New Audeze LCD3

[googleli]

Steve, appreciate that. I do notice a not small difference during the burn in process but my pair is still far away from that mark. It only has around a hundred hours so far but the sound does change.I can't burn in 24X7 because the LCD3 is at office and I am using a tube amp for it (Liquid Fire).  I am thinking maybe I should bring it home to burn in 24X7 (using the Pioneer flagship receiver SC-LX85, which is, of course, solid state) and bring back my Rev 1 to the office for the time being.

 

[googleli]

It does accpet HDMI signal from Bluray Players / Game Consoles /  AV Receivers. It also has a digital output which allows the D-A conversion to be done by a separate DAC after the Realizer processes the analog or digital PCM signal into your own personalized 7.1/5.1/2.0 speaker setup.

To those who don't know what the Realizer is - it takes measurements by a simple process and reproduces the sound of the speaker system exactly. It is not the dolby digital headphones or things like Mixamp which only give you a feeling of 5.1/7.1. In the former case the headphones are crap, in the latter case the sound stage is barely there, it just barely produces what seems to be sound from surrounding channels, but still quite far from the real thing. The Realiser lets you use your own headphone, and by doing measurements in different environments you can listen to those environments via your headphone at home. The measurement doesn't stop at the showroom. It also measures your headphone and therefore adjusts the signature of your headphone to match the sound of the environment where you did your measurements. Apart from sub-bass where my SVS PC-13 Ultra still prevails, I find the system to be amazingly accurate. At one point I thought I was listening to my speakers but in reality only my Stax is making the sound. It is that awesome.
Quote:

Got it, thanks.  So it's an analog audio processor of sorts, I thought it was doing something in the digital domain.

 

 

[Icenine2]

Is Audeze commenting on break-in period for the 3's at all?

 

[SteveM324]

 
Quote:

Steve, appreciate that. I do notice a not small difference during the burn in process but my pair is still far away from that mark. It only has around a hundred hours so far but the sound does change.I can't burn in 24X7 because the LCD3 is at office and I am using a tube amp for it (Liquid Fire).  I am thinking maybe I should bring it home to burn in 24X7 (using the Pioneer flagship receiver SC-LX85, which is, of course, solid state) and bring back my Rev 1 to the office for the time being.

googleli,
I agree with you that I would not want to waste valuable tube life with expensive tubes in my tube amps to burn-in the LCD3.  I used an old Sony ES DVD player playing music at a moderately loud volume setting.  I set this up in my basement where it would not disturb anyone else in my family. 
 

 

[WarriorAnt]

The question of burn in is an interesting one.  No one believes in burn in more than I do.   MY LCD-2 r.2's came into their own sometime after 200 hours, something I posted back when the LCD-2 r.2 was just issued and took some heat for that observation.      However the issue remains that some folks have gotten LCD-3's that seem to have performed well without the need for burn in and it seems all of those folks have not experienced any sonic disparity.  The source of my loaner had two sets at the same time, one of which sounded excellent and the other had the sonic signature some owners have come to called veiled, muffled, Saran wrapped.  So it is a mystery as to what is occurring with some of the 3's. 
 

 

[arnaud]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveM324 
   Once the differences between A and B are determined,  I would see about tightening up the tolerances of those characteristics that are different.  I might run a Design of Experiments (DOE) using Six Sigma methods to determine the key characteristics and levels needed to output a good headphone based an output of FR and waterfall measurements.  I doubt whether anything like this is being done by Audeze or any of their competitors but considering that this is a $2000 headphone and the widespread response to it, I don't think it's out of the question

Tyll over at InnerFidelity website is working on an article that will be of interest to you. The bad news is that there is apparently large variability in the measurement process (room temperature, sliding headphone position, compression of the cushions after several hours...) which makes quantification of burnin difficult or impossible through comparison of standard FRFs or waterfalls at various hours. 
 
Probably repeating the test over 10-20 samples and averaging the results could help but it then becomes a serious challenge even for a headphone maker...  

