[drdiem]

LOL - unfortunately that's totally normal!!
 
It has been my biggest disappointment in this hobby that I cannot find the one, true, perfect headphone for my tastes 

  Right now I have an LCD-X, but for the first time I think I'm about to buy a new headphone (probably an HD600), not sell the previous 'phone, and give in to the fact that I'll use a different headphone depending upon what I'm listening to 

 

 

[money4me247]

check out my personal he560 vs hd800 impressions in my sig. do note i found the differences between them a lot more subtle than ppl here suggest. went w the he560 in the end for value:sound, bass quality, and sound sig preference. (hd800 seemed a bit too bright for mg tastes). both very high quality headphones, you cant go wrong w either. do note a bunch of new planar flagships on the horizon, so may be wise to wait if ur the patient type. (he-1000, ether, he-6 sucessor, lcd-z)

 

[catspaw]

check out my personal he560 vs hd800 impressions in my sig. do note i found the differences between them a lot more subtle than ppl here suggest. went w the he560 in the end for value:sound, bass quality, and sound sig preference. (hd800 seemed a bit too bright for mg tastes). both very high quality headphones, you cant go wrong w either. do note a bunch of new planar flagships on the horizon, so may be wise to wait if ur the patient type. (he-1000, ether, he-6 sucessor, lcd-z)

I read your Impressions and I guess Im not that surprised.
The LCD3 and X also seemed very similar to me (at some point I was certain it was a difference small enough to not even consider paying more for the LCD-3).
The LCD2 however did sound different to me than all the others.
One thing that surprised me about the HE-560 was that my mind was clearly trying get up to speed with the HP, as I was getting very confused at how much there was to listen to (with songs I already knew well) while with the LCD2 it felt more like it was all one sound (if that makes any sense).
 
In relation to the upcoming HPs.... Well I wont buy the HE-1000, thats for sure. Im not spending 3K on a HP with a 1 year warranty, made of something so thin.
 
I thought the HE-560 was supposed to be more like the HE-6 while the HE-400i was supposed to me more like the HE-500?
Didnt know there is an upcoming HE-6 succesor (but with fang you never know right, I mean, who the F expected the HE-1000?).
 
I know nothing about the LCD-Z, call me John Snow.

 

[drdiem]

 
I know nothing about the LCD-Z, call me John Snow.

 
This is (for the moment) a pure engineering demo - Audeze have not committed to turning it into a sale product. It is the Head-Fi community that has named it the 'LCD-Z' because it is an LCD-X (I believe?) that has been tweaked to have a very high impedance to suit a different range of amps (the electrical symbol for impedance is Z y'see). It is also the first LCD headphone to sport a proper suspension style headband (much like that employed by the HE-560.
 
The -3 and -X doe sound very similar on first listen, but on extended audition the differences become very very clear. In short, the 3 has a better midrange but lacks treble (in fact to my ears deserves the whole "Sennheiser veil" epithet but I know I'll get shot down in flames for speaking such heresy 

) whilst the LCD-X midrange is lacking compared to, say, the HE-560/HD600/HD650 but has better air and treble extension than any of those 'phones. In the bass I find the -3 and -X to be equivalent.

 

[money4me247]

 
This is (for the moment) a pure engineering demo - Audeze have not committed to turning it into a sale product. It is the Head-Fi community that has named it the 'LCD-Z' because it is an LCD-X (I believe?) that has been tweaked to have a very high impedance to suit a different range of amps (the electrical symbol for impedance is Z y'see). It is also the first LCD headphone to sport a proper suspension style headband (much like that employed by the HE-560.
 
The -3 and -X doe sound very similar on first listen, but on extended audition the differences become very very clear. In short, the 3 has a better midrange but lacks treble (in fact to my ears deserves the whole "Sennheiser veil" epithet but I know I'll get shot down in flames for speaking such heresy 

) whilst the LCD-X midrange is lacking compared to, say, the HE-560/HD600/HD650 but has better air and treble extension than any of those 'phones. In the bass I find the -3 and -X to be equivalent.

you are right about the LCD-Z. though there were more concrete sounding rumors about them actually committing to it after they finished with the el-8s. the new suspension headbands are basically confirmed (imo). audeze really needs to release something like that to address the number one complaint of all their LCD headphones and to catch up in the comfort department with the rest of the big planar manufacturers.
 
lol interesting. I did do quite a few extended auditions between the two. I thought that the differences in the bass was the most readily apparent difference with the upper mid/treble the second most noticeable between the two lcd-x and lcd-3 models. I could never hear the "liquid/buttery smoothness of the midrange" on the LCD-3 that people talk about. I am honestly still not really sure what that 'audiophile term' really means in a practical sense.

