[paulchiu]

there had been many re-issues of this recording, each perhaps bringing out just a tad more of that original source.
even with headphones, the sensation of being 'there' is 'happening' with "Jazz at the Pawn Shop"
I was first introduced to it at East 33st audio/electronics to audition a pair of Mordaunt Shorts Carnival speakers back in 1982.
Those speakers I still have today.
 
 
Quote:

Another one who agrees with the Jazz at the Pawn shop album. There is a reason it has been a HiFi test disk for so many years though unlike a great many that fall into that category it is really great to listen to in terms of musical involvement as well!

You know, one thing about whichever version of the Audeze's we own that is a constant in all the threads.. They make us want to listen to music more, especially well thought out, well recorded music, it's why they are top of the tree for me!

 
 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

 

LOL. I think you should let Jude, Currawong, and Skylab speak for themselves. While I don't feel as strongly as LFF does on some of his stated deficiencies of the LCD3, I am absolutely not threatened by his opinions, feel no need to invoke the names of the of Head-Fi deities, and more importantly don't totally disagree and understand where he is coming from. The Audeze headphones are definitely not one size fits all headphone, much like Grado.

Care to name a one size fits all headphone? My comments of the other Head-fiers were simply in regards to comments that they have already stated. Feel free to read say Jude's review or Headphone buyer's guide or maybe Rob's LCD-3 review threat that ended up being totally derailed by some. No one is threatened by opinions, far from it. I thought that's what we do here, talk about our experiences.
 
You're on the record on the LCD-2 thread as not being an Audeze fan...no worries, nothing wrong. But you're preferences have already been stated in favour of the HD800's presentation (not a one size fits all headphone either).

 

[purrin]

 

Now...speaking logically, and maybe someone with some math skills can help. I have heard 2 LCD-3's with the same problems. What are the odds that I heard 2 pairs with problems and the next 98 don't have it? Anyone?

 
Assuming a 2% defect rate, that is 2 out of 100 are bad:
 
The chance for the first one to be defective, the chance would be 2 in 100 or 1 in 50.
For the second one to be defective (assuming the first selection was defective) the odds would be 1 in 99 (since only one of the remaining 99 are defective.)
 
1/50 x 1/99 =
 
1 in 4950

 

[Noirceur]

Nobody for answer my question ? 

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

LOL. I think you should let Jude, Currawong, and Skylab speak for themselves.

 

I'm pretty sure that they already have. As far as a one size fits all headphone, if you mean for all music and all listeners it doesn't exist.

 

[purrin]

 
Quote:

Care to name a one size fits all headphone? My comments of the other Head-fiers were simply in regards to comments that they have already stated. Feel free to read say Jude's review or Headphone buyer's guide or maybe Rob's LCD-3 review threat that ended up being totally derailed by some. No one is threatened by opinions, far from it. I thought that's what we do here, talk about our experiences.
 
You're on the record on the LCD-2 thread as not being an Audeze fan...no worries, nothing wrong. But you're preferences have already been stated in favour of the HD800's presentation (not a one size fits all headphone either).

 
In terms of a one size fits all, I should clarify: I am starting to get the picture that the Audeze headphones are as polarizing as the Grados.
 
In terms of being a Audeze fan, I am not. But neither am not a fan of anything. This is one of the reasons I've started the CSD measurement threads, and I haven't certainly held back on criticisms of almost every headphone. I've very clearly criticized the HD800 and gone out of my way to say that the Sennheiser reps either are brainwashed or crazy when they claim the HD800 is neutral. I've also stated that I thought two of three r2's I've heard (this was verified by two others) were very good headphones, and that I would buy an r2 if I could somehow know how it would sound before I made the purchase. So I would appreciate it if you stop speaking for me. I've made it clear that I feel the LCD3 is a very good headphone.
 
That's fine if you want to invoke the Headphones Buyer's Guide, or Skylab. But if you are going to bring them up to bolster your argument against LFF, you may as well bring up the less than positive impressions too.

