[Olias of Sunhillow]

Quote:

Actually, I find that in terms of detail resolution, LCD-2r2 > LCD-3 > LCD-2r1. At least that was the case with my units.
 

Very interesting, since the detail resolution of my LCD-3 is far superior to my LCD-2.2. In fact, it rivals my HE-6.

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

 

The problem is that I still really like my LCD-2 rev.1, and if I were to part with $2k now it would be for some new source equipment.
By the time I'm ready the LCD-4 will probably be out 

What is your digital source now?     By the time the LCD-4 come out maybe there will be a new challenging ortho out from Hifiman...
 

 

[okw3188]

Up to now, I've seen a equal mix of good & bad response with the LCD-3, anyone using Lyr on their front end care to give their opinion on this? 

 

[Icenine2]

Some talk about soundstage here and there.  If you want to hear soundstage and dynamics try and get Living Stereo Copland: Billy the Kid; Rodeo; Grofe: Grand Canyon Suite.  It's a dual disc for SACD which I don't have.  However the humble CD is still unbelievable for a test for soundstage.  It is into the next room if your rig is dialed in.

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

What is your digital source now?     By the time the LCD-4 come out maybe there will be a new challenging ortho out from Hifiman...

For my LCD-2/WA22 rig, I'm running a Matrix Mini-i which has balanced outputs and features dual AD1955 D/A chips. The USB input is its weakest feature so I am feeding it with a Firestone Bravo + their Supplier PSU USB-spdif converter. It slugs well above its price point that way and I really like its sound signature but there is certainly better out there. It will probably come down to one of the upcoming Schiit balanced DACs, or perhaps that new Woo WDS-1.
 
But I am also interested in upgrading my analog source, as I have my eye on a new turntable as well 

 

[rgs9200m]

Quote:

Hey,
 
I am not sure, if I should buy a LCD3 blindly. Since I live in Switzerland, there is no other option.
I couldn't find a good A/B between the 507 i can refer to and the LCD3.
 
I had the 507 for a weekend at home and compared it to my 303. Driven by a SRM T1 and my Yulong D100, i came to a different conclusion. To my ears, the 303 sounded more laid back and more rolled off in the highs. At the end of the day, i preffered the signature of my 303 and the difference in resolution wasn't worth 1k $.
 
Right now, I'm thinking about buying a LCD3 and a Little Dot MK VI, but is the difference worth 3k $?

Just go and buy the LCD3's blindly. I went through a lot of phones bought and sold (like a dozen, including Stax Omegas and R10s) and money before I settled on Audezes.
Eventually you'll get these, so just get it over with, get them and you'll feel settled and be happy with them. I think I have Audio ADHD but the LCD3s (and LCD2 Rev2s) are all I need.
Buying from Audeze is kind of like buying from the Soup Nazi but their phones are worth it.
 
Then just concentrate on a great amp and source and a good pair of ICs and a few good power cords and a good power conditioner and last but not least a comfy chair and you're all set.
It may sound like a lot but at least you don't need to worry about room acoustics or a dedicated soundproofed listening room (panic rooms are good for that).
Good luck.
 
 

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Very interesting, since the detail resolution of my LCD-3 is far superior to my LCD-2.2. In fact, it rivals my HE-6.

Very interesting to me as well as I thought the LCD-3 was a total FAIL in terms of detail and resolution. I have heard 2 different sets as well and both were utter and totally complete disappointments.

 

[dagothur]

It would be kind of difficult to drastically improve on the detail retrieval of the LCD2 without going the way of electrostatics.  I was made more concretely aware of how detailed the LCD-2s were yesterday when I could tell the difference between dubbed and 'natural' audio on an episode of Dexter.  When Dexter does his well-crafted monologues, I can actually tell when he's too close to the microphone.

 

[visualguy]

Quote:

It would be kind of difficult to drastically improve on the detail retrieval of the LCD2 without going the way of electrostatics.

Huh? Quite a few non-electrostatic headphones provide better detail resolution than the LCD-2. Examples: HE-6, HD800, T1, W5000. The LCD-2 (and LCD-3 for that matter) are actually quite low on the detail pecking order in my experience.

 

[grokit]

I certainly agree having the LCD-2 and HD800 side by side. Details aren't everything though.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Very interesting, since the detail resolution of my LCD-3 is far superior to my LCD-2.2. In fact, it rivals my HE-6.

I would say it is slightly better than the HE-6s. If others are having issues, then I'd suggest looking at what's feeding them. Jude, Rob (Skylab), yourself, and many others think the LCD-3s are outstanding in this regard and I completely agree with them.

 

[koonhua90]

Although I am in no position to assume anything since I have not heard any other high end headphones, but from my experience of having the JH16 (unless you think that the JH16 is not detailed), I would like to point out that there is a difference between lack of details and having details that are not pushed to your face, ie upfront.
 
A lot of the so-called more detailed earphones/headphones just have a raised/focused high mid/low treble response in order to give the impression that it is detailed. The LCD-3 with its shelved high mid/low treble after 1kHz (see Purrin's measurements or refer your own freq response chart) can give the false impression that it is not details. It's there, just that it's not put in stark focus.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Although I am in no position to assume anything since I have not heard any other high end headphones, but from my experience of having the JH16 (unless you think that the JH16 is not detailed), I would like to point out that there is a difference between lack of details and having details that are not pushed to your face, ie upfront.
 
A lot of the so-called more detailed earphones/headphones just have a raised/focused high mid/low treble response in order to give the impression that it is detailed. The LCD-3 with its shelved high mid/low treble after 1kHz (see Purrin's measurements or refer your own freq response chart) can give the false impression that it is not details. It's there, just that it's not put in stark focus.

 
Very well stated...it depends what you judge as your "standard". If it's to hear every last tiny detail in the up most clarity, then maybe the HD800s are ideal. Generally for me, it the standard is real life....something I found the LCD-2s excelled in....and the LCD-3s have improved on this further.
 
The "stark focus" isn't there in real life, so why should headphones amplify this?
 
 

 

[googleli]

To those who want more treble presence, try the ALO silver copper hybrid cable. You will not be disappointed. I am happy with my Norse cable since it sounds more natural. And if I want details ( true details across the board, not just treble) I would just reach for my 009. Also for the treble lovers, I am not sure if anyone tried this, but switching back to the LCD2 earpads may help. With the squishier pads of the 3, the drivers become closer to the ears, especially on the front part. I tried pulling the earcups further away from my ears and there is indeed a sense of more refined treble and better soundstage.
 
By the way my new Norse cable just arrived. Very impressed so far, will post some impressions after 

 

[visualguy]

Quote:

 
The "stark focus" isn't there in real life, so why should headphones amplify this?
 
 

It's there in spades in real life. Have you ever been close to acoustic instruments being played? Even what you get from the SR-009 or HD800 pales compared to the amount of detail you get from a live piano or trumpet or other acoustic instruments. Also, live music is bright, not "shelved".