 
Plus this all supposes that the claimed effect of burn of visible in such frf/csd graph, which isn't obvious. We may be talking about 1dB change at some frequencies, such graphs have 40-80dB range in standard presentation format. Furthermore, some peole like audeze apply heavy frequency smoothing to their curves, partly to make them look good, but also probably because of test repeatability issues I mentionned...
 
Interesting topic nonetheless, watch for a future post from Tyll Hertsen on the topic...
 
 
 

 

[Olias of Sunhillow]

Quote:

The question of burn in is an interesting one.  No one believes in burn in more than I do.   MY LCD-2 r.2's came into their own sometime after 200 hours, something I posted back when the LCD-2 r.2 was just issued and took some heat for that observation.      However the issue remains that some folks have gotten LCD-3's that seem to have performed well without the need for burn in and it seems all of those folks have not experienced any sonic disparity.  The source of my loaner had two sets at the same time, one of which sounded excellent and the other had the sonic signature some owners have come to called veiled, muffled, Saran wrapped.  So it is a mystery as to what is occurring with some of the 3's. 
 

The fact that one owner of two pairs reports them to sound completely different is, for me, the most interesting anecdote about the whole LCD-3 burn-in issue. Most new products are reported to need greater or lesser amounts of burn-in, so that individual reviews put the number at anywhere between 0 and 800 hours comes as no real surprise. 

 

[Icenine2]

I will second Warrior Ant's listening experience w/the LC2.2's.  Mine really picked up around the 200 mark as well.  I honestly have lost track at this point but they have improved even more since.  I do want LC3's for my very own but will have to wait a few more months.  We'll see what happens by then.  I think many here are using ALO or Q cables.  I believe Jude uses Moon Audio Silver Dragon's.  I wonder about the copper vs silver cable with these.

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

The fact that one owner of two pairs reports them to sound completely different is, for me, the most interesting anecdote about the whole LCD-3 burn-in issue. Most new products are reported to need greater or lesser amounts of burn-in, so that individual reviews put the number at anywhere between 0 and 800 hours comes as no real surprise. 

I have a loose idea that might explain why there are some LCD-3's that sound different but it is pure unfounded conjecture and may also be an unfair statement to present but here it is.
 
 
I have the feeling that there were two batches of LCD-3s.  The first batch was small and had a tighter QC and were obtained by the few at the show who were able to get a pair and perhaps also by some of the very first folks who ordered.   Then perhaps a second batch was made and manufactured together in a larger number.  When the first smaller batch ran out the second production batch was sent out.   I think it was the second production batch that went out that many people obtained that has a quality discrepancy. 
 
The first batch probably had a tighter control and the second commercial production batch was made in a larger quantity and something happened with the drivers in some way to produce a somewhat different signature from the first batch.  I have no idea what that might be. Perhaps a coating on the driver or some other part of the manufacturing process.  
 
Clearly though there seems to be two different LCD-3's at hand and from what I can tell none of the folks who obtained the very early 3's has reported the veil/muffle/saran wrap sound.    
 
Again this is just wild speculation on my part and perhaps it is unfair to post, but it does seem that every pair after those initial pairs need endless burn in and/or have some character not consistent with the earlier 3's.
 
Let me just also state that I firmly believe there was a second gunman in Dallas...

 

[Icenine2]

You may be right.  Both Jude and Skylab did not return their LC3's.  They knew they had a good one and did not want to chance giving it back and getting a lesser model?

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

You may be right.  Both Jude and Skylab did not return their LC3's.  They knew they had a good one and did not want to chance giving it back and getting a lesser model?

I'm not sure if anyone did or could surmise that the early LCD-3's were in any way different than perhaps what was to come.  I think they simply got 3's with sonic properties that were outstanding from the start and simply did not want to give them up. Then the latter batch came along which now appear to need burn in approaching the duration of light year travel.

 

[googleli]

It may also be due to different factory burn in time.

 

[SteveM324]

Quote:

 

Tyll over at InnerFidelity website is working on an article that will be of interest to you. The bad news is that there is apparently large variability in the measurement process (room temperature, sliding headphone position, compression of the cushions after several hours...) which makes quantification of burnin difficult or impossible through comparison of standard FRFs or waterfalls at various hours. 
 