 

[Duckman]

Binaural recordings are a case apart IMO. The closer the driver is to the eardrum, the more realistic the soundstaging. You may find (as I did with an Altec Lansing iM616) that a good IEM will have even better spacial reproduction when doing binaural than the LCD2.
 
Quote:

 
 
Yes thanks Peter, I didn't know about this recording, added to cart 

 
It's been a long time since I've added any Ottmar Liebert to my collection!
 
 
I did a direct comparison of the soundstage of the HD800 and the LCD-2 r.1, and to my surprise while the HD800's highly-vaunted soundstage was deeper (front to back), the LCD-2 actually reproduced a wider (side to side) soundstage. I did this comparison because someone else had brought it up and I didn't believe them.

 

 

[Currawong]

I didn't know I was a deity here. I just offered to help Jude with the spam problem back when I was exploring the possibilities of replacing my old MB Quarts after the earpads went flat, after 15 years of use.
 
Anyway...
 
Quote:

Bonjour!
 
I'm french sorry I don't speak english. I have a question. A world-class headphone like the LC3 works fine for electro-music ? (Hiphop or daft punk style) . Or who is the best world-class headphone for this (LCD-2 too ?) ? I like impact sound like "loudspeaker" I like sound bass but with good detail.
 
Thanks!

Definitely yes. The LCD-2s, probably a bit more so actually.

 
Quote:

I see....
 
As for you, Jude, Skylab and Currawang...well...I guess it simply comes down to different strokes for different folks. I doubt it's the gear. I have heard them from multiple high end rigs...all with disappointing results.
 
I really am not looking for the one size fits all headphone but if a headphone claims to be TOTL, then it better perform a certain way for me. To me, the simple matter of the case is that the LCD-x do not perform at a level which I consider to be TOTL. Once again...different strokes and all that. I really do like the looks of the LCD-2 and the comfort of the pads on the LCD-3 though.

What I thought was, while the LCD-2s had a fast attack (if that's the best way to describe it), which gave the  impression of them being very detailed, I didn't find they were a great deal more resolving in my system than the HD-800s. In fact, the LCD-2s, though less so than the HE-5s I owned, were a little blurred with complex music.  What this could be attributed to I'll leave up to the experts, but I'd guess the combination of their faults. 
 
What I've found with the LCD-3s is that, in my best system, some of the texture of instruments that I'd normally only hear when using the SR-007s or SR-009s was present.  This is a very positive improvement to me.  Someone asked me about using a (particular) much cheaper rig with the LCD-3s, which I have. I feel the combo sounds very good, but I felt it doesn't make the improvements over the LCD-2s good value. So I'm going to be a PITA here and ask, "What are you plugging them into and what is your source?" Honestly, if it is what is in your profile, then I'd totally understand why your impressions differ from ours.

 

[purrin]

 
Quote:

This is a very positive improvement to me.  Someone asked me about using a (particular) much cheaper rig with the LCD-3s, which I have. I feel the combo sounds very good, but I felt it doesn't make the improvements over the LCD-2s good value. So I'm going to be a PITA here and ask, "What are you plugging them into and what is your source?" Honestly, if it is what is in your profile, then I'd totally understand why your impressions differ from ours.

I would agree on that. Assuming a sufficiently resolving source is used, the LCD3s are similar to the HD650s in that they require seriously good amplification for them to reach their full potential. I tried the LCD3 on a lesser DAC/amp combo, and it just didn't do the trick. As you said, barely any better, if at all, compared to the LCD2. I spoke to LFF the other day and I think it's just a matter of his expectations of a $2000 headphone.
 

 

[Argo Duck]

That's true if 100 were the total pool or population, and LFF's bad LCD3 was taken out of circulation ('without replacement') and so not available for re-selection (and LFF hadn't put a special mark on it in case it came up again etc). In this case, the probability of getting a second defect does lessen to 1/99 in the way shown.
 
