The Spectacularly Yummy Audeze LCD-2 and LCD-3 Page 2

Earpad detail with LCD-2 (left) and LCD-3 (right) showing a very slightly thicker pad on the LCD-3.

Audeze has done a spectacular job of making these headphones comfortable given the size and weight of this type of headphone. Both the LCD-2 and LCD-3 use lambskin leather, though the LCD-3 earpad and headband leather is a more supple and higher grade material. For those who would prefer leather-free pad covering, there is an optional faux suede (polyester microfiber) earpads and headband available at no extra charge when ordering. Users who prefer this type of material report sonic results very near that of stock pads. Because of the large pad size and contact area on the side of the head, I would consider these a "hot" headphone--sweltering days in the humid South would be a bit tough to bear. I suspect the leather-free option would work best in hot, humid climates. The inner foam of the slightly larger LCD-3 earpad is somewhat softer than that of the LCD-2; the net result is very similar positions on the head of the ear pieces angling the drivers nicely in what seems a natural position.

I have read some complaints that the design puts too much pressure on the forward part of the pad in front of your ears. This happens because the attachment point of the headband adjustment post is centered on the bail, but because of the significant angle of the pads that attachment post is somewhat forward of the center of the headphones as they rest on the head. I do feel this greater pressure in front of my ears relative to the pressure behind, but don't find it bothersome. Given the heft of these cans, I think some moderate clamping force is needed to have them feel secure on the head. I'll also add that to a surprising degree the fit of a headphone's earpad is quite important to sound quality, and the Audeze cans do a very good job of achieving a reliable seal. I think, however, they could probably move the bail's attachment tab aft about a half-inch and possibly improve the fit.

Headbands use the same leather covering as used on the earpad of each model. I found the padding of the LCD-2 a bit softer than that of the LCD-3, but both pads are fairly wide and I found little difference in the relative comfort of the two headbands.

Audeze_LCD2LCD3_Photo_inside

Inside the LCD-2 (left) and LCD-3 (right) show similarity of construction, and differences in the driver magnet and diaphragm structure.

The main capsule housing of the Audeze headphones is wood--the LDCD-2 is available in Rosewood and Bamboo; the LCD-3 is Zebra wood. Housings are machined, and holes drilled for driver, grill, and headband mounting. Both have similar multiple felt layers for damping behind the drivers, and sport the same outer grill with the LCD-2 writing in white, the LCD-3 in gold.

In the original LCD-2, the connector was housed in a feature that was machined out of the wood of the housing, but this area seemed quite prone to cracking. In both current models a metal connector housing is provided. It's painted black on the LCD-2, and chromed on the LCD-3. I find this a significant improvement, which again shows Audeze working hard to respond to customers comments and improve the headphones.

I didn't attempt to disassemble the drivers on these headphones as that can prove a rather calamitous affair (ask me how I know...RIP HE-6), but as you can see from the photo above, the LCD-3 has 8 bar magnets per side as opposed to the six of the LCD-2. The driver diaphragm is also about half the thickness of the LCD-2.

Both headphones include an 8 foot cable terminated with 1/4" headphone plug on one end, and a "Y" split with two mini-xlr plugs that attach to each earpiece on the other. The LCD-2 headphones come with a cool Pelican carry case; the LCD-3 is available with either the Pelican case or a nice wooden presentation box. I'd take the Pelican case every time...handy for transport to Head-Fi meets.

I reckon it's time to talk about how these cans sound...

Comments

Probably not my cup of "high-end" tea.

Submitted by Alondite on August 1, 2012 - 6:47pm.

I've yet to hear either of these cans (something I hope to soon rectify), but by the sounds of it if I were going to throw down the big bucks on a pair of cans it wouldn't be either of these two. Now that's not to say I would turn either of them down! That would be plain foolish.

"Liquid" is not a quality that I look for in sound (at least by my definition of the word). I prefer a snappy "live" sound with an aggressively textured midrange. When I think of what "liquid" sounds like, I imagine a smoothed-over sound, like using a surface blur in Photoshop. I love to hear all the grit and rasp in the vocals.

