[EdmontonCanuck]

  I hope you get Emmlabs to loan you a dac up in Calgary.

 
Perhaps @hakushondaimao, the event organizer, could inquire as to the possibility

 

[inseconds99]

I have been thinking of jumping into my first Audeze purchase, either the 2,3,X. After reading multiple threads I am oddly concerned about the failure rate on these headphones. In no other thread for any other totl headphone do I hear such failure rates. Is this something that I should be concerned about?

Second, I am looking for a musical, full sounding headphone, deep extended bass and excellent mids. I like a smooth sounding headphone, similar to the hd650 with more soundstage. Which one of the three would fit the bill the best?

 

[Wildcatsare1]

I have been thinking of jumping into my first Audeze purchase, either the 2,3,X. After reading multiple threads I am oddly concerned about the failure rate on these headphones. In no other thread for any other totl headphone do I hear such failure rates. Is this something that I should be concerned about?

Second, I am looking for a musical, full sounding headphone, deep extended bass and excellent mids. I like a smooth sounding headphone, similar to the hd650 with more soundstage. Which one of the three would fit the bill the best?

I don't have my 3f yet, so a large grain of salt is recomended.

Your sq goals appear pretty similar to mine. I was looking for a tonaly rich headphone to balance with my HD800's. Tried the LCD-X and loved them, but they were just a tad to close to the neutrality of my 800, not sterile like the 800's, just not quite as much of the richness of sound I wanted. So I went with the LCD-3f, can't wait until Tuesaday, more to come.

P.S. You can't go wrong with any of the three and Audeze's customer service is incredible.

 

[thomascrown]

I have been thinking of jumping into my first Audeze purchase, either the 2,3,X. After reading multiple threads I am oddly concerned about the failure rate on these headphones. In no other thread for any other totl headphone do I hear such failure rates. Is this something that I should be concerned about?

Second, I am looking for a musical, full sounding headphone, deep extended bass and excellent mids. I like a smooth sounding headphone, similar to the hd650 with more soundstage. Which one of the three would fit the bill the best?

I was/am a big fan of the hd650, so when I decided to "upgrade" I bought the lcd 2f, I sold them and moved to the hd800 looking for more details, but after a while I missed the audeze sound, so I bought also the lcd3. Long story short, my opinion is that the lcd2f has the best price/performance ratio. They could be considered an improvement from the hd650 in terms of signature, but not (too) crazy expensive.
Above the lcd2, to me, it's more a refinement/budget/status thing. Considering also that many have issues with the weight of the lcd line, I wouldn't sell the hd650 before trying any lcd and I also wouldn't return any lcd before wearing them for long enough.

 

[inseconds99]

I don't have my 3f yet, so a large grain of salt is recomended.

Your sq goals appear pretty similar to mine. I was looking for a tonaly rich headphone to balance with my HD800's. Tried the LCD-X and loved them, but they were just a tad to close to the neutrality of my 800, not sterile like the 800's, just not quite as much of the richness of sound I wanted. So I went with the LCD-3f, can't wait until Tuesaday, more to come.

P.S. You can't go wrong with any of the three and Audeze's customer service is incredible.

 
 

  I was/am a big fan of the hd650, so when I decided to "upgrade" I bought the lcd 2f, I sold them and moved to the hd800 looking for more details, but after a while I missed the audeze sound, so I bought also the lcd3. Long story short, my opinion is that the lcd2f has the best price/performance ratio. They could be considered an improvement from the hd650 in terms of signature, but not (too) crazy expensive.
Above the lcd2, to me, it's more a refinement/budget/status thing. Considering also that many have issues with the weight of the lcd line, I wouldn't sell the hd650 before trying any lcd and I also wouldn't return any lcd before wearing them for long enough.

Thank you for the replies, I have my updated headphone list in my profile but I have owned most of these headphones in these 2 posts. I loved my HD800's for their absolute transparency, but after a while of owning them I realized that their transparency didn't always lead to a fun listening experience. So now I look for headphones with close to the details of the HD800 (hard to get close as they are probably the most detailed headphones on earth) with some warmth, some boost the the bass and smoother treble. I loved the HD650's when I had them but found the veil that they clearly had to be distracting. Currently loving my Fostex Th900 though the treble can be a little fatiguing and mids a little recessed. I have the opportunity to purchase any model of Audeze at great cost but I want to make the correct decision on the model to purchase.

 

[Gibalok]

Try he560. Its a champion of tonal balance and smooth presenation. Comparing to lcd2 which are annoying sometimes with HF, he560 is absolutely universal neutral cans and its bug upgrade to hd650 but keeps the same dark and smooth sound signature. And considering the price difference of lcd3 and he560 the last is no brainer for you. But lcd2/3 are more fun (bold, emotional, intimate) sound.

So i have th900 and he560 and they are absolutely different. I woukd keep them and add lcd2/3 perspectively.

 

[marcan]

I don't know what is your definition of transparency but I have the impression that some people think that details or lots of treble means transparent.
For me transparency means closer to the original recording.
"If the frequency response is flat to less than 1/10th dB from 20 Hz to 20 KHz, and the sum of all noise and distortion is at least 100 dB below the music, a device can be said to be audibly transparent."
 
Now headphones and loudspeakers all have their coloration and are not transparent regarding this definition.
But the HD800 is not more transparent than a Audeze. The HD800 have more trebles. We can even talk about coloration because it is above a flat response.
 