My idealized scenario assumed essentially an unlimited pool. That's not quite right, as Audez'e will presumably stop making LCD3s at some point.
 
Whatever, the chance of two defects in succession is not particularly different with either model!
 
Quote:

 
The chance for the first one to be defective, the chance would be 2 in 100 or 1 in 50.
For the second one to be defective (assuming the first selection was defective) the odds would be 1 in 99 (since only one of the remaining 99 are defective.)
 
1/50 x 1/99 =
 
1 in 4950

 

 

[MacedonianHero]

 
Quote:

 
 
In terms of a one size fits all, I should clarify: I am starting to get the picture that the Audeze headphones are as polarizing as the Grados.
 
In terms of being a Audeze fan, I am not. But neither am not a fan of anything. This is one of the reasons I've started the CSD measurement threads, and I haven't certainly held back on criticisms of almost every headphone. I've very clearly criticized the HD800 and gone out of my way to say that the Sennheiser reps either are brainwashed or crazy when they claim the HD800 is neutral. I've also stated that I thought two of three r2's I've heard (this was verified by two others) were very good headphones, and that I would buy an r2 if I could somehow know how it would sound before I made the purchase. So I would appreciate it if you stop speaking for me. I've made it clear that I feel the LCD3 is a very good headphone.
 
That's fine if you want to invoke the Headphones Buyer's Guide, or Skylab. But if you are going to bring them up to bolster your argument against LFF, you may as well bring up the less than positive impressions too.

They were simply data points to support the theory that I wasn't delusional in terms of what I was hearing (that or what are the odds that Jude, Amos, Rob and I all had the same delusion?

).  In terms of less positive impressions, they are there too, but in the minority. I am on the record stating $2k is too pricey for the LCD-3s (as it is for any headphone in this price range as your measurements help prove) on my wiki comparison with the LCD-2 Rev.2s.
 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

What I thought was, while the LCD-2s had a fast attack (if that's the best way to describe it), which gave the  impression of them being very detailed, I didn't find they were a great deal more resolving in my system than the HD-800s. In fact, the LCD-2s, though less so than the HE-5s I owned, were a little blurred with complex music.  What this could be attributed to I'll leave up to the experts, but I'd guess the combination of their faults. 
 
What I've found with the LCD-3s is that, in my best system, some of the texture of instruments that I'd normally only hear when using the SR-007s or SR-009s was present.  This is a very positive improvement to me.  Someone asked me about using a (particular) much cheaper rig with the LCD-3s, which I have. I feel the combo sounds very good, but I felt it doesn't make the improvements over the LCD-2s good value. So I'm going to be a PITA here and ask, "What are you plugging them into and what is your source?" Honestly, if it is what is in your profile, then I'd totally understand why your impressions differ from ours.

Completed agreed Amos. The added detail, improved treble and sound staging are the top three advancements that really make the LCD-3s shine.
 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

 
I'm pretty sure that they already have. As far as a one size fits all headphone, if you mean for all music and all listeners it doesn't exist.
 

 


LoL...no it doesn't. But mosey on over to the SRH940 thread and there are a few who would suggest otherwise.

 

 

[purrin]

Thanks for clarifying. At the Irvine meet, I was outnumbered 4 to 1 in terms of less than positive impressions. 

 
As for one size fits all? Maybe the closest one would be the Joe Grado HP1000? Just throwing it out as a candidate. 

 

[LFF]

Quote:

 

I would agree on that. Assuming a sufficiently resolving source is used, the LCD3s are similar to the HD650s in that they require seriously good amplification for them to reach their full potential. I tried the LCD3 on a lesser DAC/amp combo, and it just didn't do the trick. As you said, barely any better, if at all, compared to the LCD2. I spoke to LFF the other day and I think it's just a matter of his expectations of a $2000 headphone.
 

Correct. Don't forget that I have heard them out of your rig with the exact same song I use as one of my test tracks. I really have no agenda to follow folks and am just offering my unbiased opinion and what my ears tell me.