[Lan647]

Quote:

No, they're a very dark brown.  Great leather, great foam.

Okay 

 

[athenaesword]

i can't believe it. my LCD-2 sounds..... thin. compared with the LCD-3.
 
I'm switching between both right now. source: laptop --> wavelength proton --> woo audio WA6SE --> LCD3/2.
 
 

 

[Lan647]

Quote:

i can't believe it. my LCD-2 sounds..... thin. compared with the LCD-3.
 
I'm switching between both right now. source: laptop --> wavelength proton --> woo audio WA6SE --> LCD3/2.
 
 

 
What? The LCD-2 is definitely as fleshy as I can allow and still call it relatively neutral. Your'e saying the 3 is even fleshier? Sounds like a colored headphone to me... 
 
 

 

[athenaesword]

have you heard the LCD-3? I wouldn't have thought that myself, because when comparing with the hd800/T1/he6 when i got my lcd-2, the lcd-2s produced the most rounded sound among the latter. but the current lcd-3 just takes it to another level. the lcd-2's sound production feels alot more pinpoint compared to the lcd-3s which sound more balanced from all directions. 
 
the lcd-3s also sound alot more upfront and intimate, without sacrificing the depth, seemingly bringing the sound closer but yet maintaining the distance. The effect is a accentuated depth previously not achieved with other headphones i've tried, with more 3 dimensional weight. the mid bass is also alot more powerful with the lcd-3, which makes it a fuller, more warm sound. at the same time highs seem more pronounced, and on a few tracks with violins I thought they were hard to listen to, but i've always been sensitive to highs. the sweeter treble, however, seems to be balanced out by the additional weight at the bottom end.  i typically eschew equipment that just adds powerful highs and thumpier bass over previous iterations and are marketed as upgrades, because the result just sounds....fake. but the weight added here doesn't feel artificial because it's balanced by the depth, which is what brings all this improvement together. it's hard to describe in words (for those who're confused by what i've written), but i'd say that it's a very significant difference compared to the lcd-2. maybe it's artificial, maybe it's not. I wouldn't know unless the guy who mixed it listens through my equipment and tells me which it is, but it for sure, sounds BETTER, and that's all I really care about, as would most people. 
 
@Lan647, even though the lcd-3s are ahead of the lcd-2, i'd say that it's nowhere close to what u'd get from a very well treated room with top quality speakers, in terms of staging and overall experience, although the headphones already offer a very intimate and endearing experience. there's still alot of room for improvement with headphones as a class of aural reproductive instruments. the day when binaural equipment intrinsically produces sound equivalent to that which can be achieved through enhancement with equipment like the Smyth Realizer is the day we can say headphones have reached a technological threshold in terms of fleshiness, depth, and staging. although the lcd-3s are in a class of their own, they're not perfect, as no headphone will be for the forseeable future. although i love my lcd-2, i have faith in technology, and i'm glad the lcd-3s are good step ahead. dissing them as non-neutral is not really fair by any measure, and is just downright naive, especially if you haven't even heard them. there was a saying on head-fi that the hd800 was a very good pair of headphones, but the lcd-2 sounded like real life, or something like that. well, the lcd-3 just takes that to another level.
 
 
Quote:

 
What? The LCD-2 is definitely as fleshy as I can allow and still call it relatively neutral. Your'e saying the 3 is even fleshier? Sounds like a colored headphone to me... 
 
 

 

 

[Lan647]

Quote:

have you heard the LCD-3? I wouldn't have thought that myself, because when comparing with the hd800/T1/he6 when i got my lcd-2, the lcd-2s produced the most rounded sound among the latter. but the current lcd-3 just takes it to another level. the lcd-2's sound production feels alot more pinpoint compared to the lcd-3s which sound more balanced from all directions. 
 
the lcd-3s also sound alot more upfront and intimate, without sacrificing the depth, seemingly bringing the sound closer but yet maintaining the distance. The effect is a accentuated depth previously not achieved with other headphones i've tried, with more 3 dimensional weight. the mid bass is also alot more powerful with the lcd-3, which makes it a fuller, more warm sound. at the same time highs seem more pronounced, and on a few tracks with violins I thought they were hard to listen to, but i've always been sensitive to highs. the sweeter treble, however, seems to be balanced out by the additional weight at the bottom end.  i typically eschew equipment that just adds powerful highs and thumpier bass over previous iterations and are marketed as upgrades, because the result just sounds....fake. but the weight added here doesn't feel artificial because it's balanced by the depth, which is what brings all this improvement together. it's hard to describe in words (for those who're confused by what i've written), but i'd say that it's a very significant difference compared to the lcd-2. maybe it's artificial, maybe it's not. I wouldn't know unless the guy who mixed it listens through my equipment and tells me which it is, but it for sure, sounds BETTER, and that's all I really care about, as would most people. 
 
