[preproman]

Measurements aside.  
 
The first thing you notice from the LCDs are what?  For me it the bass.  Therefore it stands out.  Therefore IMO it's exaggerated.  It's funny to me anyway how people let measurements dictate what they hear.

 

[WNBC]

However, five people look at the same painting and pick out 5 different things.  
 
I haven't heard the LCD-3 but paying attention to this thread.  Seems your taste would be closer to mine.  Thoughts on bass of the HE-500?  That may be one we both have shared.
 
Quote:

Measurements aside.  
 
The first thing you notice from the LCDs are what?  For me it the bass.  Therefore it stands out.  Therefore IMO it's exaggerated.  It's funny to me anyway how people let measurements dictate what they hear.

 

[preproman]

Quote:

However, five people look at the same painting and pick out 5 different things.  
 
I haven't heard the LCD-3 but paying attention to this thread.  Seems your taste would be closer to mine.  Thoughts on bass of the HE-500?  That may be one we both have shared.
 

 Right about that WNBC, that' why I said "for me"
 
The bass on the HE-500 is more to my liking but not the best I've heard. I think it can get a little flabby at times, not much though.  I like the bass on the HE-6 and the HE-5LE better when on the F1J.  

 

[OPR8R]

Quote:

Measurements aside.  
 
The first thing you notice from the LCDs are what?  For me it the bass.  Therefore it stands out.  Therefore IMO it's exaggerated.  It's funny to me anyway how people let measurements dictate what they hear.

 
The first thing I notice from LCD's is that they come closer to sounding natural than other headphones I've heard.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Already forgotten

LoL, exactly. 

 

[TheGrumpyOldMan]

Never considered the bass to be exaggerated myself... It extends lower than pretty much any other headphone, but only if those low frequencies are actually in the music.
 
But it does not emphasize it in any particular region, compared to a bass monster like the TH900 (even though -it- is apparently well-behaved compared to some other headphones...) which has audibly more bass in the more prominent bass region, but still can't go as low as the LCD-3s (organ music for example) Heck, my W3000 and the new pads has "more" bass in certain songs, and much less well controlled for that matter. That's why all 3 are my favourites in their own distinct way.
 
I think that the LCD-3's graphs well represent what it sounds like, to my ears anyway.

 

[Lan647]

Quote:

Measurements aside.  
 
The first thing you notice from the LCDs are what?  For me it the bass.  Therefore it stands out.  Therefore IMO it's exaggerated.  It's funny to me anyway how people let measurements dictate what they hear.

 
I do not use measurements to dictate what I hear, I use them for facts. 
 
What I HEAR, and the first thing that always stands out for me with the LCD-2s is just how smooth and coherent they are, how natural and effortless the reproduction is. The bass isn't forward at all, just very capable when it's called for. Never ever does it overshadow the rest of the spectrum. 
 
To me, the HD 800 is of a lower caliber. Yes, they are significantly more open sounding than the Audeze's and perhaps more crystal-clear, but through the neutral "high-end" systems I've heard the bass is passive and lacks extension, the midrange leans towards the thinner side of neutral and isn't as smooth and liquid as the Audezes, and the treble is bright - causing what many seems to think is a very detailed and "honest" sound. 
 
When I compare the HD 800 and LCD-2 to my reference headphone - the STAX SR-007 mk1 - the LCD-2 is much closer in terms of tonality and presents a more transparent and natural sound than the clinical, bright-ish HD 800. 

(This is an LCD-3 thread, so I'm not going to go off-topic any further after this)

 

[CoolBurn]

I'm listening to "Bitches Brew" (Miles Davis) right now and if something is exaggerated with the LCD-3, it's how good the music tastes !

 

[preproman]

How is this off topic?
 
The HD800s on a higher in system with a good amp and dac in front of it - for me has solved all those issues you speak of.  Also again, for me the first thing I notice from the LCDs when compared to any of my other headphones, is it's bass.  
 
We all hear different and I stand by what I hear and not what measurements say.  Don't get me wrong, I love the bass of the LCD-3 on some tracks.  However, they're not known as the KING OF BASS for nothing.  
 
The LCD-3 is to dark to be neutral IMO, it also takes a back seat tho the HD800s and HE-6 when it comes to treble energy, imaging, detail retrieval, and sound stage IMO.  Like I said.  I like the LCD-3 a lot but depending on what your listening to they can be to dark at times with to much bass.  
 
Anyway - Just one mans opinion.

 

[CoolBurn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by preproman /img/forum/go_quote.gif

(...)
 
 However, they're not known as the KING OF BASS for nothing.  
 
(...)

 
King of bass quality for me, not quantity.
 
I think that if the first thing you notice in the LCD-3 is its bass, it's because of how extended they are, but not how reinforced they are.  The bass on the HD-650, while not as extended, are more prominent in some songs (around the 100 Hz frequency as you probably know) and that disturbs me compared to the bass on the LCD-3.
 
If I combine this explanation (better bass extension, so lower frequencies present in the sound) with the fact, that I UTTERLY respect, that you don't like the amount of bass encountered on the LCD-3, I think that I've got why you notice the bass as the first striking aspect of the Audeze.  But, while it's not such a good thing for you, it is a good thing for me.  Taste matters as everybody knows
 
What's important here is that everybody finds the headphones he enjoys the most, and I've found it

 

[Lan647]

Quote:

How is this off topic?
 
