New "unveiled" LCD3

[purrin]

So where to start...

I didn't want to post anything until I actually got my hands on at least a few of the new "un-veiled" LCD3s. I've heard three of these new ones and measured two so far. I suspect these new LCD3s don't quite sound the same as the "un-veiled" ones heard at CanJam, because they depart from the Audeze house sound quite a bit. The two pairs I've measured have excellent driver matching, and they even match each other quite well too. This would be a first for Audeze (at least from the cans that I've heard myself.) BTW, I'm not going to bore anyone with graphs - you guys know where to get them - or you can just ask. On that topic, I would like to see Audeze include measurements for both drivers on the FR sheet that they include with the LCD3s. They shouldn't have anything to hide if they are going to include a plot in the first place and advertise +/- 0.5 db matching.

In terms of clarity, speed, transient response, and resolution, they are more than an incremental upgrade from the r2. The veiled LCD3s (with the TP mods) - I know some of you heard this exact pair at the Bay Area meet - were definitely "better, but not worth it." I won't come straight out and say that these are "worth it", but again, the improvements from the r2 are more than "incremental."

First of all, these new LCD3s have the least amount of bass energy among all of the LCD# series. Of course, this is difficult to gauge because every LCD2 (r2 and especially r1) sounded slightly different to me. As for less bass, I see this as a good thing, because it was this excessive bass energy in the veiled versions that masked the rest of the spectrum, particularly the harmonics and overtones, and also made them sound slow and plodding. Audeze did replace the thin layer of felt with 2mm thick foam - the circular disc behind the metal cage. I don't know this it was this or a diaphragm change which resulted in the new LCD3 sounding more dextrous. Not just nice punchy, clean sounding bass (the bass quality is truly unparalleled,) but super articulate with strings and percussion.

The new LCD3 are more neutral than the HD800s when compared to more neutral transducers like the HP1000 or UERMs. Not a difficult task against the HD800s, but let me explain. In comparison, the HD800s sound laid-back in parts of the midrange and then suddenly turn around with a nice slap at 6k with an elevated response all the way up the treble. In contrast, the LCD3 has less warmth - flatter around the mid-to-high bass areas, have slightly less air, and has midrange in spades. The LCD3 treble is hardly lacking too, there's actually plenty of it, where a bad recording could actually hurt - but not nearly to the extent of the HD800.

On the midrange, there may be a possible issue there. One thing I've noted with this new batch of drivers: They extend a bit further, end with a little kick upwards, and then drop down quickly. The veiled pair seems to start its "Audeze shelf" roll-off earlier in the band - from the low mids - and gradually settles by 2kHz. As for the kick upwards, I've measured some ringing at 3.5-4kHz. Using an open-air measurement method, there is quite a bit of ringing. Taking a sealed measurement (which I feel is more accurate in some respects with planars/orthos), there is a sharp minor resonance -25db down. You won't see these on Audeze graphs because of their smoothing and also because they set the CSD floor to -25db.

How audible is this? I used to think it wasn't very much (I tend to be immune to or have a hard time picking up ringing at 4k-5kHz), however now that the new toy syndrome has worn off, I think it's quite evident, especially since the ringing already corresponds with a notable response peak, which suddenly drops down 4-5db to finally settle at the bottom of the shelf. Certain recordings with an emphasis in the region (e.g., a few tracks on Adele 21) can be a little be rough, but not unbearably so. One interesting thing I noted is that lower output Z amps better control this midrange resonance - also makes the bass tighter too. The highish output Z of the BA is probably not optimal for the LCD3, but we all have to pick our poison.

So compared to the veiled LCD3, what we lose with is a bit a smoothness in the FR in exchange for a more neutral sounding headphone with some excessive midrange energy and much better speed, transient response, resolution, etc. To me the trade was worth it. (There's a reason I sent my veiled-pair on the statewide tour. It was because I hated it and I knew I wouldn't miss it.)

Still not perfect, and not quite worth $2000, but getting closer.

Edited March 30, 2012 by purrin

[TMoney]

Interesting read, Marv. It's sad to see they are still having issues with the 3's after the out-of-the-park success they had with the 2's.

