Greed
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2012
- Posts
- 2,833
- Likes
- 227
Quote:
No argument here, but in relation to the comment I quoted, it wouldn't be realistic for me to recommend the 3.2 revision in comparison to the HD800. Yes, the comparison is unfair but he asked, so I answered. Only closed headphone that even comes close to the open and airy presence of the HD800 is the TH-900. Even with the best gear, it would still be challenging to come close. So, as I said, take the MD's for what they are or look elsewhere. I haven't found the 3.2 version to sound any bit more "airy" or less congested than the 3.0 version.
This, although I felt the treble presented some better extension.
I don't know about you, but I also find the LCD-2 and LCD-3 a bit congested and muffled when compared to the HD800. Not to say that it's to the same degree whatsoever, but the HD800 makes a lot of headphones look bad (especially when talking about congestion).
No argument here, but in relation to the comment I quoted, it wouldn't be realistic for me to recommend the 3.2 revision in comparison to the HD800. Yes, the comparison is unfair but he asked, so I answered. Only closed headphone that even comes close to the open and airy presence of the HD800 is the TH-900. Even with the best gear, it would still be challenging to come close. So, as I said, take the MD's for what they are or look elsewhere. I haven't found the 3.2 version to sound any bit more "airy" or less congested than the 3.0 version.
No, it sacrifices a little of the mids. The highs are the same as I remember of the 3.0.
This, although I felt the treble presented some better extension.