REVIEW – Audeze LCD-3 planar magnetic headphones
Nov 13, 2011 at 5:43 AM Post #421 of 533


Quote:
I think one would have to say that to a small degree the very upper mids are very slightly recessed versus the rest of the midrange.  The lower mids are not boosted, but there is a very slight reticence in the upper mids/lower treble, like the LCD-2, but not as pronounced or noticeable.  For me this simply provides means that the sound does not drift to brightness, and sounds very natural, but it sounds like they might not be the thing for you.



Isn't this the same as the LCD2 R1, although perhaps the recessed part is not as prominent as the R1? When I compared my R1 and a R2, the latter seemed to emphasize or accentuate the upper mid part a bit which causes the upper mid to lower treble presentation to be not as smooth. 
 
Nov 13, 2011 at 9:37 AM Post #422 of 533
It definitely does not sound quite the same as the LCD-2 r1. There are strong similarities of course, but even just in the frequency domain, the two sound a little different to me, with the LCD-3 sounding a little smoother through the upper frequencies than the R1, but the R1 was quite smooth outside of the gradually falling amplitude from the upper mids to the mid treble.
 
Nov 13, 2011 at 12:01 PM Post #423 of 533


Quote:
Isn't this the same as the LCD2 R1, although perhaps the recessed part is not as prominent as the R1? When I compared my R1 and a R2, the latter seemed to emphasize or accentuate the upper mid part a bit which causes the upper mid to lower treble presentation to be not as smooth. 



I thought the R2 was quite a bit smoother than the R1. The treble was slightly more articulated and the mids didn't suffer from excessive bloom to my ears. We shall see how the R2s compare to my LCD-3s coming in on Tuesday.
 
Nov 13, 2011 at 1:06 PM Post #424 of 533


Quote:
I thought the R2 was quite a bit smoother than the R1. The treble was slightly more articulated and the mids didn't suffer from excessive bloom to my ears. We shall see how the R2s compare to my LCD-3s coming in on Tuesday.


Well put - my feelings exactly.  Also I feel the R2's bass was much, much better than the R1's.  I disliked the R1 for what I felt was a plodding, wooden quality in the bass, but - speculating here - I felt the R2's thicker pads removed that effect, possibly by lossy mechanical damping, or by changing the shape and size of the chamber, or both.  My LCD-3s will arrive Monday or Tuesday, and I have high hopes for them.  Unfortunately I am out of town until Friday ...
 
 
Nov 13, 2011 at 8:59 PM Post #425 of 533
Quote:
I thought the R2 was quite a bit smoother than the R1. The treble was slightly more articulated and the mids didn't suffer from excessive bloom to my ears. We shall see how the R2s compare to my LCD-3s coming in on Tuesday.


X2 and I own both.  My LCD3 is coming on Tuesday as well.
 
 
 
Nov 14, 2011 at 4:37 AM Post #426 of 533


Quote:
It definitely does not sound quite the same as the LCD-2 r1. There are strong similarities of course, but even just in the frequency domain, the two sound a little different to me, with the LCD-3 sounding a little smoother through the upper frequencies than the R1, but the R1 was quite smooth outside of the gradually falling amplitude from the upper mids to the mid treble.


 
Quote:
I thought the R2 was quite a bit smoother than the R1. The treble was slightly more articulated and the mids didn't suffer from excessive bloom to my ears. We shall see how the R2s compare to my LCD-3s coming in on Tuesday.


 
No, I was specifically talking about the progression from midrange to upper midrange. Seems to me from Rob's impression that the LCD3 achieves that smoothness by making the upper mid to be slightly recessed compared to the midrange. I was merely saying that R1 has this same "EQ" applied too but perhaps its upper mid is too recessed which the R2 fixes by bumping it up somewhat. Nothing wrong with both methods actually.
 
Looking forward to more impressions from others definitely.  
 
Nov 14, 2011 at 8:32 PM Post #427 of 533


Quote:
 

 
No, I was specifically talking about the progression from midrange to upper midrange. Seems to me from Rob's impression that the LCD3 achieves that smoothness by making the upper mid to be slightly recessed compared to the midrange. I was merely saying that R1 has this same "EQ" applied too but perhaps its upper mid is too recessed which the R2 fixes by bumping it up somewhat. Nothing wrong with both methods actually.
 
Looking forward to more impressions from others definitely.  


Gottcha...FWIW, I found the progression from the midrange to the upper midrange still smoother on my Rev.2s....BUT, they do not sound as smooth as my LCD-3s in that regard.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/580283/lcd3-measurements
 
Here are the graphs of the 3 Audeze headphones I've owned. The R1's were the most drastic in terms of steeper drop off from the mid range to higher frequencies, while the R2s were more gradual and the LCD-3s the "smoothest" still. Just my two cents....likely worth that.
 
 
 
Nov 15, 2011 at 12:17 AM Post #428 of 533
Congrats Peter, really looking foreword to your LCD-3 impressions.
 
Nov 15, 2011 at 8:49 PM Post #429 of 533


Quote:
Congrats Peter, really looking foreword to your LCD-3 impressions.



Thanks Vince. I did post some on the other LCD-3 thread FWIW....did some more A-Bing analysis between my (now sold) LCD-2 R2s and LCD-3s. I hope to have a review out in a week or so.
 
Nov 15, 2011 at 8:56 PM Post #430 of 533
popcorn.gif

 
Nov 15, 2011 at 9:45 PM Post #433 of 533


Quote:
Priorities man!!!  Just kidding, I hope he does ok.  On the bright side, it's better to get it young, the younger the better so I hear. 


True...he's only 3. Having the vaccine already has made this a very mild case (only 20 spots) and zero fever....I should get a chance by next week to write up my thoughts and get some more hours of burn in on them. But so far colour me very impressed.
 
 
Nov 17, 2011 at 6:34 AM Post #434 of 533
hey
 
I've got a question...I own a Devialet D-Premier and I'm asking myself if it would drive the LCD-3 properly ? By that I mean that it is a speaker amp and not a headphone amp...will it deliver the sound of the LCD-3 as it is intended ?
 
Sorry if this is a stupid question :/
 
cheers,
Abe
 
 
Nov 17, 2011 at 7:53 AM Post #435 of 533
A better amp would certainly make a difference - but on the LCD3 the effect of quality of source is nothing short of jaw dropping. Previously I was still able to accept and listen casually to the LCD2 on my office rig made of top of the line portable DACs and amps. They can no longer do it for the LCD3 - on the portable rig the LCD3 still sounds better than the LCD2, but after comparing it with my home rig I know I can't go back to the portable rig to drive the LCD3 any more. Doing so will be a waste of the LCD3. 
 
I have not tried something "in between" though. And I do think there should a balanced price point between (1) the Esoteric K-01 / Leben 300XS and (2) the CLAS / SR71B which makes the LCD3 sound like it is worth like my office rig with the LCD2, and at the same time more affordance to the general LCD-3 owner.
 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top