Fazor or no Fazor

[Jpsc]

Hi!
I've been craving an Audeze LCD-3 for quite some time. But written reviews and comments on here and other foruns, always gave me the impression that the LCD-3 was a super LCD-2, and that the price difference wasn´t worth it. On the other hand, some people said that their LCD-3 was the best HP they've listened.
Now, I have a chance to adquire a LCD-3 with fazors and also a pre-fazor LCD-3 with the new open cell pads, but its a bit more expensive (100€).

My question is, does the fazor elements change the sound signature of this particular headphone (LCD-3) to the point that is a different headphone sound wise?
Or tonally wise? Or Different FR? Does it change dramatically the (good) quality of the headphone itself. In what way?
I´m aware that the pre fazor LCD-3 is a bit of a unicorn. But that doesn't necessarily mean that its a better headphone.
My musical taste are all over the place, but I love Nick cave; Radiohead; Led Zepellin; Massive Attack; Portishead, Blues; all kind of blues.
Just want to gather a little bit more information about the fazors or non fazor question to make up my mind.
Anyone who had owned both or one, or listened and compared and can throw some information my way, would be highly appreciated.

Thanks

 

[IkSak]

I’m very curious about this topic too. Looking forward for owners of both to read their thoughts

 

[Monsterzero]

I've not heard the the LCD-3, so take my comments with a few grains of salt, but on the LCD-2 I much preferred the pre fazor version.
Audeze lost me when they came up with the fazor idea.

 

[IkSak]

What is the adverse effect of the Fazor on the sound?

 

[Audeze]

Here's some information on our Fazors.

https://www.audeze.com/blogs/technology-and-innovation/fazor-elements

 

[IkSak]

Sounds like a reasonable idea to minimize the wave interference. As with most engineering designs decisions, there are tradeoffs. Which are the ones of the fazors?

 

[Jpsc]

I've not heard the the LCD-3, so take my comments with a few grains of salt, but on the LCD-2 I much preferred the pre fazor version.
Audeze lost me when they came up with the fazor idea.

Thanks for your input, its consistent with most of the opinions regarding this question in particular, and especially on the LCD-3. Glad to have your opinion on my first post here on Head-Fi. I usually see your reviews when I want to know something from ZMF, brand that I particulary like.
In fact, just today i found out, that a guy near me (100 Km) has a ZMF Auteur Og for sale in mint condition for a little less that the Audeze LCD-3 pre-fazor.
Anyway, that just want to say THANK YOU.

 

[Jpsc]

Here's some information on our Fazors.

https://www.audeze.com/blogs/technology-and-innovation/fazor-elements

Thanks for the reply and the information that was given. I especialy liked that the brand replied to a tecnical but also sound quality question within a few hours.
It says a lot about the brand, at least to me. Thank you.
I understand the tecnical point of view. From the Audeze cans I've heard (LCD-x) the imaging, soundstage and clarity of the presentation are very good. But so are the same qualities on the HD800, that to my taste is not a very engaging headphone. I´m a critical listener, but mainly for musical enjoyment, not for mixing or analizing music. I find those qualities very important, especially imaging and clarity, more than soundstage. My question was, if the introduction of the fazors changed the musical presentation as all, in particular the mids. The LCD-3 pre-fazor was knowed to be a vocals delight, and I normally don't see that trait associated with the fazors ones. LCD-x has a bit of recessed mids, in my opinion, and i´m afraid that the 3 fazor has the same trait.
Once again, Thank you for time.
Cheers

 

[Monsterzero]

Thanks for your input, its consistent with most of the opinions regarding this question in particular, and especially on the LCD-3. Glad to have your opinion on my first post here on Head-Fi. I usually see your reviews when I want to know something from ZMF, brand that I particulary like.
In fact, just today i found out, that a guy near me (100 Km) has a ZMF Auteur Og for sale in mint condition for a little less that the Audeze LCD-3 pre-fazor.
Anyway, that just want to say THANK YOU.

You're welcome and welcome to Head-Fi

If the LCD-3 pf sounds similar to the LCD-2 pf then the Auteur will sound quite different from it. The LCD-2 PF had other worldly sub bass. However I found the mids to be kind of boxy, for a lack of a better term, small and confined sounding. I loved the Audeze for trance music, but not much else. It was also quite warm/dark sounding, whereas the Auteur OG is quite neutral sounding and cannot compete with the Audeze in the sub bass dept, but I prefer the ZMF everywhere else, especially in the mids and timbre.

One being a planar and one being a dynamic driver there are going to be other variables in play that are inherent to the different technologies, as well as both sound their best on different amp types.

 

[Jpsc]

Hi! Thanks for the info and sympathy.
I've never heard the LCD-2pf or the 3-pf for that matter, but I'm aware of the ''darkness'' of the older Audeze models. But if I wanted that planar bass and sub-bass, I would go for the LCD-x, that I've already gave a good listen, but the mids are a bit recessed for my tastes, vocals mainly. Great for rock. Less expensive also.
At the end of the day, ZMF is always a great choice sound wise, built wise, just wise.
Cherrs.