Quote:
Quote:
Ridiculous to have these issues occurring. They need to get this under control if they want to move forward as a company. When my LCD2.2 driver blew after owning it one month the communication was poor at best.
Makes me nervous, only 5 months left on my warranty.
That's why I bought a three-year SquareTrade warranty. I am very jelly that the HE-500 has a longer warranty with a cheaper price.
Quote:
If you don't do something stupid like feeding excessive DC to the drivers or dropping the phones then they should last a long time.
I dropped mine the other day on carpet; the stock cable got caught on my chair's arms and fell off the stand from my desk onto the floor. They're fine and no big deal as I am getting a short cable for the best sound.
Quote:
These are some serious headphones. I've had them for an hour now. I can already say now that while they are the very best, they more revealing of bad recordings than the LCD2 (in the same vein as the HD800). I can see these headphones seriously underperforming with bad gear.
Have to say it is a picky headphone, reveals a lot bad recordings and makes certain record less enjoyable.
I would say sensitive to source but not bad. The LCD2 does mask a bit of details (compared to LCD3 and 009) so it makes bad recordings sound "better", but it is equalized by the fact that it does not sound as good as the 3 in good recordings and good source gear. Depends on whether you want to get the best out of the best or just an above average sound for almost all recordings and source.
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero /img/forum/go_quote.gif
See, Jazz at the Pawnshop was only one of the recordings I used. I too also used some pretty old and crappy Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett and Louis Armstrong albums that have been with me for about 20 years. They were the recordings that helped me come to the conclusion that the LCD-2s were better at poor recordings as the LCD-3s revealed quite a bit more. Skylab (another Head-fier who's ears I trust) came to the exact conclusion as well in his review (though with different sub par recordings).
The LCD-3s were better at extractting details with both world class and really bad recordings over the LCD-2 r2s.
I was wondering about this. With the LCD-2 Rev. 2, I listen to older recordings such as Frank Sinatra, Elvis, Buddy Holly, Beatles, Stones, Bob Dylan, & Kinks in mono. With these recordings...they sound, to me, as good as they are gonna sound, which is, really, not very good, but, it sounds as if the detail is being pushed to it's limit.
I was listening to other stuff like Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Pixies, Gin Blossoms...I was a bit underwhelmed with the production and I could hear how cruddy they sound compared to all the other stuff I have, and these were mostly all remastered recently. Granted, I have the stock cable still, but other stuff sounds amazing with these. With this detail, I can hear how production changed with the times. 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s...
How does the LCD-3 sound with those mono recordings or poor recordings in general? What flaws are they revealing and how is it affecting the sound? If they're bad, and if I do upgrade to the LCD-4 later (which would probably sound even worse with older songs), I may still keep the Rev. 2 for older stuff. Anyway, I was just wondering as I love this thread.
I must say that hearing about the problems with the different-sounding LCD-3s existing and the drivers being blown/unrepaired sucks big time. Here I am, blown away with the Rev. 2 and saved $4000 or so in my pocket by not getting the LCD-3 and it's pricey gear. Unlike many of you, my virgin ears find no flaws with the R.2 nor a small soundstage. I just sit back, immerse, and enjoy the music and heavy bass. Of course, they are my first $1000 headphone.
PS: Why was googleli banned? Was it because he's annoying?
