[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Yes, so true, I do stand corrected.
 
What if I say that a lighter diaphragm all else being equal increases the rate of pressure change?
 

You're saying the same thing you were saying before.
 
The rate of pressure change is due to either a change in amplitude and/or a change in frequency. So all else being equal, a lighter diaphragm is no "faster" than a heavy diaphragm if you're talking about the same amplitude and same frequency.
 
se
 
 
 

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

Yes, so true, I do stand corrected.
 
What if I say that a lighter diaphragm all else being equal increases the rate of pressure change?
 

A headphone sounding faster to you might be related to quicker decay on CSD waterfall plots.  Some of the concept of "faster" may also show up in Tyll's measurements at Inner Fidelity in the square wave and impulse response measurements if you're geek enough to be able to understand the nuances of those plots (I'm not).
 
I also think of "fast" as how a headphone plays transients like drum hits.  Headphones like the HD600/HD650 that have "fast" waterfall plots can still sound "slow" to me on drum hit transients.  So this whole thing of fast and slow drivers is all a bit confusing.  But we know it when we hear it.

 

[Maxvla]

Looks like Audeze hates disclosing changes they make or are going to make to their headphones. It would have been helpful if they had chosen Canjam to disclose if they were contemplating incorporating any of the design improvements of the newer LCD-3 in the current model of the LCD-2. Mainly among them

• The new leather ear pads
• The angled connectors
• The improved cushioned headband.

 
Looks like one has to find out by themselves when the LCDs start shipping.
 

People asked, but Alex didn't seem to know yet.

 

[Thenarus]

So the cushioned leather headband of the LCD-3 is a significant improvement over the leather headband currently available on new LCD-2s?

 

[SP Wild]

Quote:

You're saying the same thing you were saying before.
 
The rate of pressure change is due to either a change in amplitude and/or a change in frequency. So all else being equal, a lighter diaphragm is no "faster" than a heavy diaphragm if you're talking about the same amplitude and same frequency.
 
se
 
 
 

We have to agree to disagree.
 
 In a sine wave, the positive portion represents a positive pressure and the negative portion is negative pressure.  The rate of change in a sinewave is gradual. 
 
A transient event is closer to an instantaneous change in pressure, or closer to an infinite acceleration rate.  The closer a driver can instantaneous pressurise and de-pressurise would mean a driver more able to overcome inertia, mass is a variable function of inertia.  A driver is a motorised air pump, no more no less.
 
A driver can float like a butterfly, but can it sting like a bee?
 

 

[Argo Duck]

Hi Steve - the driver being capable of reproducing a given f and amplitude would be (largely) a function of diaphragm mass and magnetic flux...?
 
Quote:

<snip>
 
My objection was to do with the lighter diaphragm being a faster diaphragm that can change pressure quicker.
 
All else being equal, a diaphragm changes pressure quicker only if you increase the magnitude or increase the frequency.
 
So if a driver is capable of reproducing a given frequency at a given amplitude, it's just as "fast" as any other driver capable of the same thing, regardless of how light or heavy the diaphragm is. If it changes any faster, there's either an increase in magnitude, frequency or both.
 
se

 

 

[Maxvla]

Take it to sound science please guys.

 

[arnaud]

Just to clarify as there's some misinformation:
1. There are virtually no variations in atmospheric pressure (eg 1atm give or take)
2. There are minute variations in instantaneous pressure ( this is how sound waves propagate )
3. Wavelength has nothing to do with it, spatial spl variations may  be low but you'll still see pressure oscillating 50 times per second at a given location for 50Hz sine wave
4. SP wild is correct with assuming a lighter diaphragm can potentially have a faster transient response.
5. On the rise part of the impulse response,  this transient speed of the transducer indeed translate to bandwidth ( it thus gets silly to ask for perfect speed because we don't hear squat about 20KHz , let alone 50
6. On the decay part of the IR, indeed a transducer that doesn't ring is preferable.
7. Yet, as Steve mentionned, the trasnducer better move at 100 cycles per second if fed by 100Hz tone, else it's chipmonk singing
 
 
 
 

 

[singh]

Quote:

So the cushioned leather headband of the LCD-3 is a significant improvement over the leather headband currently available on new LCD-2s?

seriously,
 
LCD 2 were not the benchmark in comfort? NO.that title belongs to HD800. now,  is the cushioned headband more comfortable than hd800 ! ?
 
this talk ( v/s LCD2 ) is very misleading .
yeah they are the next version of LCD2 , they are SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER in every way.
 
talk about how they fare with the real competition , i.e. O2 and R10.

