[CanDude]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dj nellie /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
For whatever reason, I'm appreciating the LCD-3's sound more too.  There are some times when I'm not very impressed by or immersed in my listening session, but there are lots of variables--my mood, the quality of the recording, ambient noise, etc.

Agreed! A good LCD-3 reveals the recording, the source and amp and also your current state of hearing!
I use to check with pink noise (created with head-fit) if I think a recording sounds dull, maybe it is just my current hearing. Or volume, of course!
The positioning of the LCDs also changes the sound a tiny bit.
 
 

 

[dj nellie]

Well, the UERM and LCD-3 have very different presentations.  I think the UERM has the widest and most accurate imaging and spatial representation I've heard from a custom (I've owned the JH16 and ES5), and it comes the closest to portraying an out-of-head soundstage that I've heard from an IEM.  But it doesn't have the expansive sense of air and ambiance that the LCD-3 has.
 
The UERM is probably a little better than the LCD-3 at presenting a crystal-clear picture of the music, with a level of crispness and detail that can seem hyper-realistic.  On the other hand, the LCD-3 is fairly realistic but tends more towards a euphonic lushness rather than the UERM's razor-sharp focus.  And the UERM's bass--while accurate--just doesn't have the weight that I would ideally like.  It's not really comparable to the LCD-3's bass, which I think has great resonance but stays controlled.  But I've only tried the UERM with a few different sources and amps, and the combo I settled on (the CLAS and Pico Slim) are both ruthlessly neutral/bass light in character.
 
I'm happy to see you're enjoying your UERM, they are the top of the heap of customs as far as I'm concerned.  But I was a little surprised to see that you chose them to be used primarily in a home system.  It's hard to find a desktop amp that has the low gain/black background needed for customs, and even though I have one (the V200), the UERMs don't sound quite as natural to me as a good pair of full-size cans.  But for evaluating gear, extracting maximum detail from a recording, or listening on the go, the UERMs are ideal for me.

 

[CanDude]

Quote:

Some say that the 3s sound less "open" than the 2s. Could those elaborate on that a bit? Thanks. 

No way! My LCD-3A has a little bit less high-mid than my LCD-2r2 but more and clearer treble!
It's like "take your LCD-2r2, open the window and let some fresh air in" (and turn on the sub-woofer) and you have LCD-3! Or something like that...

 
Maybe they have veiled LCD-3s...
 
 

 

[Maxvla]

I've seen all those before, and took a similar picture of the HE6 when it was in prototype stage.    What are you referring to specifically?  None of those pictures are of the LCD-3 driver and it doesn't make the article make any more sense to me...

The original T50 uses similar bar magnets and a circular diaphgram, but they taper the magnet length at the sides of the driver to make it "round".  If Audeze used a round diaphragm they would probably have done this, and the whole headphone would be a more normal size and the earpads wouldn't be face huggers.

How does that not help you see how a round diaphragm works with bar magnets??

 

[Maxvla]

Well, the UERM and LCD-3 have very different presentations.  I think the UERM has the widest and most accurate imaging and spatial representation I've heard from a custom (I've owned the JH16 and ES5), and it comes the closest to portraying an out-of-head soundstage that I've heard from an IEM.  But it doesn't have the expansive sense of air and ambiance that the LCD-3 has.

The UERM is probably a little better than the LCD-3 at presenting a crystal-clear picture of the music, with a level of crispness and detail that can seem hyper-realistic.  On the other hand, the LCD-3 is fairly realistic but tends more towards a euphonic lushness rather than the UERM's razor-sharp focus.  And the UERM's bass--while accurate--just doesn't have the weight that I would ideally like.  It's not really comparable to the LCD-3's bass, which I think has great resonance but stays controlled.  But I've only tried the UERM with a few different sources and amps, and the combo I settled on (the CLAS and Pico Slim) are both ruthlessly neutral/bass light in character.

I'm happy to see you're enjoying your UERM, they are the top of the heap of customs as far as I'm concerned.  But I was a little surprised to see that you chose them to be used primarily in a home system.  It's hard to find a desktop amp that has the low gain/black background needed for customs, and even though I have one (the V200), the UERMs don't sound quite as natural to me as a good pair of full-size cans.  But for evaluating gear, extracting maximum detail from a recording, or listening on the go, the UERMs are ideal for me.

Thanks for the comments. I've heard both LCD3 and UERM but never on the same system with the same source. I've toyed with the idea of getting an LCD3 rig, but I think first I need to address my source quality. This is something that will scale with the UERM just as much or perhaps more than the LCD3 so I can put off the LCD3 purchase a while longer while in the long run helping that rig as well. The main reasoning I went to the UERM for main cans is I feel IEMs do a much better job of creating a seamless center image tied together with left and right. Often normal headphones sound like they are coming from 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock with sometimes nothing in the center, sometimes something directly at 12 o'clock but still having the gaps from 10 to 12 and 12 to 2 which is very distracting. At RMAF I found source/amp/fullsize headphone combinations that were able to do proper center imaging so that was great to find, but most of them were all the high end expensive models I can't just shell out for without regard.

