[purrin]

 
Quote:

The opinions of the lcd3 are all over the place and some of the graphs seem to favor the lcd2 as being better. It seems like a crap shoot on if they are worth buying.

I guess it depends upon which version someone would want. The "cream" or the "clear". It's obvious Googleli had preferred the cream. Even in relation to the r2, I've heard thinner and thicker sounding r2s. So its seems all over the place. For example MH could have had one of the thicker sounding r2s and clearer sounding LCD3s.
 

 

[purrin]

 
Quote:

@ purrin
 
If Audeze will cover the costs might as well get another data point.  Maybe you'll get lucky w/ a new batch.

Then again, the TP or smaller diameter PT mods do exactly what I want. Both channels on my LCD3 are matched well. And the drivers exhibit no ringing. Nada. So in a way I'm afraid of turning it in for fear or gaining some and losing in others.
 

 

[Hawaiiancerveza]

Why would they be inconsistent? 
Quote:

 

I guess it depends upon which version someone would want. The "cream" or the "clear". It's obvious Googleli had preferred the cream. Even in relation to the r2, I've heard thinner and thicker sounding r2s. So its seems all over the place. For example MH could have had one of the thicker sounding r2s and clearer sounding LCD3s.
 

 

 

[Olias of Sunhillow]

Quote:

Hmm. Just going back in this thread and read about Olias and mwilson's experiences. JPnums had also suggested I send them back - at least for Audeze to take a look at them. I don't know what to think now.

It's a tough call. After weeks of going back and forth, I sent mine back to be checked because I wasn't enjoying listening to them anymore. Not because they sounded universally bad -- they sound excellent on some recordings, but poor on others -- but because I was studying each and every track I played to see if "the veil" was present. We all like to study our cans and associated rigs in the most minute detail we can, but most of us also like to "unplug" and just listen to music at other times. I found myself unable to do so... so they're back to Audez'e for examination and testing.
 
I suspect there are multiple different factors playing into the communal unease about the LCD-3.
 

1. Some of us have undoubtedly received slightly faulty equipment. I think this is the case for me, as well as for the much-discussed mwilson/WarriorAnt "two pairs, different sound" scenario and perhaps several others. Though it's unfortunate, I do not find this surprising in the introduction of new high-end equipment.
2. Others have never extensively heard Audez'e headphones before and do not prefer their house sound in comparison to other "flagship" headphones. There is nothing wrong with this at all.
3. Others may prefer the unique sound signatures of earlier Audez'e models -- the relaxed and intimate LCD-2.1 or the energetic and bombastic LCD-2.2 -- especially in light of the fact that the new cans cost twice as much.
4. Others surely prefer other the sound and presentation of other "Summit-Fi" headphones and can best express this preference through comparisons that many of us (not having extensive experience with, for example, Stax equipment) cannot truly appreciate.
5. And maybe, just maybe, there are one or two individuals with axes to grind. I can't read minds or hearts, so we'll just let it be at that.

 
Having owned both versions of the LCD-2, I personally know and love the Audez'e house sound. The LCD-3s improved on that house sound in many ways (including soundstage and treble extension, IMO), so I can't personally agree with many of the criticisms levied against the LCD-3s by others who disapproved of them. But then again, this being an enthusiasts' forum, I'm not sure agreeing with every criticism (or every compliment, for that matter) should be our goal.
 

 

[zyth3x]

Any word yet on whether the LCD-3 pads will be available to buy separately?

 

[WhiteCrow]

not sure if this is old news or not but headroom got a graph up.

 

[Jian]

The concept of "clear" is debatable. IMO the clarity of LCD3 is much higher than that of LCD2 1/2.

 

[Currawong]

Inconsistent frequency response results with individual pairs of LCD-3s is merely going to add to the confusion of variables that need considering when trying to figure out what is going on. More fun times.
 
MacedonianHero: Ask Tyll directly about what he does. There is some discussion on Innerfidelity about it ...somewhere, but he does, from what I can see, take all possibilities of variation very seriously and is very forthright about any limitations of his measurements.  But either way, we have arnaud and purrin giving peer review in effect.

 

[dyl1dyl]

Quote:

The concept of "clear" is debatable. IMO the clarity of LCD3 is much higher than that of LCD2 1/2.

I agree. Noticeably better than the LCD-2 rev1 or 2 but still not quite up to the standard of the Stax 007 or 009.

 

[MuppetFace]

Quote:

I agree. Noticeably better than the LCD-2 rev1 or 2 but still not quite up to the standard of the Stax 007 or 009.

I agree that the LCD-3 sounds clearer than the rev. 1 LCD-2, but I'm still a bit unsure about the rev. 2. The more energetic treble of the rev. 2 may be influencing my perception here, though.
 
I do agree that the SR-007 and SR-009 definitely have the upper hand when it comes to clarity. They're the two most "transparent" headphones I own. With that in mind, I'm not so sure I'd equate clarity with detail however. The Qualias are a perfect example. They're so detailed it sounds unnatural. The SR-007 on the other hand is slightly less so but has a more accurate tonality to my ears, so that I think they present the music without as much interference on their part.

 

[sphinxvc]

Olias, great post.

 

[Naim.F.C]

I'm quite interested in hearing the LCD-3's. Mainly just to see how they compare to the LCD-2's, among other high end cans such as the HD800 and T1. The most important element of the LCD range that I feel needs some advancement is with sound stage. It's one area where they still fall somewhat behind the others, in place of a more warm or bass exemplified sonic presentation. Mainly I just want to know how the sound stage size, depth, width etc compares to the LCD2.1 and .2. Given the similarities with the actual physical outer casing, I wonder if the diaphragm will be enough. I also wonder how much of the sonic difference is due to the new diaphragm, and how much is due to the new pads.

 

[Paganini Alfredo]

Quote:

Any word yet on whether the LCD-3 pads will be available to buy separately?

I emailed the guys and asked them if I could buy a replacement pair but haven't heard anything back

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

 

I guess it depends upon which version someone would want. The "cream" or the "clear". It's obvious Googleli had preferred the cream. Even in relation to the r2, I've heard thinner and thicker sounding r2s. So its seems all over the place. For example MH could have had one of the thicker sounding r2s and clearer sounding LCD3s.
 

My R2s were not thicker sounding than my R1s and my LCD-3s are quite clear. Just to clarify. Not sure if you're confusing more treble = more clear.
 
Quote:

Inconsistent frequency response results with individual pairs of LCD-3s is merely going to add to the confusion of variables that need considering when trying to figure out what is going on. More fun times.
 
MacedonianHero: Ask Tyll directly about what he does. There is some discussion on Innerfidelity about it ...somewhere, but he does, from what I can see, take all possibilities of variation very seriously and is very forthright about any limitations of his measurements.  But either way, we have arnaud and purrin giving peer review in effect.

I have seen what is done and let's just say in my world (aero/military/medical manufacturing) that would not be sufficient for my customers in order for me to validate a measurement system that directly measures critical to quality dimensions.

 
Unfortunately, through my experience, without a strong manufacturing background, designers do not typically appreciate 6 Sigma enough to fully grasp these concepts.

 

[arnaud]

Tyll, 
 
you heard the man: now go on and measure the same headphone 200 times and do not come back until we know that you can get down to .1dB. After all cm, decibel, ruler, neuman head, headphone, airplane lever, it's all the same business, isn't it?! And don't forget to fill in your QC report please