[gLer]

The LCD-3 is unique in the same way the Elear/Elex/Clear are unique. They present music in different ways. The LCD-3 has a beautiful, lush midrange and a holographic soundstage that the Focals simply can’t match, but the Focals offer a more dynamic, punchy sound with a more extended treble that makes them appear more detailed, even though they’re not.

The LCD-3 also has the detail, texture and bass extension that the Focals don’t, although the Focals have the edge when it comes to slam and speed with their smaller dynamic drivers.

The Focals are also much easier to drive, but conversely the LCDs can take much more power and deliver far more control at higher volumes. In fact the more power you give them, the better the LCDs will sound, whereas push the Focals and they’ll start to lose control, especially with more complex music. All the Focals are designed to clip when the bass gets too intense, for example, whereas the LCD-3 will make you deaf long before you hear any clipping.

As for comfort, that’s a matter of personal taste. I find my LCDs significantly more comfortable with the new suspension headband and what I consider the world’s most comfortable leather pads than any of the Focals I’ve tried. Not that the Focals are uncomfortable, but if like me you have a sensitive crown, a suspension system will always be preferable to a solid headband.

The LCDs are also better built and far more resilient to wear, whereas the Clears will have you protecting the pads and headbands with separate covers or washing them every other week, else they’ll start to discolour and lose their shape.

All the above is my own personal view and experience. You may hear things differently or wear things differently, and that will affect your perception. At this level you’re talking about headphones that outclass most other headphones on the market. I think their differences don’t make them better or worse, but rather complementary. As always, YMMV.

 

[Phronesis]

^ I tried to click Like twice on that, but there's no option to do so.

I agree that the Focals aren't really 'crank it up' headphones, and are better suited for listening to jazz, classical, and acoustic at moderate volumes. When I first tried the Elear, Clear, and Utopia several months ago, I didn't like them with many progressive rock tracks at higher volumes. I did feel that they lost composure and sounded too bright and thin.

 

[rutter]

I know you're asking about the LCD 3 but I've had the lcd2 Fazor for over a year and I auditioned the Clears for 10 days. If the 3 is remotely close to the 2F, I concur with makne. It's no contest. I purchased the Clears and have had them for a few weeks now. They make the LCD 2F sound so veiled and boring in comparison. Plus, the LCD 2F is ridiculously uncomfortable for me.

I had a jackass make fun of me because he never heard anyone characterize the LCD-3 as veiled, which I did in comparison to the Clear. Also, I find the bass of the LCD-3 unremarkable and think the Clear gives better bass, it's certainly punchier. Didn't find the vocals of the LCD-3 that good either, would give the edge to the Clear there too probably. If I had to choose between the two I would actually take the LCD-3 because I find the strength and sharpness of the Clear, and Focal in general, sound unpleasant, but the LCD-3 is awful value at $2000. I just had a choice of a new B unit at $1300 and I'd still rather keep my $1200 Hifiman Edition X v2. I would strongly recommend using the new headband as well as it didn't take long for me to experience pain at the top of my head with the old one, although I didn't find the headphone all that heavy. Overall hoping for much better with the LCD-X.

 

[koiloco]

...
The LCD-3 has a beautiful, lush midrange and a holographic soundstage that the Focals simply can’t match, but the Focals offer a more dynamic, punchy sound with a more extended treble that makes them appear more detailed, even though they’re not.

The Focals are also much easier to drive, but conversely the LCDs can take much more power and deliver far more control at higher volumes. In fact the more power you give them, the better the LCDs will sound, whereas push the Focals and they’ll start to lose control, especially with more complex music. All the Focals are designed to clip when the bass gets too intense, for example, whereas the LCD-3 will make you deaf long before you hear any clipping.
...

