Smackdown: LCD3 vs SR009
The very notion of this is dumb. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Those who prefer or appreciate electrostatics will like the SR009. Those who prefer or appreciate the strengths of the LCD2 will like the LCD3 even more. If we really want to get down to it: the LCD3 will not be replacing the SR009. The SR009, properly powered, is simply on another level in terms on clarify, speed, and transient response. At this rate, it won't be until the LCD6 or 7 until Audeze gets close. The LCD3 has it's own strengths however, particularly with low bass volume. I'm going to focus more on the LCD3 because it seems to be of interest to more people.
SR009:
This SR009 needs to be properly powered. My initial assessment was that it does OK with inferior amplification such as the SRM323. This is true for low volume levels. Once you turn the volume up, the 009 struggles on inferior amps. The BHSE and to a slightly lesser extent, the KGSS hold their own in power the 009. I didn't not find the 009 to be thin or bright sounding from n3rdling's Accuphase/BHSE or dougquaid's PWD/KGSS. The sound signature out of these rigs reminded me of a properly sourced and powered UERM IEM: neutral, not thin, not bright, not cold, but neutral.
LCD3:
I actually like the LCD3. This is indeed special because readers of my pre-measurement impressions in the CSD thread will note that I pretty much dislike 80% of what's out there. I heard the LCD3 out of several rigs; and also out of my PWD/BA. I tried out a few different driver tubes too get a good match. The tonal balance is similar to the LCDr2, but with a much more linear frequency response. Whereas the LCD2r2 is still a little rough in the treble, the LCD3 is smooth and relaxed. The big question for me is still whether it can better extract low level information. I got a sense of that indeed it would toward the end of the meet when things started to quiet down. Because the LCD3 is similar in tonal balance to the HD650, it does require a quieter background environment than say an HD800 to ascertain this attribute. I wish I had it longer because the Audeze guys had to leave a bit early.
Now I'm not about the proclaim the LCD3 as the best dynamic headphone ever. I would prefer to be conservative and take some time to first tweak my setup around it. Some people know that I really like the HD800 (at least the modded version that drops the treble down 3db) and built my setup around it. Even then, the HD800 can only be "tolerable" (in terms of brightness) with certain material; so I feel the LCD3 would be an excellent complement to the HD800 where I could just relax with it. I didn't note any soundstage issues with the LCD3. The soundstage thing is not a priority for me, and it's more a matter of icing-on-the-cake then necessity. It could also be a matter that the BA goes some ways to make the soundstage issue moot.
I feel the LCD3 as an incremental step from the LCD2r2, which was itself an incremental step from the LCD2r1. The LCD3 is slightly faster, slightly clearer, slightly more extended and much more linear and smooth in the treble region. The improved linearity is the one I most welcome. I also feel that the bass is more coherent. Do I want to pay $1945 for it? No. I want to pay $1445 for it. But I also want to pay $3200 for the SR009 and $1200 for the HD800. So I guess it sucks to be me.
BTW I'm on the list to get one.
P.S. The LCD3 has thicker more squishy pads. The headphone feels comfortable for me. The issues I had with the LCD2r1 with too much force clamping on the side of my head are no longer there. The LCD3 also seems lighter, although I don't know if it's because of better distribution of weight.
