CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS

  • December 31, 2015, 12:51:01 PM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: LCD3 FR Comparison Among Different Iterations  (Read 355 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Marvey

  • The Man For His Time And Place
  • Master
  • Pirate
  • *****
  • Brownie Points: +555/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6698
  • Captain Plankton and MOT: Eddie Current
LCD3 FR Comparison Among Different Iterations
« on: March 25, 2012, 10:38:29 PM »

LCD3 FR Comparison Among Different Iterations




The attached measurements were measured "free-air" and with no compensation applied to the bass. The free-air measurements for some reason or another tend to more easily show differences in bass response. These LCD3 measurements are comparable to each other in this graph only. Do not compare to other measurements seen elsewhere or even here.

The treble dip and peak are measurement artifacts which I suspect are caused by the grills openings of the driver. They should be ignored. Minor 1/6 octave curve smoothing was applied.

LIGHT BLUE = LCD3 #1V. My original veiled pair. Sounded excessively bassy like too much room gain or speakers shoved against the wall. Again, note the graphs above are free-air and not compensated, so a drop in measured response (compared to a sealed measurement on a dummy head) is expected. I just recently (March 22, 2012) heard another HF's veiled pair from the original run, and it sounded exactly like this one. So similar in fact that I did not bother to take measurements.

PURPLE = LCD3 #2V. Another earlier production veiled or perhaps "semi-veiled pair." It's got a 2-3kHz peak followed by a drop. I enjoyed this one better than my veiled pair #1V above, but enough to really love it. BTW, there were some audible resonances at 2-3kHz with this pair.

ORANGE = LCD3 #3. My current non-veiled, "fast" sounding pair. It has the least amount of bass. The FR extends to 3.5kHz before the drop. I should have another one of these coming in for measurements soon. This pair had a measurable resonance at 3.5-4kHz. I did not bother me though - but I find that most people are not bothered by a resonances between 4-5kHz.

YELLOW = An LCD2r2. For reference. There's a slight resonance near 8kHz is is audible. This may bother some people more than others.

Will post on HF after the usual commentary and peer review here. Maybe...


SEE UPDATE FOR THE NEW LCD3: http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,190.msg2072.html#msg2072
« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 05:25:25 PM by purrin »
Logged

Marvey

  • The Man For His Time And Place
  • Master
  • Pirate
  • *****
  • Brownie Points: +555/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6698
  • Captain Plankton and MOT: Eddie Current
Re: LCD3 FR Comparison Among Different Iterations
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2012, 11:23:23 PM »

One thing I should mention. I did feel the overall FR was audibly smoother with the veiled pair from the early run. The un-veiled pairs don't sound as smooth (I'm running one of my more laid back driver tubes in the BA,) but I'll easily take one of these new improved pairs over the old veiled pairs.
Logged

Maxvla

  • Mate
  • Pirate
  • ****
  • Brownie Points: +211/-12
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1251
Re: LCD3 FR Comparison Among Different Iterations
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2012, 11:37:07 PM »

Interesting bump at 3.5KHz on the good pair. That's an unusual spot to have a peak. What types of sounds are brought out most in that area? Too high to greatly affect vocals, I'd think. Are there any resonances there with waterfall measurements? Graph shows the good pair to be the least neutral. From 1.5KHz to 7KHz the good pair is wildly different from the rest, peaking at 3.5 where the 2nd pair is in a valley and vice versa at 10-11KHz.

Hm.. according to http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm most of the things listed are in their harmonic stage at 3.5KHz, perhaps this is why the pair sounds faster as the harmonics are being brought forward a good deal. And the dip after that is in the range of sibilance and edge which is handy.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2012, 11:44:36 PM by Maxvla »
Logged

mwilson

  • Guest
Re: LCD3 FR Comparison Among Different Iterations
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2012, 02:21:44 AM »

Interesting. Must spend some more time tomorrow with a rested mind looking at the chart.
Logged

rhythmdevils

  • Mate
  • Pirate
  • ****
  • Brownie Points: +131/-65535
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: I am a geek!!
  • Team Cheap, Picky Basterds
    • www.my40dollarorhosarebetterthanyour1kflagship.com
Re: LCD3 FR Comparison Among Different Iterations
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2012, 02:50:09 AM »

More evidence that it's not an FR issue?  I think there's something different about how the drivers are operating in the better pairs.  I don't imagine a little less bass and a little more upper mids would have such an effect on you Purrin.  I haven't heard them myself though. 