@Lan647, even though the lcd-3s are ahead of the lcd-2, i'd say that it's nowhere close to what u'd get from a very well treated room with top quality speakers, in terms of staging and overall experience, although the headphones already offer a very intimate and endearing experience. there's still alot of room for improvement with headphones as a class of aural reproductive instruments. the day when binaural equipment intrinsically produces sound equivalent to that which can be achieved through enhancement with equipment like the Smyth Realizer is the day we can say headphones have reached a technological threshold in terms of fleshiness, depth, and staging. although the lcd-3s are in a class of their own, they're not perfect, as no headphone will be for the forseeable future. although i love my lcd-2, i have faith in technology, and i'm glad the lcd-3s are good step ahead. dissing them as non-neutral is not really fair by any measure, and is just downright naive, especially if you haven't even heard them. there was a saying on head-fi that the hd800 was a very good pair of headphones, but the lcd-2 sounded like real life, or something like that. well, the lcd-3 just takes that to another level.
 
 


 

Well I haven't heard the LCD-3 but I definitely think the LCD-2 is a dark headphone. It is a fun sounding headphone with extremely smooth mids and awesome bass, but HD 800 is just more neutral to my ears. I was just surprised to see opinions about the LCD-3 being even more fleshy and warm when it's priced so high. I think a headphone priced at almost 2000 dollars should be neutral. People seem to mistake neutrality for what sounds "best" to their ears. If a dark headphone sounds absolutely "right" to me it doesn't make it true to life. 

It is ultimately about the music and one's personal preferences of course, and I appreciate the LCD-2. Heck, I love it. But neutral it is not. And if the 3 doesn't improve tonal balance it it priced ridiculously high IMO. 
 

 

[athenaesword]

lol while I see your point, I find it hard to take it seriously since you haven't even had the chance to hear it. Also, nothing is truly neutral, if you think about it. why would you say the HD800 is neutral? because it sounds more dead? 
 
when i listen to a live band play, I'm listening to the poweramps blasting the stuff at me. it could be warm/sharp/bassy, any number of things. would you call a live band not neutral? this whole neutrality thing is just silly imo. how would you know whether something is neutral or not until the guy who mixed it says it is or isn't after listening to your equipment. imo the lcd-3 sound alot more natural to me compared to the sibilant, digital nature of the hd800.  
 
there's no end when you argue about neutrality, because it's an ideal that's different for everyone, because noone but the original mixer knows what neutral is. i've had extensive amounts of time with the hd800, as well as Adam studio monitors. the hd800 are wayy off from what I hear with the studio monitors, which are what're used to mix tracks.  
 
At 2000 I wanna hear my music BETTER. clearer, more intimate, more heartwrenching, more soulfull. it's why people buy loudspeakers over studio monitors. hell, i'll bite. if $2000 can make a piece of dead music sound alive and full, then at 2000 the lcd-3 is underpriced. how bout that? im not saying that's what it does, but that's something for you to think about. anyway, this argument can go on forever. i put up my views. the lcd-3 sounds more natural than any pair of headphones i've heard. it's still not what I hear when my brother plays the drums or when I play the guitar, but then nothing out there even comes close. nope, not the hd800, not the lcd-2, not the lcd-3. there you have it. calling any pair of headphones currently in existence the epitome of realism and "fleshiness" as you term it is just silly.
 
 
Quote:

Well I haven't heard the LCD-3 but I definitely think the LCD-2 is a dark headphone. It is a fun sounding headphone with extremely smooth mids and awesome bass, but HD 800 is just more neutral to my ears. I was just surprised to see opinions about the LCD-3 being even more fleshy and warm when it's priced so high. I think a headphone priced at almost 2000 dollars should be neutral. People seem to mistake neutrality for what sounds "best" to their ears. If a dark headphone sounds absolutely "right" to me it doesn't make it true to life. 

It is ultimately about the music and one's personal preferences of course, and I appreciate the LCD-2. Heck, I love it. But neutral it is not. And if the 3 doesn't improve tonal balance it it priced ridiculously high IMO. 
 

 

 

[Soundinista]

Thank you, Skylab, for another excellent review! (Unlike some here, I've seen very clear evidence of your honesty over the years -- honesty, level-headedness, expertise, and good taste (by my standards).)
 
I'm very much in the "soundstaging gymnastics" camp. (I don't get the sarcasm there, but it's all right with me. We still share that it-don't-mean-a-thing-if-it-ain't-got-that-bass ideology!) It's a preference like any other, of course. And it's one of the main reasons why I love the DX1000. To my ears, the JVC soundstages even better than the balanced HD800, which I also own and like. In my headphone experience, no soundstage can be too large. The more holographic, the better. The more 3D, the better. The more depth and width, the better. You get the picture.
 
Now, I've read only the first few pages of this thread, and maybe my question is already answered on the pages I haven't yet been able to read. If that's the case, just disregard it. Otherwise, I'd like to have a word from you on how the LCD-3 compares to the DX1000 as far as soundstaging. I don't wanna be wrong about any inferences I may draw from your review in this matter.
 
Thanks again!

 

[Lan647]

Quote:

Lan647 I wouldn´t call HD800 neutral. It has really boosted treble and bass cut out almost complitely. That is a colored headphone. I can´t understand how anyone can listen to these headphones. I think HD600 is even more natural than HD800, although HD600 treble is quite harsh and also lacks bass, but it is more balanced. HD800 treble vs bass balance is a joke! They don´t sound anything like professional studio enviroment with great speakers, great room and a sub.

What? The bass is really deep :S And terms of bass quality it bests every headphone I've heard except the LCD-2.  

Tonal balance does shift from amp to amp. Not by alot, but you can hear it.