[K3cT]

Quote:

I love reading that the 009 is technically superior.  And yet the measurements suggest they are equals.  So I think it would be more fair to suggest the 009 is subjectively better.  One thing is for certain, its a ton more expensive to build a rig around

 
If it makes you happy I definitely much prefer the LCD-3 over the SR-007. 

 

[Solude]

Not about me.
 
I was in the Stax Mafia for 4 years with the 007MkI and KGSS.  But when I compared it to the LCD-2 and B22 over a few weeks at home, I preferred the LCD-2 pretty much across the board and felt the 007MkI was quite grainy and lifeless in comparison.  The 009 might actually fit me properly but looks like a vice since I wouldn't be able to stretch out the headband.
 
And being clear, I'm not saying the 009 doesn't sound better than the LCD-3, just that as far as Tyll's measurements are concerned, they are equals.  Though I would argue the LCD-3's lower overshoot makes it technically superior.

 

[googleli]

No don't do this to me.

With the LF/LCD3 and the 009 you get the best of both worlds. You will definitely appreciate how much more transparent the 009 is but at the same time you will somehow miss the slightly smoothed out sound of the LCD3 and the authority when the LF drives it and the sweetness those Siemens CCa's bring. Oh and you do feel curious about comparing possibly the two best current production headphones, don't you?

 

[K3cT]

Quote:

Not about me.
 
I was in the Stax Mafia for 4 years with the 007MkI and KGSS.  But when I compared it to the LCD-2 and B22 over a few weeks at home, I preferred the LCD-2 pretty much across the board and felt the 007MkI was quite grainy and lifeless in comparison.  The 009 might actually fit me properly but looks like a vice since I wouldn't be able to stretch out the headband.
 
And being clear, I'm not saying the 009 doesn't sound better than the LCD-3, just that as far as Tyll's measurements are concerned, they are equals.  Though I would argue the LCD-3's lower overshoot makes it technically superior.

 
I guess it's something that you have to hear first before you can judge them but the SR-009 (out from the BHSE) has the peculiar ability to make everything else in the room to sounds veiled, including its little brother, LCD-3, HE-6 and HD800. I don't think the SR-009 is flawless as I seemed to detect several weaknesses but oh boy, it sounds so clear and natural. 
 
And for the record I agree with your general sentiment regarding the 007 and if I have to sum that headphone up, I would say that it's a bit too soft sounding for my general taste. After living with the Lambda for a good while I've became convinced that this is the kind of STAX sound that I want (I made a couple posts about this in the general STAX thread some time ago) and thankfully the SR-009 didn't disappoint in this regard. 

 

[SteveM324]

Quote:

With the LF/LCD3 and the 009 you get the best of both worlds. You will definitely appreciate how much more transparent the 009 is but at the same time you will somehow miss the slightly smoothed out sound of the LCD3 and the authority when the LF drives it and the sweetness those Siemens CCa's bring. Oh and you do feel curious about comparing possibly the two best current production headphones, don't you?

Agree that it's nice having both headphones and my LF has the Siemens E88CC.  My DarkStar is also great with the LCD3.  The 009 sounds incredible with my vinyl rig.

 

[Olias of Sunhillow]

After two months without an LCD-3, my second set arrived yesterday (thanks again Radio_head!). I've spent a couple hours listening to them tonight and am definitely glad to have another Audez'e in the house. This pair seems to be a bit more comfortable than my last pair (variations in pads, I assume) and has perhaps a bit more sparkle in the treble (but don't quote me on that).
 
As has been mentioned before in several places, the LCD-3 has excellent synergy with the Bryston BHA-1. Fast, detailed, reasonable soundstage, etc. I will post some comparisons with my other amps in the next few days.

 

[DogMeat]

Considering LCD3's vs. 2's,(Bamboo).....I prefer my Sen 600's,(modded-foam OUT), and Westone 3's, etc. over newer models because I always choose for my classical music pref's, less heavy bass and more detail of the subtleties in the music.
I like being able to hear the very tiny, high pitched,nearly inaudible sounds in the music of Jon Serrie's stuff when I am trying to float away into a soundscape.....
 
So, after trying to wade through  432 pages, I'm still not sure which choice might be the best one here.
And, anybody experience the Bamboo vs. the Rosewood?
 
I like a nice bass, but don't want those mids and highs and clarity muffed by it.

 

 

[paradoxper]

Quote:

Considering LCD3's vs. 2's,(Bamboo).....I prefer my Sen 600's,(modded-foam OUT), and Westone 3's, etc. over newer models because I always choose for my classical music pref's, less heavy bass and more detail of the subtleties in the music.
I like being able to hear the very tiny, high pitched,nearly inaudible sounds in the music of Jon Serrie's stuff when I am trying to float away into a soundscape.....
 
So, after trying to wade through  432 pages, I'm still not sure which choice might be the best one here.
And, anybody experience the Bamboo vs. the Rosewood?
 
I like a nice bass, but don't want those mids and highs and clarity muffed by it.

 

Then only look at LCD-3's they have improved mids and highs. The bass is also more extended, but has less slam comparatively to LCD-2's.
 
And there is no difference between LCD-2 Bamboo nor LCD-2 Rosewood. The LCD-3 is a Zebra wood though.

 

[Anthony1]

Then only look at LCD-3's they have improved mids and highs. The bass is also more extended, but has less slam comparatively to LCD-2's.

+1
Im in the same boat and have auditioned both (A/B'd) and agree.

 

[Solude]

Never been true.  The LCD-X have always been ruler flat to 1KHz the bass never muddied the mids.  Current production LCD-2 has higher high frequency levels compared to the LCD-3.  The LCD-3 is however more linear in the treble region, but also more shelved.  InnerFidelity has plots for current production Audeze line.

 

[paradoxper]

Solude, who are you replying to?

 

[rgs9200m]

Quote:

Considering LCD3's vs. 2's,(Bamboo).....I prefer my Sen 600's,(modded-foam OUT), and Westone 3's, etc. over newer models because I always choose for my classical music pref's, less heavy bass and more detail of the subtleties in the music.
I like being able to hear the very tiny, high pitched,nearly inaudible sounds in the music of Jon Serrie's stuff when I am trying to float away into a soundscape.....
 
So, after trying to wade through  432 pages, I'm still not sure which choice might be the best one here.
And, anybody experience the Bamboo vs. the Rosewood?
 
I like a nice bass, but don't want those mids and highs and clarity muffed by it.

 

LCD3s are not muffled at all. I never understood why some say this. They are very clear in the mids and highs. In fact sometime there is some upper mid glare (I needed to work on that with upstream tweaking).
I also have LCD2 rev 2s just for the record (the LCD3s are more natural and open-spaced, well worth the 2xLCD2 price in my book).

 

[Olias of Sunhillow]

Quote:

Never been true.  The LCD-X have always been ruler flat to 1KHz the bass never muddied the mids.  Current production LCD-2 has higher high frequency levels compared to the LCD-3.  The LCD-3 is however more linear in the treble reason, but also more shelved.  InnerFidelity has plots for current production Audeze line.

 
This does not match my experience. Both pairs of post-RMA LCD-3s I have owned have had both better treble extension and smoother high frequency response than my rosewood LCD-2.2s.

 

[Solude]

Isn't that what I said?  Linear means smooth extension.  The LCD-2.2 has a broad spike at 10K.  My other reply was in relation to thinking the LCD-X was muddy.

 

[Lan647]

I heard the LCD-3 as having more sub-bass than the LCD-2 rev2 but graphs tell me otherwise.