 

[Thenarus]

It's a valid question for an impressions thread, as it looks very much the same as the one on the LCD-2 that several people find a bit unforgiving.  For twice the price, I'd like to know how it feels on one's head, and I'm damn sure not the only one.

maxvla, your impressions from CanJam of the LCD-3 are making my wallet sweat 

 

[Maxvla]

SR-007 is $2600 at Woo. R10s are normally around $4k or more. I suppose the O2 is close enough to consider competition, but the R10s are not. The fact that they are being compared is really telling of how good the LCD3s are.

 

[Maxvla]

It's a valid question for an impressions thread, as it looks very much the same as the one on the LCD-2 that several people find a bit unforgiving.  For twice the price, I'd like to know how it feels on one's head, and I'm damn sure not the only one.maxvla, your impressions from CanJam of the LCD-3 are making my wallet sweat 

The step in price from the LCD2 to LCD3 is worth it only if you are confident in the match with the rest of your gear. I found that any amp that sounded good or great with the LCD2 also sounded good or great with the LCD3. If you aren't confident in the rest of your chain I would keep the LCD2 and work on the rest of your system first. The LCD2s are certainly not bad with a well optimized system. You saw my notes for the LCD2 on the Darkstar. It was excellent. You also saw my notes for the LCD2 and LCD3 on the Pinnacle, both terrible in the same exact ways.

Are the 3's really better? Yes absolutely. Do you have to pony up the cash so you can keep your Head-fi E-Rep up? No. If you like what you have, keep it until you decide otherwise. I was totally in love with the LCD3 and Darkstar and probably could afford it very soon if I really wanted to, but at the same time I'm super excited to get my customs I ordered even though they didn't sound as good. It's all about being happy with what you have and taking your time. I was tempted many times in the last 8 months or so to order customs before RMAF, but I stayed the course and ended up making a choice I would have never expected. Building a great system takes a long time and you will only cost yourself frustration and money if you rush it.

 

[googleli]

With all due respect, I think your impressions are somewhat biased by the source. Didn't it occur to you that the reason that you prefer *all* RSA products over *all* OTHER amps may be that they are using a $25K Boulder CD player? Source plays a big part in terms of image precision, which I have seen you emphasised in your impressions (center image). Not that everyone needs to buy a $20K+ source, but it does affect your comparison, and for headphones of this calibre, the difference becomes more siginificant (although still quite subtle considering the difference they can make in speaker systems),  especially for Stax which is in hunger of details, having a good power source and good signal source to the electrostatic amp is very important.

 

[Mambosenior]

Quote:

“It's all about being happy with what you have...”

With all due respect: it reads well, provides warm and fuzzy comfort, and is the basis of most-all religions but...no! It's an impossible ideal to understand or achieve. Imagine where the human race would be if that had been possible: we would be neighbors to Grog and Groguette in the next cave.
 
Now, let's continue breaking commandments with the LCD-3 coveting session.
 

 

[Maxvla]

With all due respect, I think your impressions are somewhat biased by the source. Didn't it occur to you that the reason that you prefer *all* RSA products over *all* OTHER amps may be that they are using a $25K Boulder CD player? Source plays a big part in terms of image precision, which I have seen you emphasised in your impressions (center image). Not that everyone needs to buy a $20K+ source, but it does affect your comparison, and for headphones of this calibre, the difference becomes more siginificant (although still quite subtle considering the difference they can make in speaker systems),  especially for Stax which is in hunger of details, having a good power source and good signal source to the electrostatic amp is very important.

But not all of the RSA amps were being fed by the Boulder. The B-52 was being fed by the same Meridian cd player in use at other tables, but it still sounded best on Ray's amps. I'm also getting tired of people suggesting that I didn't take the source into account when I have clearly brought it up many times.

With all due respect: it reads well, provides warm and fuzzy comfort, and is the basis of most-all religions but...no! It's an impossible ideal to understand or achieve. Imagine where the human race would be if that had been possible: we would be neighbors to Grog and Groguette in the next cave.
 
Now, let's continue breaking commandments with the LCD-3 coveting session.
 

It's not impossible. I'm already doing it...