[citraian]

Thanks!
That's it? A little airier? Hmm, I kind of have HD 800 for that

 

[Pier Paolo]

Thanks!
That's it? A little airier? Hmm, I kind of have HD 800 for that

Well, the other parameters remain the same, so it is very different fron hd800. Anyway the bass seems a little more controlled and the midrange peak has gone. But we are talking about VERY LITTLE differencies.

 

[Jones Bob]

The thing is I'm currently in US for a few days and I could get them way cheaper than in Europe. That's why I'm so curious if the 3C to 3F upgrade is worth it

My second pair of LCD-3F are still burning in. They sound more balanced than the first demo pair.

The first pair had incredible bass articulation and extension (seemed like to DC) which drew attention to it. That may be a problem of balance with more listening.

The second pair were good "sounding" out of the box, but did not have the same stunning bass as the first pair. The bass it had was more articulate and balanced than my LCD-3C. The muddiness was gone. And air and stick work on cymbals were more present. A very clear, less dark sound.

Both LCD-3F are more efficient than the LCD-3C. At the same amp volume setting, I had to turn the digital volume down at least -10dB to get a similar SPL (by ear) from the LCD-3F. The DCR measured 107/ 110 ohm on the fazored Audeze. 47 ohm on my originals.

The originals still have a superb relaxed sonic signature that is very natural and non-fatiguing. Its "sins" are more of omission. The new LCD-3Fs out of the box were fatiguing, though not as much as the LCD-X was for me. The new ones with fazors sound are relaxing now, and sound like a more refined LCD-X. With more burn-In, they may relax enough to get the expressiveness of the old LCD-3s, but it is close now. My other LCDs have not exhibited burn-in like these LCD-3F.

I would say the LCD-3C is a more closed in mid-hall perspective, while second LCD-3F is a more open front center.

As of today, I really like my LCD-3F more than the LCD-X. Still have not yet come to say I prefer my LCD-3F to my LCD-3C.

There is also the large sample to sample variation I have heard in the LCD-3F to consider.

 

[Jones Bob]

After burning in all last night, and listening most of today, I am very happy with the LCD-3F. It is blooming in soundstage and extension on the top and bottom. Dynamics are realistic and at many times surprising but not overblown -reminds me of a great horn loudspeaker in this regard. The emotion is IN the music. On the Titanic soundtrack, there is low frequency detail and nuance I never heard in my local theater (with a SOTA THX Meyer Sound system). The high frequencies are near perfect, in proportion and clarity.

Amazing headphones. Glad I bought them.

 

[goldendarko]

After burning in all last night, and listening most of today, I am very happy with the LCD-3F. It is blooming in soundstage and extension on the top and bottom. Dynamics are realistic and at many times surprising but not overblown -reminds me of a great horn loudspeaker in this regard. The emotion is IN the music. On the Titanic soundtrack, there is low frequency detail and nuance I never heard in my local theater (with a SOTA THX Meyer Sound system). The high frequencies are near perfect, in proportion and clarity.



Amazing headphones. Glad I bought them.

 


+1, they seem to get better every time i listen with them, must be burning in now. Love the sound so far, really quite a significant upgrade from the LCD-2.2.

 

[citraian]

After burning in all last night, and listening most of today, I am very happy with the LCD-3F. It is blooming in soundstage and extension on the top and bottom. Dynamics are realistic and at many times surprising but not overblown -reminds me of a great horn loudspeaker in this regard. The emotion is IN the music. On the Titanic soundtrack, there is low frequency detail and nuance I never heard in my local theater (with a SOTA THX Meyer Sound system). The high frequencies are near perfect, in proportion and clarity.

Amazing headphones. Glad I bought them.

Still don't know what to do Decisions decisions...

 

[Argo Duck]

^ I suppose if you don't like it you could easily recoup your money in Europe, given the duty levied there?

FWIW remembering I'm coming from LCD2.1 my LCD3F is becoming less "wow" after 3 weeks of sporadic listening. Visceral bass impact is better on the 2.1. That said, the LCD3F has precise imaging, better extension top and also bottom despite the low-bass FR looking less than the 2.1, and seamless integration throughout the range. Classical music is more convincing. I would say the 3F is slightly better with almost all material, and a lot better with about every 10th track.

To be fair most of my listening is with my tube-amp, tuned neutral but optimised over most of 2012 and '13 for the 2.1. It's possible a different driver tube is needed. As well, a direct A/B with my 2.1 might quickly reveal many other things have improved

 

[TheGrumpyOldMan]

<snip>
Both LCD-3F are more efficient than the LCD-3C. At the same amp volume setting, I had to turn the digital volume down at least -10dB to get a similar SPL (by ear) from the LCD-3F. The DCR measured 107/ 110 ohm on the fazored Audeze. 47 ohm on my originals.
<snip>

Hmm, not to doubt your experience but I wonder how that could be?
 