So if we take the measurements of an HD800 and an LCD2rev2, we can see that the LCD2rev2 is more transparent than the HD800.
And in the frequency response, look at the raw curve. Here is why from Tyll Hertsens, the person who made the  measurements: "Over time I've come to look much more at the raw, uncompensated curves than the compensated plot, primarily because I know the ID (or DF or FF) compensation curves are not quite correct."
So if we look at the measurements (because if we talk about transparency there is no other way); you will see that the LCD has a flatter frequency response from top to bottom, has less distortion particularly in the bass and has a much better square waves at 30Hz.
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD800.pdf
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2Rev2.pdf
 
So please don't tell that HD800 is more transparent than a LCD because it is simply not true.

 

[inseconds99]

  I don't know what is your definition of transparency but I have the impression that some people think that details or lots of treble means transparent.
For me transparency means closer to the original recording.
"If the frequency response is flat to less than 1/10th dB from 20 Hz to 20 KHz, and the sum of all noise and distortion is at least 100 dB below the music, a device can be said to be audibly transparent."
 
Now headphones and loudspeakers all have their coloration and are not transparent regarding this definition.
But the HD800 is not more transparent than a Audeze. The HD800 have more trebles. We can even talk about coloration because it is above a flat response.
 
So if we take the measurements of an HD800 and an LCD2rev2, we can see that the LCD2rev2 is more transparent than the HD800.
And in the frequency response, look at the raw curve. Here is why from Tyll Hertsens, the person who made the  measurements: "Over time I've come to look much more at the raw, uncompensated curves than the compensated plot, primarily because I know the ID (or DF or FF) compensation curves are not quite correct."
So if we look at the measurements (because if we talk about transparency there is no other way); you will see that the LCD has a flatter frequency response from top to bottom, has less distortion particularly in the bass and has a much better square waves at 30Hz.
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/SennheiserHD800.pdf
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2Rev2.pdf
 
So please don't tell that HD800 is more transparent than a LCD because it is simply not true.

I don't claim to know the science behind these curves but I am pretty sure this would explain a bit http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/first-test-estimated-harman-target-response-curve-various-headphones#ytJfuI4ohjiwfAbQ.97 . Therefore a flat frequency headphone would be considered colored and not transparent as our ears don't hear as a flat response but rather on a curve such as the Harman target curve. But like I said, I am no expert on this subject but many more intelligent people then myself would say that the HD800 is far more transparent then the LCD 2.

 

[marcan]

  I don't claim to know the science behind these curves but I am pretty sure this would explain a bit http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/first-test-estimated-harman-target-response-curve-various-headphones#ytJfuI4ohjiwfAbQ.97 . Therefore a flat frequency headphone would be considered colored and not transparent as our ears don't hear as a flat response but rather on a curve such as the Harman target curve. But like I said, I am no expert on this subject but many more intelligent people then myself would say that the HD800 is far more transparent then the LCD 2.

Target curve is just what it says. A curve created subjectively that sound good to the ears of the listeners. That's all. In other word it gives the coloration that a sample of people like.
The raw curve gives you the real frequency response and that's what count in the definition of transparency.
And the HD800 has more treble energy than the LCD2 which gives the impression that it is more transparent while it's not.

 

[Articnoise]

FYI

 

“Transparency, transparent 1) A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. 2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal. A quality of crystalline clarity.”

 

Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-t-u#u5vqhlwQAWm5pZjQ.99

 

[marcan]

  FYI

 

“Transparency, transparent 1) A quality of sound reproduction that gives the impression of listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. 2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal. A quality of crystalline clarity.”

 

Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-t-u#u5vqhlwQAWm5pZjQ.99

With the terms "gives the impression", everybody can say that his system is transparent. So using this kind of definition to objectively compare devices is not relevant.
I gave the scientific definition of transparency:
"If the frequency response is flat to less than 1/10th dB from 20 Hz to 20 KHz, and the sum of all noise and distortion is at least 100 dB below the music, a device can be said to be audibly transparent."
Now if have to listen to the HD800 according to your definition, I don't have the impression to listen to the original sound but rather to an headphone which lake bass and has spiky trebles.
With the Audeze I just listen to the music.

 

[Stereolab42]

The scientific definition of transparency has no practical meaning for transducers because everyone's heads and ears (and room, for loudspeakers) are built differently. I know people put a lot of effort into building fake heads and measuring headphones, but freq response measured in that way doesn't necessarily correspond to what some individual person is actually hearing. For amps and DACs, however, the scientific definition has much more relevance since the output is just a wire into another component.

 

[Kheadfi]

Those are wise words, thanks.

 

[marcan]

  The scientific definition of transparency has no practical meaning for transducers because everyone's heads and ears (and room, for loudspeakers) are built differently. I know people put a lot of effort into building fake heads and measuring headphones, but freq response measured in that way doesn't necessarily correspond to what some individual person is actually hearing. For amps and DACs, however, the scientific definition has much more relevance since the output is just a wire into another component.

So in the end transparency doesn't mean anything for headphones then...
Anyway my point was that some people think that a clearer sound  (more treble or hi mids) means more transparent but it is not same think.
 
We made a shootout of headphones in a recording studio.
We recorded several male and female vocals.
The listeners (mainly engineers and artists) was in the recording room during the different takes.
Then we all listened to the recording with different headphones in the control room. The question was to identify which headphone was closer the direct experience.
The LCD2.2 was the better and the HD800 was not bad but colored in the high mids/treble, it was particularly evident with the female voice.
The male voice on the HD800 laked the warmness and meat of the direct experience.
We used a Neumann and a tube preamp. So it is not the more neutral (we had to record the voices for a recording, not just for the test).
But knowing the coloration of the preamp and the mic it should have help the HD800 but it wasn't the case.

 

[Bigsecret]

Proof that using visual terms like 'transparency' to describe sound may lose something in the translation.