[dsticker]

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

To be honest, describing sound is very difficult beyond the most basic terms.  Bass, mids, and highs.  Beyond that, it gets very dubious.
 
http://wathifi.com/
 

 

[Wildcatsare1]

My 3f arrived, very good straight out of the box. Letting them burn-in now with some non stop reggae. Very nice slam, beautiful through the mids, small glare at 6Khz, hoping it ameliorates with burn-in.

 

[Wildcatsare1]

Interested in opinions, thought's appreciated...

 

[Articnoise]

  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.

It’s relevant.

 

Stereophile’s definition of transparent is commonly used and almost the same as Head-fi’s definition:

“Transparent - Easy to hear into the music, detailed, clear, not muddy. Wide flat frequency response, sharp time response, very low distortion and noise. A hear through quality that is akin to clarity and reveals all aspects of detail.”

 

http://www.head-fi.org/a/describing-sound-a-glossary

 

[Articnoise]

My 3f arrived, very good straight out of the box. Letting them burn-in now with some non stop reggae. Very nice slam, beautiful through the mids, small glare at 6Khz, hoping it ameliorates with burn-in.

 

Congrats! They matures nicely with some burn in IMO. The treble gets a bit smoother and the sound opens up and gets clearer and more transparent. 

 

[Wildcatsare1]

 



Congrats! They matures nicely with some burn in IMO. The treble gets a bit smoother and the sound opens up and gets clearer and more transparent. 

Thank you, I am already amazed by the resolution, you can have it and not have the treble glare that my HD800 gets on poor recordings and rock.

I am finally listening to rock again, ZZ Top, the Who, and some great recommendations on rap and incredible driving bass rock from potkettleblack

 

[marcan]

  It’s relevant.

 

Stereophile’s definition of transparent is commonly used and almost the same as Head-fi’s definition:

“Transparent - Easy to hear into the music, detailed, clear, not muddy. Wide flat frequency response, sharp time response, very low distortion and noise. A hear through quality that is akin to clarity and reveals all aspects of detail.”

 

http://www.head-fi.org/a/describing-sound-a-glossary

In my book transparency means close to the original.
And if we look at a "Wide flat frequency response, sharp time response, very low distortion and noise" the measurements are all in favour of the LCD2.2.

 

[rgs9200m]

My 3f arrived, very good straight out of the box. Letting them burn-in now with some non stop reggae. Very nice slam, beautiful through the mids, small glare at 6Khz, hoping it ameliorates with burn-in.

Nah, the 3F does have some glare that shows up in some places like vocals. Burn in does not cure it. That's why I have posted that I prefer the Non-fazored 3 better, even though the Fazored version is more clear with better imaging. Tonality is always priority one for me. (Along with lack of fatigue.) I do listen to both versions though. I prefer the 3F with a warmer cable like a Black dragon or an older Apex cable that I got a long time ago and is no longer made. 
(In the LCD4 thread, I asked if the new LCD4 has the best of both worlds and does not have glare, and the responders have said yes to this.)
I'm thinking a Norne cable would be good, as is was for my former Hifiman 560 (it relaxed the sound nicely), but I have not heard it with Audeze.

 

[Wildcatsare1]

Nah, the 3F does have some glare that shows up in some places like vocals. Burn in does not cure it. That's why I have posted that I prefer the Non-fazored 3 better, even though the Fazored version is more clear with better imaging. Tonality is always priority one for me. (Along with lack of fatigue.) I do listen to both versions though. I prefer the 3F with a warmer cable like a Black dragon or an older Apex cable that I got a long time ago and is no longer made. 
(In the LCD4 thread, I asked if the new LCD4 has the best of both worlds and does not have glare, and the responders have said yes to this.)
I'm thinking a Norne cable would be good, as is was for my former Hifiman 560 (it relaxed the sound nicely), but I have not heard it with Audeze.

I still have the Draug 2 from my HE560 as well, I'll be shooting it to Trevor tomorrow to be re-terminated. The LCD-X I borrowed had the Draug 2 on it and it sounded wonderful!

I am up to post 9,800 on this thread, then onto the impressions thread! Really enjoying the 3s.

 

[Wildcatsare1]

In my book transparency means close to the original.
And if we look at a "Wide flat frequency response, sharp time response, very low distortion and noise" the measurements are all in favour of the LCD2.2.

You know it's wonderful if you want to have your own definition of "transparency" in your world. Could you please give it a rest and let the remainder of us use the nominclature used by the majority of audiophiles and writers? You see that's how language works, if we all made up our own definitions it would be chaos .

 

[marcan]

You know it's wonderful if you want to have your own definition of "transparency" in your world. Could you please give it a rest and let the remainder of us use the nominclature used by the majority of audiophiles and writers? You see that's how language works, if we all made up our own definitions it would be chaos .

I didn't give my definition of transparency, I gave the professional definition of transparency.
If you red carefully you'll see that I also used the definition  that Articnoise gave to confirm my point.
And if there is a subjective part in the definition, you will have discussion (and chaos).

 

[anorphirith]

Hey guys I need a 3ft mini xlr to 3.5" cable, for the lcd 3 any recommendations ? 
thanks 

 

[mscott58]

  Hey guys I need a 3ft mini xlr to 3.5" cable, for the lcd 3 any recommendations ? 
thanks 

Many good choices. All depends on your budget and sound preference. 
 
Moon Audio Silver Dragon V3
Wywires Red
Nordost Heimdall 2
Norne Audio
Double Helix Cable
Cardas Clear
(others will recommend more)
 
Cheers 
 
PS - And I assume you mean 3.5mm, not 3.5" (inch). That would be a big connector! 

 

[anorphirith]

thanks I think I'll guy the connectors and some good quality copper cable and do it myself haha, I don't wanna spend more than 50$ on a cable

 

[anorphirith]

For the record people who want to use the objective 2 amp with the lcd3f's you need to use high gain all the time, low gain isn't strong enough, also with the LCD3f you loose a lot of details and the bass isn't as tight as a quality desktop amp. I didn't really have that problem when I was using them with my HD650 as they resolve much less anyway. My point is objective 2 + lcd3f, not a good match