[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Thinner makes sense wrt the relationship between rigidity/brittleness and flexibilty if one is concerned w/ excursion.  Does that necessarily translate to better fatigue characteristics though?   Does that necessarily hold for lateral stress when tensioning?  This would put a constant, disproportionate stress on varying areas of the driver.  In fact, it seems too complicated and dependent on the particular variables and an elements modulus and other factors to make a sweeping generalization right?  The T50RP uses massive traces and even bigger ones for the original version.  Both are rock solid w/ nearly never any driver failures.  They also use smaller drivers than Audeze as well.  The fact remains that the issues w/ the failure of LCD3 drivers and signature changes over time are not what I'd consider normal, let alone exemplary performance when compared to Fostex, Hifiman or even the LCD2.  If thinner traces make the LCD3 drivers more reliable, then something else is wrong.  Perhaps the film thickness.   

 
It would also depend on the grain direction of the material. Here we use rolled&annealed copper and the grain direction can be an important factor with regards to a dynamic bending application. But I'm not sure how much the drivers are "flexing" here or even what metal is being used. General rule of thumb with regards to dielectric/substrate/film thickness, the thinner the better. You might want to review some of the data on the Hifiman / LCD-2 failures. The LCD-2s were put on hold a few months back for a similar issue (not just the cracked wood). Hifiman headphones have had their issues as well (though to a lesser degree than what Audeze went through this past winter with both the LCD-2/3). What the causes are, I haven't the faintest clue and hypothesizing without any real data is very difficult unless one has some sixth sense IMO.

 

[purrin]

Ask Sankar. He will tell you. Maybe

 

[SteveM324]

You might want to dig a little deeper. I've known of several pairs that developed dead channels and/or severe channel mismatches over time. I'm not sure if its an ortho thing or something else going on?


Actually thinner traces / substrate materials equate to better reliability with regards to repeated flexing (could however be trace/space is really small; but I'm just hypothesizing here). Kinda an area of expertise for me (flexible circuits). Not sure what the issues were back in Jan/Feb. And Audeze ain't saying. It does look that over the past few months though that things have improved....hopefully.

Agreed. The HE-6 sounded great from the speaker taps off my Pioneer receiver as well. With regards to scaleability, the HE-6s need good clean power to sound good. The LCD-x can sound good from even a uDac-2. But both scale with better upfront gear quite well.

It's all relative with regards to what sounds good though. Jude called the LCD-3s the best value headphone at $2k as it offered much of the satisfaction of the SR009s (I have not heard these yet) at less than half the price. For me, they're still my go to headphone. The HE-6s were fantastic, but I decided against dropping more $ on amping and shelving (for the amp) to keep them around. I prefer my HD800s to the HE-6s, so I decided to part with them. Sometimes though, I kinda wish I had them around.

I agree with all your comments except for your preference of the HD800s over the HE6. I chose to sell the HD800s because I could not get over their faults in instrumental tonality. I sold the T1s for much of the same reason and both are IMO inferior to the HE6, LCD3, and SR009s.

 

[dercius]

I agree with all your comments except for your preference of the HD800s over the HE6. I chose to sell the HD800s because I could not get over their faults in instrumental tonality. I sold the T1s for much of the same reason and both are IMO inferior to the HE6, LCD3, and SR009s.

I agree with this, I find the orthos and stax get tonality closer/equal to speakers while dynamic headphones sound off, purely IMO

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

I agree with this, I find the orthos and stax get tonality closer/equal to speakers while dynamic headphones sound off, purely IMO

 
Imagine the horror if they used dynamic drivers in speakers!  

 
You obviously never heard any Stax that sounded thin, ethereal and lacking note weight.  If that's how your speakers sound then it all makes sense.
 
Suffice to say I disagree with this generalization.  Dynamic headphones seems to suck more simply because there's more dynamic headphones being made with the potential to suck.  Give some brands a planar driver and you'll see what they do with it.

 

[moodyrn]

I prefer the he-6, but only by the smallest of margins. Infact,(haven't listened to the 009's yet) I consider them 1a and 1b among headphones produced today. They are imo the two best headphones I've listened to. I like the bass texture and tonality of the lcd3 slightly better, but to my ears, the he6 have better imaging, a wider and deeper soundstage, and a more engaging sound. But the lcd3 are stunningly good though. I AB'ed both on a friends darkstar.

