[RustA]

Quote:

Do you have a picture of your graph?

 
You mean graph of my LCD-2?
 
Quote:

 
It is kind of hard to explain, but i stand by the fact that the 2s have more treble than the 3s do. the 3s just have way way way better treble

 
I thought it's confusing how people see those two phones in general, not only their treble. General consensus seems to be that LCD-3 have more smooth treble (relatively speaking) but that it's more apparent than with LCD-2... But as I said, this is only from what I have read so it could be just a false idea.

 

[MalVeauX]

Quote:

But does anybody prefer DT880 over T1, HD600 over HD800 or D5000 over D7000? You know what I mean... It's strange that 2000USD phone do not destroy 1000USD phone. The price difference is HUGE!

 
Yes.
 
You have to tread carefully. A lot of people will prefer something they know is more expensive or known to be considered a more "audiophile" worthy product.
 
Just like everyone is saying they like the sound of far more expensive equipment here, like it's night & day, compared to some entry/mid-level equipment. When if you're being honest about it, it's not that different.
 
Frankly, if you want your LCD2 to really let loose, look at a $200 speaker amp and a cable to allow for speaker taps on it. Look at a warm tube-dac. You can do this for less than $500 and alter what you're seeking (the frequency response).
 
Very best,

 

[Taowolf51]

Quote:

But does anybody prefer DT880 over T1, HD600 over HD800 or D5000 over D7000? You know what I mean... It's strange that 2000USD phone do not destroy 1000USD phone. The price difference is HUGE!

 
Yes, actually. I've heard people prefer the HD600's over the HD800's and the D5000's over the D7000's. I don't hang around the Beyer threads, but I'm willing to bet someone has preferred the DT880 over the T1 as well.

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

 
Yes, actually. I've heard people prefer the HD600's over the HD800's and the D5000's over the D7000's. I don't hang around the Beyer threads, but I'm willing to bet someone has preferred the DT880 over the T1 as well.

Pataburd got rig of his T1 as he liked DT880/600 more, but that's perhaps the only case I've heard of.
 
Speaking of the treble presence on LCD-3

 

[SoupRKnowva]

Speaking of the treble presence on LCD-3

That graph is old and of a pre RMA'd pair, I couldn't tell you want those ones sounded like. Though it still shows the LCD-3 having a lower treble presence

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

That graph is old and of a pre RMA'd pair, I couldn't tell you want those ones sounded like. Though it still shows the LCD-3 having a lower treble presence

I am not trying to prove otherwise, just providing some evidences. This one could be better, I guess, the latest fixed LCD3.

 

[TMRaven]

Good/bad LCD-3 or not, the FR graphs won't show differences relative to lighter diaphragm and faster transient response, if both headphones are tuned to sound the same.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

i want to throw my two cents in here again.
 
The treble on the LCD-3 certainly isnt higher in level than the 2s. The 2s have more treble energy and are quite a bit harsher in the treble. The 3s though have much more apparent treble becuase it is so much smoother, basically no harshness and are significanly more open. so they appear to be higher in level on some ways, but they arent actually. they are just much more pleasing.
 
I have mine with the Mjolnir and i think it is a lovely pairing. I also find it to be pretty brutally honest and appreciate that. I have had chances to hear it with more headphone amps but i didnt really give the comparisons the time they needed to say anything for sure. Though i can compare it to the built in headamp in the Anedio D2 which is a very well implemented. The main difference is in the soundstage, and also in the "3D-ness" of the performers. with the built in headamp the performers are more like flat paper cutouts, whereas with the Mjolnir instruments get fleshed out into 3d performers in the space. The space is also just larger and more open. The thing would be that the bass isnt as tight nor as deep and impactful. I would highly reccomend the Mjolnir with the LCD-3s the.
 
On the topic of styles of music. I spend something likie 85% of my listening time listening to metal of very extreme varieties, which never have very good mastering and have pretty abysmal dynamic range. Ive never found the 3s to be too revealing or anything with the music that i listen too. BUt then again, i am of the opinion that nothing can be too revealing, i want the honest truth of my music, and if the mastering is bad or the recording has poor dynamic range so be it.
 
Once again, i dont think the difference between the 2s and the 3s are subtle.
 
also, they arent a perfect headphone, the only ones ive heard that earn that title are the Sr-009s

Agreed again. 

Quote:

 
That's what I find confusing... Many people say it's a lot better, many that it's only a bit better (subtle improvement) and I have even found several who kept LCD-2 rev2 and prefer it over LCD-3.
 
I thought it should be in a different league if it costs twice more!

