of them all with anything I had tried it with.

You have presented your opinion.

 

[Strat1117]

Though there's no doubt in my mind that people should spend more than $500 on their amplifier, and in particular, get one that has enough current to drive planars, I have had fix pairs of headphones since 2018, and three amps, and the LCD-3 was the darkest, smoothest, and warmest, of them all with anything I had tried it with.

You have presented your opinion.

Once you get past a certain level of quality, which is what I assume your referring to when you say ‘spend more than $500 on an amp’, it’s all about system synergy, not cost per se. For example, without naming names, many times I think that the LCD-3 sounds best with my vintage $1,000 high current class A solid state amp, and that the much more costly ($2,500) tube amp is not the best choice for them. On the other hand, my modified HD600 sound so good on my $2,500 tube amp, it often makes me wonder what more I could possibly ask for.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - headphones don’t make sound by themselves - IMHO, the headphone/amp combo should be thought of as a system, which has been the more enlightened view in the world of of 2ch speakers and amps for years - pick the speakers you like best, and then get the amp (within your budget) that matches them best - and that’s all before we even start to consider sources!

Personally, as a proponent of the ‘garbage in, garbage out’ theory, I also think that a better amp with lesser headphones is a better way to go than better headphones with a lesser amp, but I know that’s not a popular perspective around here.

That being said, since there are so many unpredictable variables and we all hear differently and have different preferences, the only true way to know if a particular headphone/amp combo will work for YOU, in YOUR system, with YOUR music, is empirically - ya gotta try it for yourself - there is no magic formula.

IMHO, YMMV, just my $.03, etc., ad nauseum.

 

[Strat1117]

Just ordered a 15ft. balanced cable from @jfunk (Custom Cans) for my LCD-3. Very excited - the wait begins!

 

[ngominhhoang132]

Once you get past a certain level of quality, which is what I assume your referring to when you say ‘spend more than $500 on an amp’, it’s all about system synergy, not cost per se. For example, without naming names, many times I think that the LCD-3 sounds best with my vintage $1,000 high current class A solid state amp, and that the much more costly ($2,500) tube amp is not the best choice for them. On the other hand, my modified HD600 sound so good on my $2,500 tube amp, it often makes me wonder what more I could possibly ask for.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - headphones don’t make sound by themselves - IMHO, the headphone/amp combo should be thought of as a system, which has been the more enlightened view in the world of of 2ch speakers and amps for years - pick the speakers you like best, and then get the amp (within your budget) that matches them best - and that’s all before we even start to consider sources!

Personally, as a proponent of the ‘garbage in, garbage it’ theory, I also think that a better amp with lesser headphones is a better way to go than better headphones with a lesser amp, but I know that’s not a popular perspective around here.

That being said, since there are so many unpredictable variables and we all hear differently and have different preferences, the only true way to know if a particular headphone/amp combo will work for YOU, in YOUR system, with YOUR music, is empirically - ya gotta try it for yourself - there is no magic formula.

IMHO, YMMV, just my $.03, etc., ad nauseum.

Yeah, LCD3 with Ragnarok in low gain (Schiit states that would be in class A mode) just sounds so sweet so good

 

[whirlwind]

Just ordered a 15ft. balanced cable from @jfunk (Custom Cans) for my LCD-3. Very excited - the wait begins!

Someone must be trying to reach to the couch

 

[AudioDuck]

…headphones don’t make sound by themselves - IMHO, the headphone/amp combo should be thought of as a system, which has been the more enlightened view in the world of of 2ch speakers and amps for years - pick the speakers you like best, and then get the amp (within your budget) that matches them best…

…I also think that a better amp with lesser headphones is a better way to go than better headphones with a lesser amp…

+1 on both of these points!

The combination of my particular amp/headphones (and, indeed, source) is a 1+1=3 scenario.

And to echo “using a great amp with a good driver” note: I recently upgraded my power amp and speaker cables to drive a mid-fi set of speakers. Clearly the speakers are now being used to their potential now, which was previously untapped. Really, really impressive. I originally had this experience in a dealer demo room, where a sales rep set up the $1,800 speakers I was interested in with a $5,000 high-end power amp and matching preamp (not sure what the source was) in a well-treated room. Wow-but not a realistic scenario for me at the time.

Anyway- even a pair of $2,500 speakers (read: $500-1,000 headphones ) can do very magical things, given very high-quality source/amplification/connections!

 

[gimmeheadroom]

For me it's the opposite. Even expensive headphones have a hard time keeping up with cheap speakers.

 

[AudioDuck]

For me it's the opposite. Even expensive headphones have a hard time keeping up with cheap speakers.

Interesting- I suspect it depends greatly on what parts of the experience you value most- I.e. sound stage is often better with speakers for obvious reasons, while reaching into the sub-bass frequencies is something headphones can do more easily (though not always accurately and with sufficient detail until you spend more).

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Interesting- I suspect it depends greatly on what parts of the experience you value most- I.e. sound stage is often better with speakers for obvious reasons, while reaching into the sub-bass frequencies is something headphones can do more easily (though not always accurately and with sufficient detail until you spend more).

For me speakers are better in every way I can think of. I only have headphones because where I live people don't tolerate noise and there are quiet hours when I'd still like to play music.