[Danpyre]

The problem is, what good is it as a really expensive reference if it has tons of distortion? I mean, it's better than the Ultrasone Edition 10 (The original Beats Studio was better than the Edition 10), but it's probably a much better idea to get a different headphone altogether, as the are headphones much less expensive than measure about the same.

 

[alpha80]

I
Well, I haven't exactly praised tube amps, though impedance matching could cause someone to prefer a tube on one headphone over, say, an O2 (or they want to sweeten the sound, as you said). The SH1840 just measures poorly, which is why it is not a good reference.
Btw, you made an earlier claim that the LCD3 sweetens the bass, when it doesn't. It's one of the most accurate headphones in existence regarding the bass, though not so much with soundstage an treble. Certainly more accurate with the bass than any dynamic.

 
All Audeze phones have sweet amounts of harmonic distortion thru the whole frequency response.  LCD-3, LCD-2, and even the LCD-x.
 
This isn't a bad thing.  They're made for audiophiles, not serious studio use, no matter what celebrity endorser was paid to state otherwise.  Their poor upper midrange and treble response procludes them from serious analytic work, well before any additional factors play into their capabilitites in that application.
 
Back to THD.......Audiophiles, bands, and all humans who like listening to and recording "good sounding music", seek this exact type of "distortion".  Audiophile terminology should rename it.  It shouldn't be called distortion.  Anglophone laymen somehow equate the word to clipping or distorting of a signal, something like a scratchy pot or a blown speaker or something of the sort.  When in fact, it's exactly what the key parts of the best analog recording consoles in the world (think the SSL 9000K which sells for $300,000.00), do to a signal......
 
But we audio guys benefit from hearing what is there BEFORE that sweetness is applied.
 
It's not important to me, if the Audeze LCD-3 has a good amount less harmonic distortion on extreme sub bass below 60hz.  It has audibly more harmonic distortion thru the most important frequency ranges (vocal and instrument range 200hz-2khz) than my Beyerdynamic Tesla T90, which is clearly better than an LCD-3 for reference and studio work in literally all ways, besides testing sub bass content.  Guess what other headphone has less harmonic distortion thru the crucial audible ranges than an Audeze LCD-3 ?  My trusty Sony MDR-V6, despite much of it's bass quantity not showing up on the graph, due to it being harmonic content, which is heard due to ergonomics and seal.
 
Orthodynamic headphones I feel, are a limited, dark/dim, warm 70's/80's sounding thing.  Unless paired with a dynamic driver, or better yet, an electrostatic, for everything above 2.5khz, the headphone wont be optimal for studio / reference work.  Very nice for audiophiles who like dark signatures, don't mind lackluster soundstage, or people who are very sensitive to upper midrange honkiness, or bright treble in general.
 
I cant wait until Audeze and other planar-centric firms make their re-interpretations of the AKG K340 !  They'll be awesome !

 

[TMRaven]

 

 
I just read a bunch of hot air.  If you're going to make claims about a series of headphones, at least be accurate with your claims.

 

[alpha80]

The problem is, what good is it as a really expensive reference if it has tons of distortion? I mean, it's better than the Ultrasone Edition 10 (The original Beats Studio was better than the Edition 10), but it's probably a much better idea to get a different headphone altogether, as the are headphones much less expensive than measure about the same.

Exactly.
People get hung up on price so much. 
So many great headphones in the $100-$500 range.
Not to mention the law of diminishing returns.
I feel even the HD800 and AKG K812 have slightly too much sweetness in key areas, to be truly perfect reference phones. 
My K812 is my "fun" phone.

 

[alpha80]

   
I just read a bunch of hot air.  If you're going to make claims about a series of headphones, at least be accurate with your claims.

LOL that's a big statement, Raven.  What in my post did you disagree with, or imagined was inaccurate ?

 

[TMRaven]

 
LOL that's a big statement, Raven.  What in my post did you disagree with, or imagined was inaccurate ?

 
There's a couple of major points to address: I'm not particularly a fan of Audeze's headphones, and don't even think they're worth half their asking msrp, but there's no denying their complete lack of distortion throughout their entire frequency range.  It's well documented through measurements that the LCD series is extremely controlled from the lowest bass to highest treble, rather it's Tyll's measurements or Purrin's measurements.  An Audeze may come off as slow and mushy sounding, but it's definitely not because of high or even average amounts of distortion.  However I would agree that even the LCD-X is not a phone meant for serious studio use.
 
 
You shouldn't generalize all planars into a dark/warm sound signature.  Most of the Hifiman range actually has slightly north of neutral, and can be potentially too bright for people.  There's definitely nothing similar about the Hifiman and Audeze house sound.
 
 
I've not heard the T90 Tesla, so I'll refrain from commenting about how it sounds, but I will say that multiple objective data has shown it to have sever problems with ringing and coloration in the treble region.