[Tyll Hertsens]

Thanks Marv. Good stuff.

[K.S.]

I agree with your last line, my new one is better than my first two but still not quite worth it for the average joe trying to scrape the money to buy one.

[purrin]

So here's another interesting tidbit. The current pair (which is #3) I have now actually don't sound as "fast" as my first replacement pair #2 (which lasted less than 24 hours before a driver failed). I was very excited when I received #2 because I thought they sounded fast, that is comparable to STAX fast. With this third pair, I didn't quite think so. I mean I would hesitate to say that without direct comparison.

I didn't want to mention anything without another sample similar to #2 to compare to and other people to corroborate. I mean, it could have been my imagination, or just a matter of the initial excitement wearing off by the time I received #3.

Well, this new pair that someone sent to me for measurements sound just like my #2 pair. Incredibly fast. I had Luis and Mike over tonight (Mike had already heard my #2 pair for a little bit before it died.) Both confirmed the difference. Oh well. I don't know if I should even bother, or just give up, i.e. chalk it up to production variances. Ah screw it.

Edited March 29, 2012 by purrin

[swt61]

The very reason I liked Orthodynamic headphones was because they had some qualities that were a little more stat like than dynamic headphones. They were relatively cheap, and they were very tweakable. You could alter the sound to your taste pretty easily, within reason.

The Audeze LCD-3 might be a great Orthodynamic, previous bugs aside. However, at the current price they make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. You can buy a Stax 007 for that money, and you can talk this virtue or that virtue all day long, but bottom line is they aren't as good as the 007. And it's not as though you can cheap out on the amp, so why pay as much or near as much as a better Stax rig?

[gurubhai]

It seems that the audeze have increased the diaphragm 'tension' of the driver alleviating the need for external felt damping (the downside is ofc the decreased bass response).

Would like to try one now.

[morphsci]

The very reason I liked Orthodynamic headphones was because they had some qualities that were a little more stat like than dynamic headphones. They were relatively cheap, and they were very tweakable. You could alter the sound to your taste pretty easily, within reason.

The Audeze LCD-3 might be a great Orthodynamic, previous bugs aside. However, at the current price they make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. You can buy a Stax 007 for that money, and you can talk this virtue or that virtue all day long, but bottom line is they aren't as good as the 007. And it's not as though you can cheap out on the amp, so why pay as much or near as much as a better Stax rig?

Absolutely! My feelings re the LCD-3 exactly.

[K3cT]

First of all, these new LCD3s have the least amount of bass energy among all of the LCD# series. Of course, this is difficult to gauge because every LCD2 (r2 and especially r1) sounded slightly different to me. As for less bass, I see this as a good thing, because it was this excessive bass energy in the veiled versions that masked the rest of the spectrum, particularly the harmonics and overtones, and also made them sound slow and plodding. Audeze did replace the thin layer of felt with 2mm thick foam - the circular disc behind the metal cage. I don't know this it was this or a diaphragm change which resulted in the new LCD3 sounding more dextrous. Not just nice punchy, clean sounding bass (the bass quality is truly unparalleled,) but super articulate with strings and percussion.

Have you tried switching back the old thin felt into the new unveiled LCD3?

Well, this new pair that someone sent to me for measurements sound just like my #2 pair. Incredibly fast. I had Luis and Mike over tonight (Mike had already heard my #2 pair for a little bit before it died.) Both confirmed the difference. Oh well. I don't know if I should even bother, or just give up, i.e. chalk it up to production variances. Ah screw it.

Wait for the LCD3 R3. You know it's coming sooner or later.

Edited March 29, 2012 by K3cT

[purrin]

Have you tried switching back the old thin felt into the new unveiled LCD3?

I will do out of curiosity and report back. I did take the foam out and it didn't sound too different, whereas with the veiled pair, the bass increased massively when the felt was taken out.

Wait for the LCD3 R3. You know it's coming sooner or later.

And then LCD4 after that. Maybe I'll make a quick trip to Milos' place to directly compare with the 007. Thing that sucks is that don't make the mk1 anymore. And the Yamas guy is a POS when it comes to service. I mean, Audeze makes Sunday pickups and deliveries to my house. Can't beat that.

