[Olias of Sunhillow]

Quote:

Really? I find the bass more controlled than my R2s (which I was able to A-B directly over 2 nights). See what I mean about consensus?
 
 

Same here, Peter. I'd say my LCD-3 has tighter bass that goes a bit deeper, but doesn't quite have the bass quantity of the LCD-2.2s. Certainly nothing "flabby" about it -- except the listener.

 

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Exactly.

 
I've got Patricia Barber on right now...simply breath taking...bass/mids/treble/soundstaging/air...hard to find a weakness on these cans.

Craig forces me to hear Patricia Barber everytime I visit so I'm a bit too traumatized to own any of her stuff.  

 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

That's why you are not on my list of people whom I would trust.

Besides I never said it was uncontrolled or flabby.
 

That saddens me.

Do you have the R2s there to A-B directly? Just curious...
 
Your measurements...have you tried a Gage R&R BTW? I'm curious on the variability of your measurement system.
 

 

[purrin]

Nope. The reason is that I don't do measurements professionally. Any variability / repeatability tests are informal and ad-hoc. I rely on re-measurements of a known baseline (my HD800 and HP1000) before every major measuring session.
 
You should ask Tyll that question.

 

[purrin]

 
Quote:

Same here, Peter. I'd say my LCD-3 has tighter bass that goes a bit deeper, but doesn't quite have the bass quantity of the LCD-2.2s. Certainly nothing "flabby" about it -- except the listener.

 

I kind of felt the r2s had more mid-bass volume (90-100Hz). The r3s do seem to have more lower bass volume (below 80Hz). I preferred the presentation of the r2 because it gave it more punch. The r3 also seemed to sound a bit thicker and warmer than the r2.
 
I've found that if I EQ the bass below 80Hz down -2db and 200-750Hz down -2db, the sound is more similar to that of two of three r2's that I've heard. (One r2 I heard was just complete garbage.)
 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Nope. The reason is that I don't do measurements professionally. Any variability / repeatability tests are informal and ad-hoc. I rely on re-measurements of a known baseline (my HD800 and HP1000) before every major measuring session.
 
You should ask Tyll that question.

If you're ever interested on setting up a formalized R&R to determine the variability of your measurement system (gage and persons taking the measurements), let me know.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

That saddens me.

Do you have the R2s there to A-B directly? Just curious...
 
Your measurements...have you tried a Gage R&R BTW? I'm curious on the variability of your measurement system.
 

Actually he doesn't know that when he turns his back I turn the knobs and bang on the keys.  

 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

 

I kind of felt the r2s had more mid-bass volume (90-100Hz). The r3s do seem to have more lower bass volume (below 80Hz). I preferred the presentation of the r2 because it gave it more punch. The r3 also seemed to sound a bit thicker and warmer than the r2.
 

This I can agree with in bold.
 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Craig forces me to hear Patricia Barber everytime I visit so I'm a bit too traumatized to own any of her stuff.  

 

I'm a big fan of her music and I find her recordings very well done. Not a jazz fan...or just Patricia Barber?

 

[purrin]

You should try listening to her records on kind-of-crappy stuff. It's recorded so well (with tricks like close mic'ing) that every rig sounds good on it. That's why I hate using her as a reference. They make even K701s have astounding bass if you know what I am getting at.

 

[visualguy]

Quote:

Almost same thing. Not flabby or uncontrolled, at least for me, but just muddy, imprecise, and without punch. I much preferred the r2 bass.

Somewhat less bass punch than the r2, true, but I'm more bothered by the way the bass dominates mixes more than it was intended to. It sounds like the bass I get from speakers when they are located too close to the walls or corners of the room.
 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

You should try listening to her records on kind-of-crappy stuff. It's recorded so well (with tricks like close mic'ing) that every rig sounds good on it. That's why I hate using her as a reference. They make even K701s have astounding bass if you know what I am getting at.

I don't really use her as a "reference", I happen to enjoy her music.

 

[purrin]

Quote:

Somewhat less bass punch than the r2, true, but I'm more bothered by the way the bass dominates mixes more than it was intended to. It sounds like the bass I get from speakers when they are located too close to the walls or corners of the room.
 

You mean like bad room gain with boost below 80Hz increasing all the way to 30Hz?

 

 

[sillysally]

Quote:

You should try listening to her records on kind-of-crappy stuff. It's recorded so well (with tricks like close mic'ing) that every rig sounds good on it. That's why I hate using her as a reference. They make even K701s have astounding bass if you know what I am getting at.

Have you ever heard of Binaural recording, as you know this type of recording is designed for headphones but sadly most if not all the recordings are recorded for use with speakers. So if you use a "kind-of-crappy stuff" (poor recording techniques designed for speakers not headphones) its going to sound really "crappy" using headphones.
Now if you take the same "kind-of-crappy stuff" and convert to a Binaural recording it should sound much better when used with headphones. The reverse is true if you use a Binaural recording for speakers.
 
Anyway maybe it would be a good idea to get to the source (recording techniques) before we start in on all the mods and grafts. As it has been said before it all starts upstream.
 

 

[purrin]

Quote:

Have you ever heard of Binaural recording, as you know this type of recording is designed for headphones but sadly most if not all the recordings are recorded for use with speakers. So if you use a "kind-of-crappy stuff" (poor recording techniques designed for speakers not headphones) its going to sound really "crappy" using headphones.
Now if you take the same "kind-of-crappy stuff" and convert to a Binaural recording it should sound much better when used with headphones. The reverse is true if you use a Binaural recording for speakers.
 
Anyway maybe it would be a good idea to get to the source (recording techniques) before we start in on all the mods and grafts. As it has been said before it all starts upstream.
 

I don't think you understood what I meant. I didn't mean kind-of-crappy recordings, I meant kind-of-crappy stuff (like headphones). To be more clear: Patricia Barber's recordings are so well done that it sounds good even in a crappy car system. This is why I don't like to use her stuff as a reference. The guys who engineer her stuff probably had a setup consisting of high-end systems, boom boxes, car stereos, ipods, TV speakers, etc. and worked the hell out of it to make it sound great on everything. This is actually possible to do. Some of the top production and sound engineering teams actually do stuff like this.