My Woo WA6 has a totally black background, it is one of the reasons I bought it. As for other amps, I'm going to try the Objective 2 which has very low output impedance and extremely low noise measurements so it should be black. I'm curious how the solid state compares to my tubes as well. I found my favorite amp with the LCD3 at RMAF was the solid state Darkstar so I've gotten interested in solid state again, which I initially shunned after a poor outing with the Gilmore Lite, my first ever amp, and subsequent great success with the Little Dot MKIII a tubed OTL, my second amp.

 

[CanDude]

If you listen to SO cruel on U2's Achtung Baby, preferably the remastered version, on medium to high volume, you should have no wishes for more treble!
The hi-hat should be as crisp as you ever want it to be.
And the lovely bass, Larrys drums together with Adam's bass keyed to Larry's bodhrán, you think your cans are broken....
Compared to my studio monitors the treble level is correct IMO, however high-mids/low-treble is a little bit down on LCD-3. Otherwise the sound is very similar.
 
If your setup is fairly neutral you should get this picture with a good LCD-3.
 
BTW LCD-2 cannot handle this. The crispiness dissapears, Bono's voice gets an almost metallic flavour, details are gone and so is the sub bass!
 
In my setup, IMO, YMMV etc. ...
 
Hm, come to think of it, LCD-3 must be the remastered version of LCD-2!  

 
 

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

How does that not help you see how a round diaphragm works with bar magnets??

My point wasn't about the bar magnets, but the fact that the driver is a rectangle.  I guess it's possible, but see my post above.  
 
The T50rp uses a square diaphragm as you can see in your pics.  Here's a picture of the late 70's NAD RP18, which tapers the magnets (and traces) at the edges to make it a circle
 
doesn't really matter, I'm just saying that article seems to contradict a lot of things. 
 

 

[Maxvla]

The diagram with the cross section from the Yamaha ortho shows a round diaphragm.

 

[Sylafari]

The article's date is also February 1st, 2012. Time traveling! 

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

The diagram with the cross section from the Yamaha ortho shows a round diaphragm.

and a round driver

  Audeze driver is rectangular like the current T50rp (which has a rectangular diaphragm as well).

 

[Maxvla]

I have no idea what you are asking then. You ask about round drivers and bar magnets, now we're talking about rectangular ones?

 

[rhythmdevils]

I'm not really asking anything, I'm questioning things in the article that don't seem accurate. 
 
I'd like to know if Audeze actually uses a circular diaphragm inside that huge rectangular driver, and if so why.  None of the other pictures you posted do this.  They use round diaphragms with round drivers or rectangular diaphragms with rectangular drivers.  And if they actually used a different magnet structure with 33% more magnets in the LCD-3 and why it doesn't weigh more if that's the case.  And why they aren't advertising it as such...

 

[mwilson]

That article was rather bizarre given the inaccuracies it contains. But then again, keep the audience in mind (it was for Robb Report after all). The fact that it's an expensive pair in itself qualifies it as good. The nonsense SG utters about diaphragm shape and audio signals passing from the magnetic transducers is all secondary to most of that rag's readership.
 
Maxvla, thanks for the photos, but like rhythmdevils, I didn't have questions on ortho drivers, but rather on LCD using square vs. round.
 

 
Quote:

I'm not asking anything, I'm questioning things in the article that don't seem accurate. 
 
I'd like to know if Audeze actually uses a circular diaphragm inside that huge rectangular driver, and if so why.  None of the other pictures you posted do this.  They use round diaphragms with round drivers or rectangular diaphragms with rectangular drivers.  And if they actually used a different magnet structure with 33% more magnets in the LCD-3 and why it doesn't weigh more if that's the case.  And why they aren't advertising it as such...

 
 

 

[Frank I]

Quote:

That article was rather bizarre given the inaccuracies it contains. But then again, keep the audience in mind (it was for Robb Report after all). The fact that it's an expensive pair in itself qualifies it as good. The nonsense SG utters about diaphragm shape and audio signals passing from the magnetic transducers is all secondary to most of that rag's readership.
 
Maxvla, thanks for the photos, but like rhythmdevils, I didn't have questions on ortho drivers, but rather on LCD using square vs. round.
 

 

 
 

so are you saying their readership would not  mind the report that SG did not being accurate. Why? Because they have money does not mean they would not care. My brother reads that and plays  in that league and trust me the accuracy report is important to him as he owns what I and most of you can only dream of in a 2 channel system over 350,000 in a dedicated room and he always did  not have money,

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

so are you saying their readership would not  mind the report that SG did not being accurate. Why? Because they have money does not mean they would not care. My brother reads that and plays  in that league and trust me the accuracy report is important to him as he owns what I and most of you can only dream of in a 2 channel system over 350,000 in a dedicated room and he always did  not have money,

 
I'm sure that some people who read that will care but I'd imagine that most of their readership is just after the snob appeal.
 
Another interesting factor to consider is that many people with that kind of money probably wouldn't ever find out that some technical detail like that is wrong.  They spend most of their time working and aren't going to spend their precious free time researching that kind of stuff online and will just go straight to the top instead because even if they end up not liking it its usually still ends up a more efficient use of time and money than researching it beforehand.