First off, before the idea gets propagated that Audeze's issues are just the same variations that all other manufacturers endure let me be clear from my own personal experience and also clear up the idea that maybe 'veil' perceivers are 'unfamiliar' w/ Audeze house sound. I've actually posted some of this before so apologies to those who actually read threads they subscribe to.
Sampled below, all w/ tracks and gear I'm familiar with:
3 x LCD2 r.1's-various degrees of ringing, resonances and muddled bass w/ fast complex passages. Some better than others, none were quite 'veiled' and had actually better clarity than I expected from comments about a 'dark' signature. Driver issues, Audeze makes r.2.
3 xLCD2 r.2's-first early proto/production (not sure) at Buena Park Headroom meet, lush mids gone, peaky treble, dry, incoherent signature, What moment. Second r.2 Anaheim meet, Mmmm...sounds good, mids mostly back, treble less peaky but still brighter than r.1. Third r.2 belongs to Craig Uthus at Eddie Current and that sounds much like the second r.2. New r.2 driver made to fix r.1 driver issues, first r.2 driver sounds like crap and nothing like subsequent r.2s which sound good. Audeze makes LCD3.
2 x LCD3's, one later modded w/ TP. First at the Anaheim meet, WTH? Mids veiled and covered w/ a blanket, thought maybe earpads or fit issue; no $2K phone could possibly sound like this. I hated this phone, especially for the price. Second LCD3 belonged to purrin, sounded exactly the same. Btw, he heard a second set at the same meet where I was unaware Audeze had brought a second pair later in the day. So he has heard 3 LCD3's that all have the 'veil' as he reports they sound the same. Heard the TP modded LCD3 and clarity is much better, not HD800 clarity and transparency but perhaps equal to a good r.1 but still behind the best LCD2r.2 I've heard. Best case it sounds like an improved LCD2r.1 whereas the LCD2r.2 as I've come to know the signature is a bit of a departure compared to the other two models.
So IME, after listening to 8 various LCD2/3's incarnations I'm not impressed w/ the QC at all especially after being lectured by the owner of the company about how superb the measures were taken in construction of the LCD3. Granted, like someone previous mentioned, I actually expect this level of QC from such a small operation, just not for $2K (personally) and not after having smoke blown up my a**.
FWIW, I've sampled 4 Beyer T1's now and they have a worse ratio IME. One good sounding and three others clearly inferior in performance. Even the best T1 I've heard makes my ears wonder if they would measure better than a DT880/600. It sounded fun in an audiophile way but a tad on the unrefined, less liquid side of things, which is how the bad T1's sound but to the extreme of being distorted and sloppy.
Compared to these two models, all HD800's sound like HD800s of which I've probably sampled 5-6 pairs by now. Not once have I heard something to make me ask myself whether there was something not indicative of any of them being an HD800 not performing as expected. I expect this of Beyerdynamic, maybe not so much Audeze.
Take this and everyone else's impressions for what it's worth . Those that want to ignore such experiences feel free, but don't put everything off to confused and inexperienced listeners. We have data, measurements, impressions and even something of an Audeze admission that they are looking into something, whatever that might or might not be. Being overly apologetic and equivocating will do nothing to resolve any possible issues or benefit potential future buyers and listeners. We all tend to want to have what we like and dislike reinforced, but being dismissive of problems with substantial data in unconstructive. I'll also say this, the last LCD2 mega thread was anything but an Audeze orgy of do no wrong perfection so I wouldn't say only people with issues will complain though I do tend to subscribe to the theory in general wrt forum posts. Fanboyism is another behavioral tendency on forums.
Here are my theories about those who don't complain about their LCD3's sound.
1-Their LCD3 actually sound and measure correctly (ie. working as intended).
2-Their gear is powering through or synergizing w/ a less than ideal performing LCD3 in such a way as to be indistinguishable.
3-They psychoacoustically adjust to the 'veil' such that it disappears over time, happens all the time w/ bass response variations among phones. One reason I A/B phones within tens of seconds using the same segment of tracks as to not let my brain and ears fool me when comparing.
4-They lack gear which might offer a different reference point to understand and witness what others perceive as 'veil' or other issues.
IMHO, YMMV, yada yada.....