 
Nothing in this price range is gonna be linear with respect to cost vs. performance. But the LCD-3s are better to my ears. Here's a wiki I wrote way back when I got mine in 2011:
http://www.head-fi.org/a/comparisons-of-the-lcd-3-and-the-lcd-2-rev-2

 

[YtseJamer]

Quote:

i want to throw my two cents in here again.
 
The treble on the LCD-3 certainly isnt higher in level than the 2s. The 2s have more treble energy and are quite a bit harsher in the treble. The 3s though have much more apparent treble becuase it is so much smoother, basically no harshness and are significanly more open. so they appear to be higher in level on some ways, but they arent actually. they are just much more pleasing.
 
I have mine with the Mjolnir and i think it is a lovely pairing. I also find it to be pretty brutally honest and appreciate that. I have had chances to hear it with more headphone amps but i didnt really give the comparisons the time they needed to say anything for sure. Though i can compare it to the built in headamp in the Anedio D2 which is a very well implemented. The main difference is in the soundstage, and also in the "3D-ness" of the performers. with the built in headamp the performers are more like flat paper cutouts, whereas with the Mjolnir instruments get fleshed out into 3d performers in the space. The space is also just larger and more open. The thing would be that the bass isnt as tight nor as deep and impactful. I would highly reccomend the Mjolnir with the LCD-3s the.
 
On the topic of styles of music. I spend something likie 85% of my listening time listening to metal of very extreme varieties, which never have very good mastering and have pretty abysmal dynamic range. Ive never found the 3s to be too revealing or anything with the music that i listen too. BUt then again, i am of the opinion that nothing can be too revealing, i want the honest truth of my music, and if the mastering is bad or the recording has poor dynamic range so be it.
 
Once again, i dont think the difference between the 2s and the 3s are subtle.
 
also, they arent a perfect headphone, the only ones ive heard that earn that title are the Sr-009s

 
Okay you convinced me to upgrade my LCD-2

 

[SoupRKnowva]

Quote:

Agreed. 

 
Quote:

Agreed again. 

 

 

 
Quote:

 
Okay you convinced me to upgrade my LCD-2

 
 
you wont regret it

 

[preproman]

WOW,
 
I've been a long time LCD-2 owner.  Listened to it on a variety of SS amps.  You're not going to know the difference between the two unless you hear them for yourself.  Coming from a HE-6 guy.  I appreciate the LCD-3 almost 2 or 3 times more I do the LCD-2.  It's the openness that I like of the LCD-3 when compared to the LCD-2.  I had the LCD-2 for so long.  As soon as I put the LCD-3s on for the first time I heard the difference right away.  
 
While the LCD-3 would be my second favorite headphone, the LCD-2 is like my 5th or 6th favorite.  That's a big gap.  Your not going to find that gap unless you listen to a few so called TOTL headphones.  The Mjolnir is really a good amp to pair with the LCDs so is the BHA-1.  These two amps would be very hard to tell apart.  But for the price the MJ will be a good choice.  
 
However, the V200 may be more to your liking it has that sort of laid back sig.  
 
I say upgrade your amp and keep your LCD-2s if you like what their giving you.  (Mjolnir or V200).  Then maybe upgrade your DAC.  Down the road after you go to a few meets then decide if you want to invest in the LCD-3s..

 

[Chgm]

i have a question the MJ is unforgiving with mainstream record like eletronica and etc? and another question use the MJ with the bifrost and not the Gungnir is a downgrade with the setup and sorry this is a bit offtopic i know

 

[Duartisimo]

*edit

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Hi everbody!
 
Sorry if I'm reviving an old thread, but i have been experiencing a bit of discomfort from my bright Grado RS1i's with albums such as RHCP's Californication and Metallica's Death Magnetic, probably 2 of the worst mastered albums ever, but hey i still like the music!
 
Considering the Flagship article guy's assessment that the LCD-3's are very forgiving with poorly mastered albums, what your take on the LCD-2 regarding the same issue? specially with those 2 albums if you have heard them. My source is Woo's WA7.
 
Most think the 2 headphones are a bit similar, just one being a bit better that the other, so are both just as forgiving?
 
By the way, not interested in the LCD-3. Nothing against them, but for $2000 I'll rather spend that money on a plane ticket and hotel to see my favorite band play live!

I wouldn't say that the LCD-3s are very forgiving of poor material. They are quite harsh with it...but they are easier on the ears next to the HD800s or especially the SR-009s. The LCD-2s are much more forgiving of poor material IME.

 

[Duartisimo]

*edit