Bass is also the least important part of the audio spectrum for me. If anything, I prefer a bass response that is slightly under neutral. I find that it lends itself to cleaner, less "cluttered" sound and a slightly cooler midrange, which I also prefer. It could be due to my rather "busy-sounding" genre preferences (various brands of rock and metal).

Would the HD800 be more my cup of tea then? Or something entirely different maybe? Because I'm starting to think that instead of spending a few hundred dollars every year of so on different/upgraded headphones, that I should just save up for a AAA pair.

By your description you might

Submitted by dalethorn on August 1, 2012 - 6:58pm.

By your description you might want to try the Shure 1840. Leaner bass than HD800 (not by much though), less of the brightness but plenty of detail and grit.

Get yourself the freebie given away with iPods!

Submitted by AGB on August 8, 2012 - 3:08pm.

Alondite,

Since you haven't heard the Audeze's, I suggest you get yorself the freebie given away with iPods. From your description we "get it."

Ferraris are not for everyone.

$5000 DACs are not for everyone.

Or Rolexes...when the Timex keeps on tickin.'

Go hear it and then you can recommend for yourself what you really need and like.

You don't know what you'd like either...

For without the experience, you can't know.

Now you can go drink your cup 'O tea.

I'll stay with a good brew of coffee thank you.

And the Audeze.

Great write up Tyll!

Submitted by MacedonianHero on August 1, 2012 - 7:21pm.

Fantastic write up Tyll. Our comparisons of the LCD-2/LCD-3 and HD800s seem to match up quite well. Agreed that the LCD-3s are my desert island headphones as well...simply magical. They easily get 70% of my listening time over my other 3 headphones (HD800, T1s and W3000ANVs). Thanks!

BTW, as I've said before, I love those headphone stands!

Not a fan of Shure.

Submitted by Alondite on August 1, 2012 - 7:12pm.

I've never really been particularly fond of the Shure sound. After I bought my Vsonic GR07, a friend insisted that I should have gotten the Shure SE535 instead because they sound "so much better," despite the fact he'd never even heard of the GR07. Well, I listened to his 535s, and for one they were very clearly inferior to my GR07s, but they also had a "thick" midrange I didn't care for. From what I've heard, that is the Shure house midrange.

Also, the supposed superior imaging of the HD800 is very enticing.

Shure is a world unto itself,

Submitted by dalethorn on August 2, 2012 - 7:02am.

Shure is a world unto itself, that's for shure. But I had a HD800 for 3 years, and like a few people have mentioned, I enjoyed some of the listening and used it to compare a lot of audio qualities, but in the end it wasn't completely satisfactory for long-term music listening.

They Might Work For Me

Submitted by Alondite on August 2, 2012 - 1:01pm.

Given my tastes, I think I may be able to use them long-term. I want hyper-analytical, with absolute transparency, and the HD800s by most, if not all accounts, are just that. I want to miss no detail, and I want to track represented exactly as the artist wanted me to hear it.

Frankly, I see headphones that intentionally color the sound in one way or another as being an insult to the artistic integrity of the music. "I think this would sound better with more bass." No, it wouldn't. It has exactly as much bass as it's supposed to have, and it has that much for a reason. Changing it is like paiting penises all over the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

I want to hear the artist's intent, not the headphone's interpretation of it.

I can say this about the

Submitted by dalethorn on August 2, 2012 - 6:25pm.

I can say this about the HD800 - you get a really good amp for them and then compare to other dynamics. When some of those upper harmonic details on other headphones sound a little indistinct or dull, the HD800 will often resolve them into their individual details with a sparkle and tone color that may surprise you.

Quote:Frankly, I see

Submitted by Tyll Hertsens on August 4, 2012 - 3:40pm.

Quote:

Frankly, I see headphones that intentionally color the sound in one way or another as being an insult to the artistic integrity of the music.

I think the LCD-3 is probably closer to neutral in terms of frequency response than the HD 800. Bass is flatter, fewer peaks in the highs. Resolution and imaging is better on the 800s for me though.

What about the Pads Tyll?

Submitted by Dr.Phil on August 1, 2012 - 7:50pm.

Did you experiment with swaping the pads ?

Folks are reporting improvement on the LCD2 sound with the LCD3 pads, stating it sounds better and actually closer to the LCD3.

