[chimney189]

Both have a pleasing rolled off treble, with the LCD3 Pre-razor being greatly more refined and resolving.

The LCD 2.2 has more of a bass emphasis, while the classic LCD 3 is balanced, with a slight mid bump.

Mid-bump as in mid-bass -- similar to the Sennheiser HD650? How is the soundstage compared? I was hoping that the LCD-3C is just the Rev. 2.2 with more detail and soundstage. =P

EDIT: ... and pretty wood.

 

[exsomnis]

Mids bump as in mids emphasis, not bass. Creamy vocals and mids.

They are not the same. If you like the LCD 2.2s specifically for the elevated bass, you will likely need to adjust to the sound of the classic LCD 3s with neutral, balanced bass.

 

[scttooo]

Sold my HD 800's for LCD-3's, vegan pads, and carbon fiber band. Couldnt be happier.

 

[tjc303]

I recently purchased a used pair of LCD-3s..shipping now. What are peoples thoughts on cables for the LCD-3? I have a an older Norse Audio copper litz braid that I use with my LCD-2.1s which were better than stock, but probably lacked in treble a bit. Is silver plated the better option for the LCD-3s as well?

 

[seamon]

I recently purchased a used pair of LCD-3s..shipping now. What are peoples thoughts on cables for the LCD-3? I have a an older Norse Audio copper litz braid that I use with my LCD-2.1s which were better than stock, but probably lacked in treble a bit. Is silver plated the better option for the LCD-3s as well?

I have had good experiences with Silver. I am using a Silver Dragon V3 with LCD 3 2016. Overall, a smoother sound with slightly more Treble presence. Bass is tighter and more controlled. Stock bass was boomier though which might be a toss up for some. Also, micro-details are more present on the silver.

 

[chimney189]

Last night I did a quick comparison of the LCD-3 Pre-Fazors and the LCD-2 Rev. 2 Fazors ..

Right off the bat I noticed these differences in the LCD-3: Less impact and punchiness in the bass, wider soundstage, better imaging, less of a peaky treble, and smoother yet somewhat distant mid-range. Surprisingly, I found the LCD-3 to be a less-engaging musical experience overall! I'd like to add that I listened to some songs from the original Halo OST, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory OST, and Morrowind OST. The LCD-3 was much more able to keep up with the complex, fast-paced music of Splinter Cell's OST. It was also able to extend well into vocals, maintaining the their extension without having a ringing-resonance that can sometimes occur with the LCD-2 .. vocals on the LCD-2 can sound like a robotic-voice/resonance takes over, seriously!

I feel that I can listen to the LCD-3 for hours without experiencing fatigue, which I think is one of its greatest compliments and I think that this is my understanding of the positive of having a laid-back signature. However, it is a double-edged sword: it is less-fatiguing, but it is also more boring, monotonous, without excitement and definitely less-engaging than the LCD-2. Maybe its the fact that it has a wider-soundstage in which the mid-range is somewhat effected, being less in-your-face than the LCD-2, less intimate, more flat with its neutral signature. I'd categorize the LCD-3 as the jack-of-all-trades, master on none. The LCD-2 seems to have for me a bass and intimacy that cannot be matched.

I'm going to compare more as the following days pass by. Deep down I hope that something clicks with the LCD-3 because it is so unfatiguing, but at the same time I feel that I am more drawn to the LCD-2's intimacy and engaging, almost physical musicality.

 

[Articnoise]

Last night I did a quick comparison of the LCD-3 Pre-Fazors and the LCD-2 Rev. 2 Fazors ..

Right off the bat I noticed these differences in the LCD-3: Less impact and punchiness in the bass, wider soundstage, better imaging, less of a peaky treble, and smoother yet somewhat distant mid-range. Surprisingly, I found the LCD-3 to be a less-engaging musical experience overall! I'd like to add that I listened to some songs from the original Halo OST, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory OST, and Morrowind OST. The LCD-3 was much more able to keep up with the complex, fast-paced music of Splinter Cell's OST. It was also able to extend well into vocals, maintaining the their extension without having a ringing-resonance that can sometimes occur with the LCD-2 .. vocals on the LCD-2 can sound like a robotic-voice/resonance takes over, seriously!

I feel that I can listen to the LCD-3 for hours without experiencing fatigue, which I think is one of its greatest compliments and I think that this is my understanding of the positive of having a laid-back signature. However, it is a double-edged sword: it is less-fatiguing, but it is also more boring, monotonous, without excitement and definitely less-engaging than the LCD-2. Maybe its the fact that it has a wider-soundstage in which the mid-range is somewhat effected, being less in-your-face than the LCD-2, less intimate, more flat with its neutral signature. I'd categorize the LCD-3 as the jack-of-all-trades, master on none. The LCD-2 seems to have for me a bass and intimacy that cannot be matched.

I'm going to compare more as the following days pass by. Deep down I hope that something clicks with the LCD-3 because it is so unfatiguing, but at the same time I feel that I am more drawn to the LCD-2's intimacy and engaging, almost physical musicality.

I always choose the most engaging HP. Boring, monotonous and without excitement are the opposite of what I strive for than listen to music.