Edited March 29, 2012 by purrin

[K3cT]

Yeah, despite the questionable QC their customer service is top-notch fortunately. Sankar and co. have always been a pleasure to deal with.

Comparing the LCD3 to the 007 MK1 is quite curious. I think ultimately the 007 wins in terms of detail retrieval, transient and finesse (impossible to beat an electrostatic in these aspects) but I definitely dig the overall tonal balance in LCD3 more. It's not as dark and laid-back sounding as the MK1. If you ask me, the closest equivalent to the LCD3 is probably the custom IEM JH13 but with a much better extension, air and tauter bass and similarly, the LCD3 can be very real/live-sounding. I find that live effect very musically engaging.

I dunno though, I'm still not happy that they re-use the arc assembly design from the LCD2. I would want something far more comfortable to wear at that price point.

[morphsci]

The 007 MK I is neither dark nor laid-back when appropriately amped.

[Spychedelic Whale]

I share the same thoughts you do k3,although I didn't hear the 007 from any diy amp. I really liked the lcd2 tonality and for the used price was ok if it wasn't for the stupid headband system for such a heavy headphone which is unacceptable uncomfortable for something this pricey. Still waiting for a proper one.. which may not happen.

[Dreadhead]

YMMV but I had a pair O2 mk1 with a Headamp built KGSS (which I would consider a pretty good amp) and I found them dark, and that's basically why I got rid of them.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Dreadhead

[morphsci]

YMMV but I had a pair O2 mk1 with a Headamp built KGSS (which I would consider a pretty good amp) and I found them dark, and that's basically why I got rid of them.

Yeah, but you're a treblehead.

[Grahame]

^ Have you tried moving the position of the headphones on your head, given the implications of http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/expert-tests-innerfidelitys-headphone-measurement-repeatability-and-reproducibility

[recstar24]

^ Have you tried moving the position of the headphones on your head, given the implications of http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/expert-tests-innerfidelitys-headphone-measurement-repeatability-and-reproducibility

If it took you this long to figure out headphone positioning affected treble response, ouch. Being a longtime gradohead, I think it's more apparent on supraaurals.

[morphsci]

Cushion position effects are pretty dramatic with the O2 also.

[Dreadhead]

Yeah, but you're a treblehead.

Fair enough. I am happy with my HD800.

[rhythmdevils]

Interesting read, Marv. It's sad to see they are still having issues with the 3's after the out-of-the-park success they had with the 2's.

I think the only difference is the price which makes people pickier, expect more, and keeps the sales down. From everything I've seen it looks like they just transferred the same LCD-2 issues over to the LCD-3's thinner diaphragm or whatever it is.

Oh, and great write-up Marv. Gives me a pretty good picture of the LCD-3. I'm waiting for the smaller driver portable with yamaha style driver...

Edited March 30, 2012 by rhythmdevils

[peepshow]

Audeze needs to get its shit together. Less tinkering and more quality assurance would be a good place to start. These are hardly budget priced headphones.

[K3cT]

The 007 MK I is neither dark nor laid-back when appropriately amped.

Surely the KGSS is good enough to sufficiently drive the MK1?

And my bad if I wasn't too clear but I was speaking in relative terms from one to the other. I don't think by itself the 007 MK1 is dark and laid-back sounding but when you have something like say, the SR-202 Lambda or HD800 by its side then the differences become more apparent.

Edited March 30, 2012 by K3cT

[morphsci]

Yeah, sorry. The KGSS is a good start but you should really here them on a BHSE. The qualification though makes all the difference as well as perspective. I certainly agree that compared to the HD800 the OII is dark but then again compared to the OII the HD800 is painfully bright, from my perspective.

[n_maher]

I do miss the combination of the O2 and BHse. And I'm sorry, Audeze has completely lost my interest at this point with Vx of this/that and the other thing. At this price point (and substantially below it for that matter) I expect a polished, finished product that won't need to be revised/tweaked immediately after release.

[aardvark baguette]

whatever happened to the audeze speaker?