I thought the LCD-3 mod was just the addition of the Fazor waveguide elements, this should not change the efficiency of the driver itself?
 
Or are they actually replacing the WHOLE driver unit (LOTUS diaphragm, efficiency: 94dB/1mW) with a LCD-X/C driver type (new diaphragm, efficiency:  96dB/1mW) plus Fazors? Making it essentially an LCD-X in a wood frame?
 
Either way I won't even consider having my favourite LCD-3 (classic) modified until somebody like Tyll has some solid measurements of what the LCD-3f actually does compared to the LCD-3c...

 

[Argo Duck]

^ Jones Bob's DC resistance measurement is right on the money: Audez'e quote 110R impedance on their website.

They quote efficiency of 94dB SPL/1mW. That's the same as the 3C is it?

Hopefully they have not relinquished the LOTUS diaphragm, which I understand is thinner and lighter than the X/XC membrane.

 

[kothganesh]

  Hmm, not to doubt your experience but I wonder how that could be?
 
I thought the LCD-3 mod was just the addition of the Fazor waveguide elements, this should not change the efficiency of the driver itself?
 
Or are they actually replacing the WHOLE driver unit (LOTUS diaphragm, efficiency: 94dB/1mW) with a LCD-X/C driver type (new diaphragm, efficiency:  96dB/1mW) plus Fazors? Making it essentially an LCD-X in a wood frame?
 
Either way I won't even consider having my favourite LCD-3 (classic) modified until somebody like Tyll has some solid measurements of what the LCD-3f actually does compared to the LCD-3c...

My confusion exactly. Why would the 3 be morphed into the X unless there is a LCD-4 lurking and this is just an attempt at streamlining ?

 

[commtrd]

Any confirmation on different drivers in the LCD-F vs the LCD3classic? I wonder what the penalty would be to have them change the drivers and add fazors? Basically rendering a new setup for less green than purchasing a set of new headphones? I may email Audeze and pose that query to them. Also very interested in more comparos between the classic and the fazors. Reason being is the Schiit stack with the Mjolnir being very slightly tilted forward which is nicely synergetic with the LCD3s I have now. As mentioned have to take the whole chain into consideration when considering possible upgrades to a favorite set of phones which may shift the dynamics of the whole setup...

 

[commtrd]

Also had Schiit repair the amp and at the same time mod the Gungnir dac with the new USB module upgrade. So there is another slight variable hopefully will yield some tangible benefits. More feedback on the perceived differences in the LCD3s and the LCDF very much appreciated.

 

[TheGrumpyOldMan]

^ Jones Bob's DC resistance measurement is right on the money: Audez'e quote 110R impedance on their website.
They quote efficiency of 94dB SPL/1mW. That's the same as the 3C is it?
Hopefully they have not relinquished the LOTUS diaphragm, which I understand is thinner and lighter than the X/XC membrane.

The sensitivities I quote are straight from the respective specs pages on their site. The NEW drivers are a couple dB more efficient than the Lotus driver in the LCD-3 (which in turn were more sensitive than the early LCD-2s AFAIK) I can confirm this myself from having the volume set lower on my LCD-XC compared to my LCD-3 at comparable listening levels (not measured, but not needed since the volume difference is -clearly- audible)

 

[Argo Duck]

^ My point was if the current 3F has the same sensitivity as the previous 3C - IDK; I was asking you - then hopefully the 3F is still based on the Lotus driver, despite the clear difference in R.

However, I wasn't asserting this. I just don't know.

Who knows with Audez'e. Their sporadic contributions to these threads tend to be hit and run!

 

[Jones Bob]

^ Jones Bob's DC resistance measurement is right on the money: Audez'e quote 110R impedance on their website.

They quote efficiency of 94dB SPL/1mW. That's the same as the 3C is it?


Hopefully they have not relinquished the LOTUS diaphragm, which I understand is thinner and lighter than the X/XC membrane.

Sensitivity is referenced to power. 3C: 1wW=45 ohms@2.12V, 3F: 1mW=110 ohms@3.32V. I am at a loss to explain why the 3F is noticeably louder at the same volume setting, assuming equal voltage. I use a tube amp too.

I earlier asked and Audeze replied that the 3F uses the same diaphragm as the 3C. Can't be with such different measured DC resistances between the two. Maybe same membrane with a different voice coil etched on it?