This is my first post on Head-Fi, and I wanted to share my experience with my pre-RMA and post-RMA LCD-3. To start, why did I RMA'd them? My early batch unit never sounded veiled to me, and indeed it was among the non-veiled units in Tyll's sample. Yet even with my non-veiled unit, I felt that my LCD-3, while lovely and an improvement over the LCD-2 in several respects, were missing upper midrange and treble energy. This was not a problem on some genres such as slow tempo female vocals (in fact, they sounded awesome in such genres), but on denser, more complex music the sound was bit muddy, lacking clarity. More importantly, I felt the headphones did not do justice to the higher overtones of many instruments, which are so crucial in giving a given instrument or orchestra its own sound. I listen to a lot of symphonic music, and through my LCD-3 all orchestras sounded lovely but not fully themselves.
My repaired units solve these problems in spades. I would not hesitate in saying that the differences between early and late LCD-3 mirror (and are as significant) as those between the LCD-2.1 and the LCD-2.2, and that the latest LCD-3 has a sound signature closer to the LCD-2.2 than to the early LCD-3. In my RMAd unit the sound is now significantly more lit up, faster, clearer, more open, and (crucial to me), more able to differentiate the subtle tonal differences across instruments and orchestras. On the other hand, the bass, though still deep, is less impactful. At first I felt the bass was bit weak relative to the Audez'e awesome norm in this area, until I played jazz bass and organ and realized the bass was as deep as one would want. It was only then that I realized that, in retrospect, my previous unit had "too much" bass, in that the bass bled into the higher frequencies and simply resonated too much.
So, is the repaired unit better? I think this will be a matter of taste, in the same way that some people prefer the LCD-2.1 to the 2.2, and vice-versa. If you don't find your early LCD-3 veiled, and you love its lush presentation, and don't feel it's too dark sounding, don't exchange it as you may find the new unit a bit too lit up and not lush enough. Personally, I find the changes suit my expectations great, and find that the LCD-3 finally deliver on their promise and sound the way they should have sounded from the get go.
Now, although the latest LCD-3 and the LCD-2.2 share a very similar sound signature, I would add the former is a significant step up (I'm not speaking of memory, I have them side by side now in my house). The LCD-3 is faster, more open and transparent, and significantly more refined (the LCD-2.2's treble sounds rough by comparison).
Two final observations if I may. First, the turnover was incredibly fast: I sent them on a Saturday for Monday delivery, and I had them home five days later on Thursday (on the east coast). Second, I felt the sound improved significantly over the first twenty hours of playtime, though it could be my brain adapting to the significant change in sound signature.
Hope some of you find these impressions useful.