 

[Jdevesa]

I also ordered the LCD-3 mainly because it will be easier to drive than the HE-6, will post impressions when I receive it and compare with the HE-6

 

[dyl1dyl]

Quote:

I also ordered the LCD-3 mainly because it will be easier to drive than the HE-6, will post impressions when I receive it and compare with the HE-6

Good choice though you couldn't really have gone wrong either way. I personally liked the LCD-3 a lot more than the HE-6 as I felt in was more engaging but ymmv so will be nice to hear what you think.

 

[moodyrn]

Agreed, you couldn't go wrong with either. Both are world class headphones. It just comes down to sound preference. I could live with either in a desert island senerio.

 

[Jdevesa]

After listening to the LCD-3's on several amps and with different music styles I have to say that for my taste they are much better than the HE-6's. 
 
The bass is solid yet not overpowering (for me the HE-6 lacks bass even when heavily amped) and they sound more open. 
 
Also, the fact that they can be powered by almost any good amp means you can enjoy trying them with several combinations and they will always please without the need to take the volume to 11! 
 
I wonder how different can the LCD-3's sound from the SR-009's since I will not be willing to spend $5K for the Stax plus $5K+ for a dedicated amp just for a marginal increase in SQ. 

 

[MacedonianHero]

^

Completely agreed. As much as I enjoyed the HE-6s (owned them for over a year), I sold them off pretty quickly after my LCD-3s arrived. And now with my Liquid Fire and platinum 6922 Siemens tubes, they are simply outstanding and my favourite headphones I've heard yet.

 

[Jdevesa]

Quote:

^
Completely agreed. As much as I enjoyed the HE-6s (owned them for over a year), I sold them off pretty quickly after my LCD-3s arrived. And now with my Liquid Fire and platinum 6922 Siemens tubes, they are simply outstanding and my favourite headphones I've heard yet.

Good to know, when I was comparing the HE-500 with the HE-6 several months ago I always preferred the HE-6's SQ and open sound yet thought that the HE-500's bass was way better and they were more enjoyable since I could use almost any DAC / Amp combination without the need to resort to a EF-6 or bigger amp to get good sound. 
 
At the time I decided to sell the HE-500 and get a Liquid Fire amp to see how the HE-6 fared yet after comparing them with the LCD-3's I found the LCD-3's to surpass both so I got rid of the HE-6's. 
 
The Cavalli Liquid Fire I own came with the Golden Lion tube upgrades courtesy of the seller / friend Obzilla yet now I wonder how those Siemens would sound...

 

[Face]

IMO, the HE-6 and liquid fire isn't a good combination.  They sounded fuzzy and the bass was lackluster.  The EF-6 and even the W4S mINT sound much better in comparison when powering HE-6's. There is no lack of bass, in fact it's powerful and authoritative with either of the latter units IMO. 
 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Good to know, when I was comparing the HE-500 with the HE-6 several months ago I always preferred the HE-6's SQ and open sound yet thought that the HE-500's bass was way better and they were more enjoyable since I could use almost any DAC / Amp combination without the need to resort to a EF-6 or bigger amp to get good sound. 

At the time I decided to sell the HE-500 and get a Liquid Fire amp to see how the HE-6 fared yet after comparing them with the LCD-3's I found the LCD-3's to surpass both so I got rid of the HE-6's. 

The Cavalli Liquid Fire I own came with the Golden Lion tube upgrades courtesy of the seller / friend Obzilla yet now I wonder how those Siemens would sound...

I really like the Gold Lions. I'm pretty sure Sean bought them based on my recommendations. They are fantastic tubes and offer great price to performance ratios. But that said, the Siemens are the final piece to the LF puzzle. The improvements to the bass and treble were very welcomed.

 

[Jdevesa]

Quote:

IMO, the HE-6 and liquid fire isn't a good combination.  They sounded fuzzy and the bass was lackluster.  The EF-6 and even the W4S mINT sound much better in comparison when powering HE-6's. 
 

Do you have the EF-6 and HE-6 combo now? I ask because I special ordered the EF-6 to power the HE-6 and wasn't impressed at all with the sound and in addition the EF-6 was "tested" for 24 hours before shipping yet when I got it the volume knob was completely loose and I had to turn it several times for a small increase in volume so I returned it to Fang for a refund (QC is really important for me and even more so if you are a boutique / small volume company)