I would like to hear your report on this.

Loved the LCD-2 when I had a

Submitted by mward on August 1, 2012 - 9:59pm.

Loved the LCD-2 when I had a loaner set for about six months. Honestly, I think just about anyone would love them. They might like the Sennheiser HD 800 or some other world class headphones more, but the I think they would find the LCD-2 (and presumably LCD-3) completely appealing, regardless of their preferences.

I miss them. But if I'm going to drop a grand on headphones, I'll get some custom IEMs, which I will get much more use out of.

Whats wrong with the HD700??

Submitted by wilzc on August 2, 2012 - 1:04am.

Whats your take on the HD700 Tyll?

Your sonic tastes are almost akin to mine therefore I'd love to hear your opinion on them before cutting off or succumb to this lust of mine for them.

I know you've heard them at meet conditions and therefore not really reliable. But maybe you've got your hands on a pair now.

Had one in for measurements.

Submitted by Tyll Hertsens on August 4, 2012 - 3:44pm.

Had one in for measurements. It sounded tizzy and thin to me.

Thin??

Submitted by wilzc on August 5, 2012 - 8:49pm.

My take on them actually is sliiiiightly thick. Lush but not loose. Like a serious version of the HD650.

Do try to get one in for more than a quick measurement!!

So much love for the LCD's

Submitted by Draygonn on August 2, 2012 - 12:55pm.

I should have bought LCD-2s last year when I was looking for a compliment to HD800s. I'll give them a long listen at the upcoming LA meet. I like the new connectors and appreciate the way Audeze keeps improving their product and listening to their customers.

I will have my HD 800 and LCD-3 at the L.A. meet

Submitted by burnspbesq on August 2, 2012 - 1:06pm.

See you then, Daygonn. The rest of the signal chain will be MacBook Air/Amarra/Ayre QB-9/Luxman P-200 or Bryston BHA-1.

I could easily live with either as my only headphone. I narrowly prefer the HD 800, for its sound-staging and overall clarity. I tend to listen analytically, and the 800 lets me farther into the music. But oh man, the bass on the LCD-3 is to die for.

The best sound-bite summary of the difference: id vs. superego or tool vs. toy. take your pick.

balanced or single-ended

Submitted by bernardperu on August 2, 2012 - 8:38pm.

Hi Tyll, I own the LCD-3s based on S Gutt's recommendation and other info I found online. I drive them with my Schiit Lyr but it seems like they need a different amp to outshine my Hifiman HE-500s.

I just purchased the new balanced Schiit amp. I live overseas and have to take leaps of faith when it comes to audio purchases.

For pre-recorded music, Would you recommend a balanced amp for the LCD-3? What do your ears tell you?

Congratulations on your great site! I have been following it for a while but this is my first post.

Bernard

Sennheiser HD700's

Submitted by Mike Birman on August 3, 2012 - 1:53pm.

Several months of listening to my HD700s have not diminished my enthusiasm for them. I consider them a viable alternative to the strongly analytical/superbly imaging HD800s. There may be some forthcoming data that supports Tyll's characterization of them as one of Sennheiser's "bloopers" but I'm more of a subjectivist when it comes to headphones. And even empirical data must often be subjectively analyzed, so we can never totally escape the murky world of psychoacoustics. The Audeze LCD-3s are a superb headphone but given their lofty price one would expect no less.

Quote:There may be some

Submitted by Tyll Hertsens on August 4, 2012 - 3:54pm.

Quote:

There may be some forthcoming data that supports Tyll's characterization of them as one of Sennheiser's "bloopers"

I've measured them, and there's a significant ringing.

Purrin's measured them ... and there's significant ringing.

How they sound is more important, but we're not measuring something that's not there. And I can hear problems fairly clearly. Glad you're enjoying yours, though, have no problem with that.

Purrin's comments and

Submitted by dalethorn on August 4, 2012 - 6:41pm.

Purrin's comments and comparison graphs illustrating smoothness in the treble are helpful. It's too bad we can't get a few normalized high-freq. curves on at least the top models, since it's hard to evaluate them intuitively. There must be a way.... On the smoothness thing, it's even more important if you wanted to apply just a little bit of EQ, so you don't make peaks and dips worse.

