[Barry S]

  Revision 2 of LCD2 is quite different in tonal balance to Rev1 though. Rev1 is (IMO) quite a bit more muffled-sounding, meaning treble takes a noticeable step back compared to Rev2. If OP actually prefers that, then LCDX is counter-intuitive even if it is the most balanced of the bunch.

Have you heard the LCD-X? The treble is smoother and better-defined than the LCD-2.2. The OP likes lush thick mids (LCD-3), but wants more separation, detail, and soundstage (LCD-X). And that's why he should audition both.

 

[sling5s]

I do need to listen to both, before I pull the trigger.  But I want both! 

 

[Z06_Pilot]

I had the LCD 2.2's and really, really didn't like them...a lack of high end and vocals sounded veiled to me.  I now have the LCD-3's and it's a night and day difference.  wonderful, lush mid-range....just don't know how it could get better and I think more bass extension than the 2.2.  I have no experience with the -x model...
 
my vote would be for the LCD-3, hands-down, but my lack of experience with the -x model makes my recommendation somewhat incomplete !

 

[jerg]

 
Have you heard the LCD-X? The treble is smoother and better-defined than the LCD-2.2. The OP likes lush thick mids (LCD-3), but wants more separation, detail, and soundstage (LCD-X). And that's why he should audition both.

I think you are trying to find disagreement where there is none. I was saying LCDX has more treble quantity than LCD3 (that is an undeniable fact), and that could play a part in OP's eventual pickings.

 

[Z06_Pilot]

  I think you are trying to find disagreement where there is none. I was saying LCDX has more treble quantity than LCD3 (that is an undeniable fact), and that could play a part in OP's eventual pickings.

That is interesting.  sounds like the Audeze cans each have very different personalities...makes choosing tough....at these prices, it's not like you can buy them all to suit your mood

 

[Barry S]

  I think you are trying to find disagreement where there is none. I was saying LCDX has more treble quantity than LCD3 (that is an undeniable fact), and that could play a part in OP's eventual pickings.

No disagreement--thanks for clarifying your post.  I'm sort of shocked at just how different the LCD-X and LCD-3 sound.

 

[Autark]

Hey, where are you in So Cal? Might be able to swing by so you can give the LCD 3's a listen at least. I haven't heard the LCD-X yet.
 
Worst case, there is another So Cal head-fi meet way in March where you'll likely find them both. Can't say the environment is the best for sorting out the intimate details, but it should give you a broad idea. 

 

[sling5s]

  Hey, where are you in So Cal? Might be able to swing by so you can give the LCD 3's a listen at least. I haven't heard the LCD-X yet.
 
Worst case, there is another So Cal head-fi meet way in March where you'll likely find them both. Can't say the environment is the best for sorting out the intimate details, but it should give you a broad idea. 

San Dimas Ca. 

 

[Autark]

That's a little bit of a haul, but not too terrible. About 20 miles. Shoot me a PM and maybe we can work something out. 

 

[sling5s]

Will do. 

 

[sling5s]

I think the midrange is lush enough and bass quantity enough on my LCD-2 rev.1. 
I know many have said that the LCD-2.2 is in between the LCD-3 and LCD-X, but I think the LCD-2.1 is got to be closer to the LCD-3 in darkness.  
The rev.1 is pretty dark and lush.  Don't think I want them darker than that. 
So I think I will keep the LCD-2. rev.1 for these qualities and complement them with LCD-X.  The fact that the LCD-X is easier to drive makes it an easier choice.
Thanks everyone. 

 

[sling5s]

  My confusion comes from reading so many opinions of the LCD2 vs LCD3.

I really like my LCD-2.1's but would like to correct a couple of aspects:
     1.  More refined upper mids / lower treble.  I detect a little harshness in the LCD2's
     2.  Less bloat in the lower mids / upper bass.

My understanding is the LCD3's have a smoother treble.  It seems to me this should make them more forgiving than the LCD2's not less.

I just did the Purrin's TP mod on the LCD-2 rev.1.  It improves by increasing the upper midrange and lower treble.  Gives it a more open and detailed sound increasing the soundstage.  Really loving it. 
 
I feel it retains the strength of the LCD-2 rev.1 while adding some of the strength of the LCD-2 rev.2 

 

[sling5s]

Update:
 
Over time I realized the TP made the midrange thin and bass lean.  So I switched to cotton balls (thinned and teased out).
The midrange thickness/creaminess and bass was back but it increased the treble and air.  

 

[pp312]

Ah, the vagaries of modding! Is there ever an end?
 
Answer: No.
 
Which is why I refuse to mod anything.