I also don't think it's on account of the damping change.  I think that's more a reflection of the drivers operating differently and needing less damping. 
Logged

Marvey

  • The Man For His Time And Place
  • Master
  • Pirate
  • *****
  • Brownie Points: +555/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6698
  • Captain Plankton and MOT: Eddie Current
Re: LCD3 FR Comparison Among Different Iterations
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2012, 03:56:59 AM »

It's definitely more than FR. The TP mods can accomplish a similar FR pattern, but they didn't have the transient response and closed things in. These new ones sound very open.
Logged

grev

  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +8/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 390
  • Avant-garde Clementine Wanderpanzer
Re: LCD3 FR Comparison Among Different Iterations
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2012, 12:49:42 PM »

Off topic a bit but related to the graph, is it safe to say that the LCD-2 r2 is pretty good...?
Logged

LFF

  • Mastering Wizard & Restoration Guru
  • Mate
  • Pirate
  • ****
  • Brownie Points: +761/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1425
Re: LCD3 FR Comparison Among Different Iterations
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2012, 03:02:27 PM »

Wow....that's a lot of variations there. I think only Diabelli had more.  ;)
Logged
These statements are false.
I rule with an iron fist and ears of gold!
The preceding statements were true.

The way to a man's heart is through her stomach.

maverickronin

  • Objectively Sound
  • Able Bodied Sailor
  • Pirate
  • ***
  • Brownie Points: +58/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 670
  • Your friendly neighborhood audio skeptic
Re: LCD3 FR Comparison Among Different Iterations
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2012, 06:58:15 PM »

Purrin, have you had many people attacking you for being vocal about the "veil" issue?

In the LCD-3 thread on HF I kept pointing out unusual differences between the different LCD-3s that Tyll measured and seemed to raise some ire in public posts on the thread and an accusation of having an anti-Audeze agenda via PM and you'r measurements seem to go a lot farther.

I think that accusation is kind of funny because I loved the LCD-2r1 when I heard it and that's the only reason I care about Audeze's QC issues.  I'd just like to be able to buy an LCD-2 or 3 some time in the future without having to worry about the probability of receiving a defective unit.
Logged
Heaven's closed - Hell's sold out - So I walk on Earth.

Marvey

  • The Man For His Time And Place
  • Master
  • Pirate
  • *****
  • Brownie Points: +555/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6698
  • Captain Plankton and MOT: Eddie Current
Re: LCD3 FR Comparison Among Different Iterations
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2012, 07:35:19 PM »

Oh yeah. They (Audeze supporters) tore LFF to pieces too when he said they were veiled - basically giving him the 5th degree on amps, music, his ears, etc.

Say anything bad about Audeze, especially before Tyll released his LCD3 data, and you were labeled one of those people with an anti-Audeze "agenda." This goes way back to the LCD2r1 where you have kwkarth, Frank I, and even Skylab (to a much lesser extent) jump on you pretty much saying "you don't know what the fuck you are talking about" in much kinder words, even in threads such as the "LCD2r1 vs. HD800" discussion.

There was really no way for me to challenge the "experts" or "engineers" (LOL, there are other people who happen to be engineers too, but don't advertise it or use it as a badge of authority or gauge of expertise) other than for me to start taking measurements. All I had were my ears, so I needed measurements to prove myself correct and build my own credibility - the hard way. Back then, Tyll's measurements weren't exactly helping anyone who would dare criticize Audeze; and people were making way too much nonsense out of things such as the LCD2r1's 30Hz "perfect" square-wave measurement.

What so funny is that LFF mentioned the LCD3 veil before anyone else - even before me. And now it's a matter of truth. Same thing with "ringing" too. The ringing behaviors of the r1 and r2 are now a matter of truth.

BTW, I myself have received plenty of PM's pretty much along the lines of "!@#$ #$*#& @#@#" and on and on. It comes with the territory.

This is old news, but Audeze couldn't make an r1 or r2 that even sounded the same or had ringing at the same spots (I've heard at least a dozen r1s and half-a-dozen r2s.) They were all over the place. You can ask LFF and especially Anax here about that. As for quality, only time will tell. Personally I think Audeze got overwhelmed and didn't expect many of these issues. I've been tough, but honest about them; and I certainly wish them continued success because I would like to see an LCD4.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 07:53:47 PM by purrin »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3