 

[money4me247]

  I read your Impressions and I guess Im not that surprised.
The LCD3 and X also seemed very similar to me (at some point I was certain it was a difference small enough to not even consider paying more for the LCD-3).
The LCD2 however did sound different to me than all the others.
One thing that surprised me about the HE-560 was that my mind was clearly trying get up to speed with the HP, as I was getting very confused at how much there was to listen to (with songs I already knew well) while with the LCD2 it felt more like it was all one sound (if that makes any sense).
 
In relation to the upcoming HPs.... Well I wont buy the HE-1000, thats for sure. Im not spending 3K on a HP with a 1 year warranty, made of something so thin.
 
I thought the HE-560 was supposed to be more like the HE-6 while the HE-400i was supposed to me more like the HE-500?
Didnt know there is an upcoming HE-6 succesor (but with fang you never know right, I mean, who the F expected the HE-1000?).
 
I know nothing about the LCD-Z, call me John Snow.

I actually didn't spend that much time with the LCD-2's to really comment on them, with so many higher higher-end models to play with.
 
I totally understand what you are saying. The Audeze line-up seems to have a more 'organic' presentation focused on the texture of the notes and a little extra warmth/darkness that makes the notes just a bit blurred so that your focus is more on the beat and big picture rather than the extremely small micro-details. The HE-560 and the HD-800 don't have that coloration and a relatively brighter in comparison. More clinical presentation. I think directly comparing these headphones really gives you a good sense of what people mean by those two audiophile terms: 'clinical' vs 'organic.'

 

[Wildcatsare1]

I find the 560s to be a fantastic bridge between the Audeze house sound and the HD800. Yes it's closer to the 800, but still offers up a bit more of that "organic" sound.

 

[drdiem]

  lol interesting. I did do quite a few extended auditions between the two. I thought that the differences in the bass was the most readily apparent difference

  Yeah that is interesting! Just goes to show how the frequency response of ears varies from one person to another I reckon.
 

  with the upper mid/treble the second most noticeable between the two lcd-x and lcd-3 models.
 

  My theory on this is that the more present treble of the LCD-X obscures the mids beneath - that the mids are actually measurably equivalent between the two but psychoacoustically different.
 

  I could never hear the "liquid/buttery smoothness of the midrange" on the LCD-3 that people talk about. I am honestly still not really sure what that 'audiophile term' really means in a practical sense.

 
Yeah I think that that phrase has been overdone with respect to the LCD-3 - to me the HD600/650 midrange easily kicks the LCD-3's into touch!
 
Anyhoo we are way off-topic for this thread now - mebbe I should start a whole new one to exercise (exorcise?) these hobbyhorses of mine 

 

[catspaw]

I think the lack of liquidity might have something to do with the highs interfering with your focus being drawn to the mids/bass.
One thing that surprised the guy who was ahndling me the headphones in the audition room was that I listened to classic on the LCD-2, yet neglected listenting to it on the other hps (he-560, lcd-x and lcd-3).
 
For me the HE-560 and lcd 3, X had enought energy in the treble that the classical was already clear to me as a strenght of those HPs, while I extecpted the LCD 2 to be lacking in this department.
However, again the same thing happened as with the rest of the songs i listened to with the lcd 2. Nothing Wowed me, everything was just sounding as one coherent sound.
 
The things is, with the LCD2, I couldnt hear any soundstage at all. It was more like the sound was "there". I could not pinpoint any distance differences in the sound (Not congested or in your head, just "there").
With the HE-560 I felt like the soundstage had some layers to it. 
While listening to breath of life from florence and the machine, I could feel the sound creeping up on me, getting stronger or weaker, more distant or closer.
With the LCD2, it felt like it had more or less volume, but was still "there".
 
One thing I instantly did on the lcd2 was to lower the volume as low as possible and still keep it audible (as soon as I noticed the lack of a defiend soundstage and a strong separation).
I was sure this would kill the LCD2s, and ID miss the notes, but again everything was still there.
 
I kinda feel like in the end any of those HPs will be amazing once my brain fully adapts to the sounds, thats why I kept my time with the HPs to as short as posible to keep my own hp (HE-400) as a reference to the hps I was testing.
 
As a side note, after all the testing, I listened to the HE-400 while on my way home. They sounded distant, with weak/untextured bass and with highs that were strident.
Funny thing is, taht was my first impression of the HE-400 when I got to listen to them at home right after buying them (I have a very strong emotional memory).