 

[alpha80]

   
There's a couple of major points to address: I'm not particularly a fan of Audeze's headphones, and don't even think they're worth half their asking msrp, but there's no denying their complete lack of distortion throughout their entire frequency range.  It's well documented through measurements that the LCD series is extremely controlled from the lowest bass to highest treble, rather it's Tyll's measurements or Purrin's measurements.  An Audeze may come off as slow and mushy sounding, but it's definitely not because of high or even average amounts of distortion.  However I would agree that even the LCD-X is not a phone meant for serious studio use.
 
 
You shouldn't generalize all planars into a dark/warm sound signature.  Most of the Hifiman range actually has slightly north of neutral, and can be potentially too bright for people.  There's definitely nothing similar about the Hifiman and Audeze house sound.
 
 
I've not heard the T90 Tesla, so I'll refrain from commenting about how it sounds, but I will say that multiple objective data has shown it to have sever problems with ringing and coloration in the treble region.

Well, I trust my ears, and my ears hear audeze house sound, as yes, exactly as you said, slow and mushy sounding.  Which is very desirable by a vast majority of acts nowadays wanting to rid their stuff of a harsh "digital edge", and getting a warm, rich, buttery, liquid sound, like old analog era recordings (but with the higher fidelity of modern advances as well).  So we liberally use expensive, discrete, outboard analog kit, like Empirical Labs Fatso tape saturation optimizer, LA-2A's, 1176's.....
 
...or really truly insanely fatty, nectary, honey-dipped stuff like the 20-valve fairchild.

 
It all adds ridiculous amounts of harmonic distortion, and "smears" transients, which is GOOD for making clean things sound richer, smoother, and warmer, and "MORE MUSICAL".
 
But if I want a tool to discern what's there beforehand, I don't want it to sound dull/dim/dark/pre-smeared/buttery/wet already, before i do anything, it would make my job hell lol.
So Tyll's graphs are very useful and i appreciate him undertaking as much as he has in the love of headphones.
But I take them with a grain of salt because i personally know they do not tell a complete story at all.
Nothing beats actually listening to the gear, with many different types of source material, not just square waves and sine test sweeps lol
 
And whatever flaws the T90 has in relation to it's treble (which it does have, it's way bright), make it literally the best post-900hz audio microscope when it comes to EQ work, of them all.  And I've tried d@mn near them all lol.

 

[Danpyre]

Umm, alpha, measurements don't lie. A poorly measuring headphone may sound good through the distortion, but a well measuring headphone isn't going to sound bad, unless your tastes are different. True, nothing beats actually listening to the headphone in the case of personally finding the perfect headphone for you, but when you're mixing and mastering music, you can't have something that isn't accurate. The LCD-3 has less distortion in the bass than any dynamic, except maybe the Sony r10 (I haven't looked at those measurements). I really do not true your ears at all if you think that the Audeze line adds distortion in the bass. That being said, yes, there are some problems with the Audeze line, but bass accuracy isn't one of them.
T90 doesn't really measure well. That would be fine for just listening, but for reference, measuring well + soundstage, fit, comfort + open design is the best way to go for headphones.

 

[TMRaven]

I do agree that measurements never tell an entire story.  A frequency response can't give all the information on tonal balance, because there's always the time domain, distortion and other factors that come into play as an example.
 
Distortion though, is one of those objective measurements that's usually self-referencing, and is for the most part very revealing as to how the headphone actually performs in that specific area.  Tyll's is an overall measurement, while Purrin's measurements break the distortion down to the different harmonics.  Either way, the Audezes have all been overwhelming low in harmonic distortion.  When the distortion measurements are extremely consistent and extremely low, there's no getting around that.
 
I've also had substantial time with the entire LCD line, and my own impressions of them is that they are very clean sounding and not smeared with very black background and instrument separation second to none, but they still sound rounded and smoothed.  The former is a component of their low distortion, the latter is a component of the house sound, tuning and possibly some other voodoo that measurements won't reveal.

 

[preproman]

 

[paradoxper]

HD800 and it's not even up for debate.

 

[Danpyre]

HD800 and it's not even up for debate.

SR-009 > HD800
Other than that, there are probably a few other electrostats that win, as well.

 

[paradoxper]

Dude specified his purposes were for mixing/monitoring. No way I'd recommend him invest in a stat rig. 

 

[Danpyre]

Dude specified his purposes were for mixing/monitoring. No way I'd recommend him invest in a stat rig. 

Technically, the SR009 is flatter than the HD800, and beats it in almost every way except maybe soundstage and imaging, which it's still very good at. The author makes it sound like he can afford whatever, and the only reason he doesn't want one, is he thinks it's a "collector's" headphone. He never specified price, so SR-009 beats pretty much everything, except in bass, which planars exceed with"

 

[paradoxper]

Has nothing to do with how the 009 may or may not be a technically more proficient choice and everything to do with mixing/mastering usage and the
exorbitant price a stat rig costs. If he can afford whatever, he should buy them all and use his own ears to draw his own conclusions rather than relying on anecdotes.