The HD800s on a higher in system with a good amp and dac in front of it - for me has solved all those issues you speak of.  Also again, for me the first thing I notice from the LCDs when compared to any of my other headphones, is it's bass.  
 
We all hear different and I stand by what I hear and not what measurements say.  Don't get me wrong, I love the bass of the LCD-3 on some tracks.  However, they're not known as the KING OF BASS for nothing.  
 
The LCD-3 is to dark to be neutral IMO, it also takes a back seat tho the HD800s and HE-6 when it comes to treble energy, imaging, detail retrieval, and sound stage IMO.  Like I said.  I like the LCD-3 a lot but depending on what your listening to they can be to dark at times with to much bass.  
 
Anyway - Just one mans opinion.

 
I meant it's a bit off topic as I'm speaking of the LCD-2 rev 2, not the LCD-3. I've only heard the LCD-3 once and it actually didn't sound as nice (to my ears). The midrange was just less rich and more grainy. Two friends of mine who tried the same LCD-3 and compared it to the LCD-2 I now own out of the same system agreed on this. I find it strange how the LCD-3 would sound less good, so I keep telling myself that one was a "veiled" unit. It was among the earliest batch.. 
 
Personally I'm not much for "treble energy". The treble should be there, it should be extended and it should reveal what's on the track without covering things up. But not in an "in your face" kind of way, which is how I think the HD 800 and T1 present upper harmonics. I also think the HD 800 (not T1 though) exhibit "fake" detail retrieval. You hear LOUDER detail, but not those hidden textures and nuances and background sounds within the music that I think are true details. The LCD-2 (and LCD-3, if I remember things right) lets me hear these details, while the HD 800 I owned didn't. It just made everything (especially in the treble) sound artificially crisp. 
 
The treble of the LCD-2 is not perfect, it's not quite as smooth and effortless and airy as you get with STAX, but it's significantly flatter and more true to life than the treble of the HD 800, in my humble opinion.

In terms of soundstage and imaging though, the HD 800 is vastly superior. But tonality is much more important to me, which is why I decided not to keep the HD 800. 
 
Again, just my two cents 

 

[Solude]

Having had the HD800 several times now I believe the HD800 while high detail, isn't high resolution and would add that quite a bit of that detail is from portraying less of the audio image to view.  The LCD-3 swings the other way, high resolution and subjectively lower detail because more of the image is portrayed spreading your attention away from specific areas of the sound.
 
The LCD-3 like the HD800 isn't as easy to pair because it will reveal upstream gear better.  Much in the same way the the Stax SR-007 is really grainy on mortal rigs, so are these two.
 
But saying the LCD-3 is bass focused because it stands out is like adding a quality sub to a pair of monitors, calibrating it and then saying the bass is overblown because it's now present.  The absence of part of the music doesn't make the presentation neutral or natural it makes it lacking.
 
Which is not to say that you can't prefer that style.  Dropping the lowest octave is an easy way to increase clarity provide a more airy sound.  But the trade off is missing elements and a thinner sound.  Not bright, thin.

 

[commtrd]

Quote:

Having had the HD800 several times now I believe the HD800 while high detail, isn't high resolution and would add that quite a bit of that detail is from portraying less of the audio image to view.  The LCD-3 swings the other way, high resolution and subjectively lower detail because more of the image is portrayed spreading your attention away from specific areas of the sound.
 
The LCD-3 like the HD800 isn't as easy to pair because it will reveal upstream gear better.  Much in the same way the the Stax SR-007 is really grainy on mortal rigs, so are these two.
 
But saying the LCD-3 is bass focused because it stands out is like adding a quality sub to a pair of monitors, calibrating it and then saying the bass is overblown because it's now present.  The absence of part of the music doesn't make the presentation neutral or natural it makes it lacking.
 
Which is not to say that you can't prefer that style.  Dropping the lowest octave is an easy way to increase clarity provide a more airy sound.  But the trade off is missing elements and a thinner sound.  Not bright, thin.

Hmmm that is an interesting concept of resolution vs detail. I will have to think about that for a while. I can definitively say that I love the presentation of the musical composition by LCD3. Nicely coherent with instrumentation and vocals all in their place. And the birth and death of sound from blackness with proper decay is cherished as well. Does high resolution roughly equate to high definition in the visual realm?

 

[Lan647]

Quote:

Having had the HD800 several times now I believe the HD800 while high detail, isn't high resolution and would add that quite a bit of that detail is from portraying less of the audio image to view.  The LCD-3 swings the other way, high resolution and subjectively lower detail because more of the image is portrayed spreading your attention away from specific areas of the sound.
 
The LCD-3 like the HD800 isn't as easy to pair because it will reveal upstream gear better.  Much in the same way the the Stax SR-007 is really grainy on mortal rigs, so are these two.
 
But saying the LCD-3 is bass focused because it stands out is like adding a quality sub to a pair of monitors, calibrating it and then saying the bass is overblown because it's now present.  The absence of part of the music doesn't make the presentation neutral or natural it makes it lacking.
 
Which is not to say that you can't prefer that style.  Dropping the lowest octave is an easy way to increase clarity provide a more airy sound.  But the trade off is missing elements and a thinner sound.  Not bright, thin.

 
Well spoken. It's that apparent detail vs resolution thing I was referring to earlier. 

 

[Zoom25]

Good discussion, not derailing at all. It's nice to hear multiple views from time to time.