I have personally experienced this with the Clear a few times. At first, I said to myself "What... Was that distortion I just heard?". Then I A/B the same track with my HE-6 and HD800. They both played the track flawlessly. Volume was not abnormally high. So the issue came down to driver control.
For HE-6, straight out from a speaker taps, I pretty much laid them on the desk and cranked the volume as if they were speakers. Not a hint of distortion/loss of control. Those HF cans are insane. LCDs should be similar.
I am having a chance to test out HF HEK v2 next week. I wonder how easy they are to drive vs. HE-6. I've always been a HF fan from the HE-500 days.
Also, thinking about switching out my Woo WA22 for a DNA Stratus.

 

[makne]

Audeze in general have the best bass imo. So deep, impactful, tight. Clear comes in 2nd imo, having a little better extension than the other Focals, and being really tight and punchy. HEX v2 by comparison has a warmer (more mid-) bass, not as deep or tight.

To my ears the LCD-2 is dark, the X is neutral (with maybe a tad edge taken off the treble) and the 3 is a little v-shaped. I think the Audezes can be preferrable for aggressive music that has potential for sounding harsh or fatiguing, since the Clear is pretty much completely neutral. Although the lcd-3’s treble rise actually makes them a little harsher for me than the Clear is.
Some people also find the Focal’s dynamics unsettling, I personally love it. I also cannot hear that the lcd-3 has a notable holographic soundstage, to my ears none of the lcd’s have particularly great staging. The Focals have great layering but have narrow and shallow soundstages. HEX v2 will sound the most spacious by far, but the imaging is «softer» in a way.

For me, I love the Clear’s tonal balance, neutral but enjoyable, it sounds just right to me. If you want another tonality (like a little more laid-back treble or deeper bass), go Audeze. HEX is also a really good option if you prefer a spacious lightfooted sound, and are not that concerned with dynamic impact

 

[makne]

I have personally experienced this with the Clear a few times. At first, I said to myself "What... Was that distortion I just heard?". Then I A/B the same track with my HE-6 and HD800. They both played the track flawlessly. Volume was not abnormally high. So the issue came down to driver control.
For HE-6, straight out from a speaker taps, I pretty much laid them on the desk and cranked the volume as if they were speakers. Not a hint of distortion/loss of control. Those HF cans are insane. LCDs should be similar.
I am having a chance to test out HF HEK v2 next week. I wonder how easy they are to drive vs. HE-6. I've always been a HF fan from the HE-500 days.
Also, thinking about switching out my Woo WA22 for a DNA Stratus.

HEX is very easy to drive, can be driven by a DAP even, not at all like how I’ve been told the HE-6 is. The «new HE-6» seems to be the Susvara, in terms of driveability

 

[devilboy]

I cannot comment on anything regarding the HEX as I have never heard them, nor the 3. However, I believe everything makne said of the LCD 3 vs Clear to be true.

 

[koiloco]

I had a jackass make fun of me because he never heard anyone characterize the LCD-3 as veiled, which I did in comparison to the Clear. Also, I find the bass of the LCD-3 unremarkable and think the Clear gives better bass, it's certainly punchier. Didn't find the vocals of the LCD-3 that good either, would give the edge to the Clear there too probably. If I had to choose between the two I would actually take the LCD-3 because I find the strength and sharpness of the Clear, and Focal in general, sound unpleasant, but the LCD-3 is awful value at $2000.

Again, right there is the proof of "you don't know what the s... you are talking about".
Even if you were talking relatively between LCD3f vs Clear, the LCD3f is not veiled. It's like me saying your HF X v2 is veiled in comparison to my HD800. They are all different presentations of the vocal range. Subjectively, different people prefer different HP turnings. However, driven by a good neutral/slight bright tilt SS amp with sufficient power, LCD3 are nothing remotely close to being "veiled".
And if you found the bass on the Clear better than LCD3f, you really are out there in lala land. If it's your personal preference, then it's all good.
People, who have been around in this hobby long enough and have experienced with multiple HPs, would laugh when they hear "Clear's bass is better than LCD3's".