 

[h2rulz]

Hi all, I picked up a LCD3f that's serviced with the 2016 drivers and I just wanted to share my impressions.
Coming from the LCD2.2f (2016) I share similar impressions as @chimney189 but obviously with the LCD3f not pre fazor.

I'll definitely need more time to come to properly judge the LCD3f 2016, but I feel it's an LCD2 struggling to be an HD800. Relative to the LCD2, it has improved clarity/detail, soundstage, tighter/quicker bass, but at the cost of the ultimate midrange that I can only assume a pre-fazor LCD2/3 would have.

In the end I want a headphone to compliment my HD800 (SDR mod). If I want soundstage/imaging and speed and clarity I have my HD800. Whereas, I was hoping the LCD3 to be the ultimate headphone for lush mids/vocals and sub-woofer like rumbling sub bass with a more intimate and holographic soundstage.

The LCD3f 2016 seems to have many of the qualities I look for, and again I'll need more time, but I can't help but wonder what a pre-fazor LCD2/3 or even a pre-2016 LCD3 would sound like. I'm almost inclined to think I would prefer them over the 2016 LCD3. I'll be glad to be proven wrong by fellow headfier's who have listened to all the previous versions of the LCD3/2.

 

[Zojokkeli]

Hi all, I picked up a LCD3f that's serviced with the 2016 drivers and I just wanted to share my impressions.
Coming from the LCD2.2f (2016) I share similar impressions as @chimney189 but obviously with the LCD3f not pre fazor.

I'll definitely need more time to come to properly judge the LCD3f 2016, but I feel it's an LCD2 struggling to be an HD800. Relative to the LCD2, it has improved clarity/detail, soundstage, tighter/quicker bass, but at the cost of the ultimate midrange that I can only assume a pre-fazor LCD2/3 would have.

In the end I want a headphone to compliment my HD800 (SDR mod). If I want soundstage/imaging and speed and clarity I have my HD800. Whereas, I was hoping the LCD3 to be the ultimate headphone for lush mids/vocals and sub-woofer like rumbling sub bass with a more intimate and holographic soundstage.

The LCD3f 2016 seems to have many of the qualities I look for, and again I'll need more time, but I can't help but wonder what a pre-fazor LCD2/3 or even a pre-2016 LCD3 would sound like. I'm almost inclined to think I would prefer them over the 2016 LCD3. I'll be glad to be proven wrong by fellow headfier's who have listened to all the previous versions of the LCD3/2.

That's interesting. I am heavily considering LCD-3s as alternative headphones to my TH900s, because I was under impression that they have the ultimate lush midrange. If that's not the case, I might have to consider something else.

 

[h2rulz]

That's interesting. I am heavily considering LCD-3s as alternative headphones to my TH900s, because I was under impression that they have the ultimate lush midrange. If that's not the case, I might have to consider something else.

Well I was only talking in relative terms, coming from the LCD2. I was expecting greater improvement regarding the mids, but I probably had an unrealistic expectation coming from a headphone that already has great mids. That said, I can't speak for the TH900s as I have no experience with them.

Who knows my impressions may change over time.

 

[seamon]

That's interesting. I am heavily considering LCD-3s as alternative headphones to my TH900s, because I was under impression that they have the ultimate lush midrange. If that's not the case, I might have to consider something else.

Completely different sound signatures.
Th900 bass is pin precise, controlled, fast and has a good deal of impact.
LCD 3 bass is boomy in comparison, similarly fast and more defined imo.

After listening to the LCD 3, TH900 feels like not having mids at all. Male voices sound feminized in the TH900. LCD 3 has a much more natural midrange with more "real" male vocals. Also TH900 is very sibilant in the upper midrange compared to LCD 3.

TH900 treble is what is considered hot and spiky. LCD 3 treble is relatively laid back

 

[Articnoise]

I don’t think LCD3 2016 is struggling to be an HD800. HD800 have a totally different sound sig. To me LCD3 2016 has lush mids, richer and fuller than all other headphones I have heard, including LCD4. It’s only then compared to older prefazor Audeze headphones it’s a bit less.

 

[h2rulz]

I don’t think LCD3 2016 is struggling to be an HD800. HD800 have a totally different sound sig. To me LCD3 2016 has lush mids, richer and fuller than all other headphones I have heard, including LCD4. It’s only then compared to older prefazor Audeze headphones it’s a bit less.

I probably used the wrong expression there, but I don't think I'm disagreeing with what you're saying. It's just that relative to the LCD2, I found the more noticeable improvements to be in detail, soundstage and bass speed (got my HD800 when I want those). I was hoping for a bigger jump in mids in terms of lushness/richness, and I just can't help but wonder what the mids of a pre-fazor, pre-2016 LCD2/3 would sound like. I won't mind sacrificing air, soundstage, etc. for richer mids.

That said, I'll invest more time with the LCD3 so I can really get a better idea of how it sounds. My brain probably needs much more time to burn in too.

 

[iAudio365]

How does the LCD-3 compare to the LCD-4 for EDM, Rock, Movies and gaming?

There's a massive price difference (here in Australia anyway) between the two, but I honestly prefer the look of the LCD-3 better but we all know it's the sound that counts.

So is bass etc better on the 3's compared to the 4's? For what I would use them for as mentioned above?

 

[jozefs]

LCD-3 is better than LCD-4 ? It is joke ?