Probably repeating the test over 10-20 samples and averaging the results could help but it then becomes a serious challenge even for a headphone maker...  

 
Plus this all supposes that the claimed effect of burn of visible in such frf/csd graph, which isn't obvious. We may be talking about 1dB change at some frequencies, such graphs have 40-80dB range in standard presentation format. Furthermore, some peole like audeze apply heavy frequency smoothing to their curves, partly to make them look good, but also probably because of test repeatability issues I mentionned...
 
Interesting topic nonetheless, watch for a future post from Tyll Hertsen on the topic...
 
 

I definitely understand the difficulty of doing the type of analysis discussed here and the measurement issues.  I think it is still worth a try especially on returned product where there is an obvious difference to the human ear between a good and bad pair.  If Audeze doesn't figure this out, then they stand to get a lot of returned product.    I look forward to Tyll's take on this matter.
 
 

 

[Gwarmi]

 
 Apologies in advance for the silly question.
 
 Last week I crawled over the first arrivals of the LCD-3 that made it into Melbourne, looking over the unit, there appears
 to be no marking or inscription that it is made in USA. Not that is should matter in any way, but the supplied shipment
 box states 'Made in China' ~ I'm hoping this relates to the cardboard and not the contents inside.
 
 Did I miss something? Is it marked anywhere in the box or on the headphone?

 

[DarknightDK]

Quote:

I have a loose idea that might explain why there are some LCD-3's that sound different but it is pure unfounded conjecture and may also be an unfair statement to present but here it is.
 
 
I have the feeling that there were two batches of LCD-3s.  The first batch was small and had a tighter QC and were obtained by the few at the show who were able to get a pair and perhaps also by some of the very first folks who ordered.   Then perhaps a second batch was made and manufactured together in a larger number.  When the first smaller batch ran out the second production batch was sent out.   I think it was the second production batch that went out that many people obtained that has a quality discrepancy. 
 
The first batch probably had a tighter control and the second commercial production batch was made in a larger quantity and something happened with the drivers in some way to produce a somewhat different signature from the first batch.  I have no idea what that might be. Perhaps a coating on the driver or some other part of the manufacturing process.  
 
Clearly though there seems to be two different LCD-3's at hand and from what I can tell none of the folks who obtained the very early 3's has reported the veil/muffle/saran wrap sound.    
 
Again this is just wild speculation on my part and perhaps it is unfair to post, but it does seem that every pair after those initial pairs need endless burn in and/or have some character not consistent with the earlier 3's.
 
Let me just also state that I firmly believe there was a second gunman in Dallas...

Thanks Warriorant for posting something as subjective as the variances in the SQ of the LCD-3s. Personally, I do think this is possible as I did notice a difference in the SQ of two LCD-3s I had. However, the differences became marginal after varying amounts of burn in. The first LCD-3 I had received was from the first batch (I ordered it the day it went up for sale) and without much burn-in, I did notice the veil in the sound. However, after about 150 hours of burn in, it sounded transparent, fluid and highly musical and enjoyable. Due to some issues with the driver, I had to return it in exchange for another LCD-3.
 
Now, upon receiving the second LCD-3 (2nd batch) and after approx 150 hours of burn in, the second LCD-3 did not have that transparency and fluidity I had noticed with the first LCD-3 I had. That magical sound just wasent there at that point. However, approaching the 300 hour burn in period, the sound starts to open up and the transparency and fluidity is closer to that which I heard with my first LCD-3, although not entirely there yet.
 
So with your theory above, I do think that more QC and burn-in was applied to the first batch of LCD-3s. So much so that it took less amount of time for the first batch of LCD-3s to open up and sound really enjoyable. It may be just a matter of less burn in period applied to the later batch of LCD-3s due to the overwhelming response and customer's requests to have the LCD-3s in-hand before christmas.
 
I would suggest burning in the LCD-3 for 400-500 hours before you do a proper comparision in SQ between the batches of LCD-3s.