It's ok to voice your opinion but try to cut back on the nonsense, especially when you are obviously just starting out in this journey. What do you think if I said my son's Beats HPs do bass better than your HF X v2? It's just not true or correct but my son does prefer his Beats over my HE-6. Get the idea?

I do agree LCD2 = also a no no for me vs. Clear.

 

[rutter]

That's my primary issue with the HEXv2, lack of general impact. The LCD-3 is actually supposed to have a weakness in the treble, that the LCD-X should improve on. I've also read that LCD-X brings vocals more forward and improves their clarity. Through what I was listening to at the store the LCD-3 bass was so unremarkable to me that I found it comparable to the HEXv2.

Koiloco was asking about the Hifiman HE1000v2, which has now become an option for me too since it would be at the same price as an LCD-X with a Questyle CMA400i. As for him continuing to argue about the LCD-3 sounding veiled in comparison to the Clear, perhaps we could start with an agreed upon definition.

 

[koiloco]

HEX is very easy to drive, can be driven by a DAP even, not at all like how I’ve been told the HE-6 is. The «new HE-6» seems to be the Susvara, in terms of driveability

Thx @makne but I was wondering about the HE1000 v2, not the X. Subjectively, that would be a downgrade for me from my current HE-6 setup. If the HE1000 v2 could be driven properly from a DAP and offer 90-95% of my current HE-6 setup, I would be sold 100%.

I always love HF cans. I am actually looking to rebuy a good pair of HE-500. I shouldn't have sold mine.

Regarding Susvara, the idea of it violates 3 of my personal rules :
1. I won't pay above $2500 for any pairs of HPs
2. I can't hear the SQ difference, thus can't appreciate what I am paying for. It did take me 3 extended trials before my HD800 and HE-6 purchases.
3. I don't drink TOTL kool-aid.

 

[makne]

Thx @makne but I was wondering about the HE1000 v2, not the X. Subjectively, that would be a downgrade for me from my current HE-6 setup. If the HE1000 v2 could be driven properly from a DAP and offer 90-95% of my current HE-6 setup, I would be sold on it 100%.

I always love HF cans. I am actually looking to rebuy a good pair of HE-500. I shouldn't have sold mine.

apologies, must’ve read that wrong. The HEK v2 is sound-wise very comparable to the HEX, spacious big and lightfooted, imaging and impact has a «soft» quality to them. The HEK is not as easy to drive, but nowhere near Susvara which is a pain in the a** to amp properly

 

[rutter]

So it doesn't have any more impact than the HEXv2? What's the point of upgrading there, more clarity and crispness?

 

[koiloco]

So it doesn't have any more impact than the HEXv2? What's the point of upgrading there, more clarity and crispness?

Best question by you so far...

I probably will audition both X and K and compare the 2.
My goal is that I don't want another planar HPs that I have to be chained to my desk to get subjectively good level of SQ.

 

[rutter]

From what I'm being told the HEKv2 chains you to a desk, it still needs significant power. Even a Micro BL on Turbo might be insufficient if Magni 3 at 2W is insufficient. The HEXv2 needs extremely little but the leaking is horrible, like mini-speakers on your head. I'm being told that the HEKv2 has better sub-bass but worse mid-bass and better treble. The soundstage and separation might be better too. Vocals might be better, and the sound should be more refined.

 

[makne]

Well to my ears, they both have that «etherial», spacious, soft kind of sound where the music just floats around you. The HEX has a more laid-back treble, the HEK is more «turned on» in the high notes and a step up in resolution. But if you’re looking for impact, go look elsewhere.

Regarding the Susvara, it’s ridiculously priced but to my ears it’s an obvious upgrade from the HEK. No longer is the staging just spacious but with blurry/soft imaging, the Susvara is HD800S-like in it’s soundstage size and imaging accuracy. Not as tight and precise as the Utopia, but close and with a much bigger space. The Susvara also has good impact, and was the first headphone I heard that could compete with the higher-end Stax for resolution (Utopia came afterwards and is definitely at that level too)