Puppies and unicorns.

Submitted by Tyll Hertsens on August 4, 2012 - 9:53pm.

Doesn't work like that, Dale. The solution is in the design. They make a great headphone or not. Sometimes there's stuff you can do to help, but it's really up to the manufacturer to get it right.

"died-in-the-wool"?

Submitted by heycarnut on August 4, 2012 - 10:28pm.

Why would a warm, but dead, audiophile care?

I think you meant dyed...

Thanks for the review, one of my favorites is my 3.

Rob

D'oh!

Submitted by Tyll Hertsens on August 5, 2012 - 11:06am.

Me go fixie.

Moon Silver Dragon

Submitted by AGB on August 8, 2012 - 3:22pm.

Just a curiosity I cannot satisfy.

Once I had installed the Moon Silver Dragon wires for my LCD2s, the characterizations for the LCD3 I saw in print seem to be closely related to the LCD-2/Moon wires combo AFTER I had used the parametric EQ on the Fidelia player.

Can someone who actually has access to both please run a listening test and let us know your impressions?

I got much better detailing, resolution, transparency, more tightness and character in the bass and more extended treble with the Moon/Fidelia.

But also, and this is rather important, some players (I use Audio Engineering's FIDELIA advanced) has three parametric EQs with which I can "create" flat at the ears...as opposed to what flat may be theoretically on another planet. In other words, I think - and this is pure speculation - that I can match the sound of the 3 with the 2 - or close enough.

In this sense I am using the Parametric EQ - and not lightly either.

I suggest for those who think they are hearing flat, don't fool yourself.

You'll know it when you hear it...and you'll hear it ONLY after using parametric EQ.

The data is incontrovertible

Submitted by Mike Birman on August 16, 2012 - 3:48am.

The data is incontrovertible, no question. The ringing is significant. Yet it has not (at least thus far) impinged on my listening: which may be a function of my own personal treble roll-off and an inability to discern unwanted resonance. Or perhaps variability in manufacturing (not unheard of, though pretty unlikely). One would think something as significant as this would not escape Sennheiser while developing the HD700. One would think ....

What is interesting is that I also don't hear the 700s as thin. To my ears they sound rather full and are given to fast volume increases that require vigilance. Thin and tizzy vs. full and loud. Some headphones are prone to controversy, I suspect the HD 700s may also acquire that dubious distinction. And it certainly highlights the subjective component when evaluating something as inherently personal as headphones. I also wonder if ingesting acoustic data alters one's perception of what they are hearing. Now that I've seen the data on ringing, will I hear what I previously missed? It's possible.

Nice article

Submitted by Kabeer on August 22, 2012 - 1:46pm.

Great article Tyll. Im really enjoying my LCD-2's thanks to you!

Just one little thing, the photo you have labelled as LCD-1 is actually the LCD-2 prototype that was demo'd before the LCD-2 commercial release where they totally revamped the design. The prototype was an in-house design too.

The LCD-1 had a greenish/gold oem housing.

Fxt...thanks!

Submitted by Tyll Hertsens on August 22, 2012 - 2:15pm.

Glad to hear you're digging the cans!

LCD-2 for professional audio use (mixing\mastering)

Submitted by StudioGuy on September 22, 2012 - 4:13pm.

Hi Tyl,

How do you compare the LCD-2 to the HD-600\650 (or other sub 995$ cans) for proffesional Mixing applications?

Does they worth twice the price of the HD650? (I know, deminishing returns and what not, but still..)

How do they compare in terms of comfort, esspecially for long term sessions?

I wish I could check the LCD-2 for myself, but there aren't any stores that sell them in my country.

Thanks a lot!

LCD-3s A Good Match With The HeadRoom Ultra Amp?

Submitted by Milton on November 5, 2012 - 9:16am.

Hi, I am seriously considering buying the Audeze LCD-3's. My amplier is the HeadRoom Ultra Desktop (unbalanced) with the HeadRoom dedicated power supply. I would love to hear opinions about how well this amp matches with the Audeze LCD-3's. I don't see too much talk about this amp on the Head-Fi website. Thanks!