This is a review, listening tests, EQ and detailed measurements of the LTS V3 "modular" headphone. It is on kind loan from a member and costs €669 (US $700) plus €60 for shipping.
The picture doesn't quite do it justice when it comes to impeccably solid plastics which rival those uses in luxury car dashboards. It is a rather light headphone for its size which translated into comfortable wear. Drivers have pretty acute angle which should result in good spatial characteristics.
The designer has written a book about the design process of this headphone using 3-D printing and such. I can't do it justice so suggest you read it if you want to learn about what makes this headphone unique.
If you are not familiar with my headphone measurements, please watch this video first:
LTS V3 Headphone Measurements
As usual, we start with the headphone frequency response measurements on GRAS 45CA standardized fixture:
I like the good compliance for large part of the spectrum. There is some bass roll off but it starts lower in frequency than some. And some peaks above 5 kHz. The combination of the two may tilt the sound toward being a bit bright and light on its feet (bass).
Not much EQ should be needed but here is the guide for how to dial them in:
Note that the peak at 8 kHz is in one channel but not the other, indicating that its nature highly changes with positioning. The one at 6 kHz however, is quite consistent so much better candidate for equalization.
Distortion is rather average with typical bass and a few treble disturbances:
The 4 kHz one could be out of phase, resulting in a corresponding dip in frequency response.
Impedance is variable and on the low side:
Combined with above average sensitivity, it should be an easy drive for most sources:
Finally, group delay shows fair bit of disturbance which is likely due to many reflections in the cup:
LTS V3 Headphone Listening Tests and Equalization
The sound was exactly as measurements predict, good overall with a bit subdued bass response and some sharpness. I went to work with EQ starting with bass:
Despite increased and more correct bass response, there was some sharpness depending on the track. I first dialing the one at 6 kHz but the problem did not go away. It took the filter at 1.1 kHz to really balance the tonality. Once there, the fidelity was excellent Every one of my reference tracks sounded excellent including the Binaural one you see from Max Cooper. Speaking of that, spatial qualities near top of the class. The only minor miss was that bass impact was not 100% there. Maybe boosting filter there would get it us there.
Conclusions
Objectively and subjectively, the LTS V3 comes close to tonality that you would want. It is a bit bass shy and highs are a bit exaggerated. The latter you may adopt to. But best to deploy EQ. Once there, you get near reference quality headphone.
The cost is up there but I think the build quality and comfort backs it up.
I am going to recommend the LTS V3.
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
The picture doesn't quite do it justice when it comes to impeccably solid plastics which rival those uses in luxury car dashboards. It is a rather light headphone for its size which translated into comfortable wear. Drivers have pretty acute angle which should result in good spatial characteristics.
The designer has written a book about the design process of this headphone using 3-D printing and such. I can't do it justice so suggest you read it if you want to learn about what makes this headphone unique.
If you are not familiar with my headphone measurements, please watch this video first:
LTS V3 Headphone Measurements
As usual, we start with the headphone frequency response measurements on GRAS 45CA standardized fixture:
I like the good compliance for large part of the spectrum. There is some bass roll off but it starts lower in frequency than some. And some peaks above 5 kHz. The combination of the two may tilt the sound toward being a bit bright and light on its feet (bass).
Not much EQ should be needed but here is the guide for how to dial them in:
Note that the peak at 8 kHz is in one channel but not the other, indicating that its nature highly changes with positioning. The one at 6 kHz however, is quite consistent so much better candidate for equalization.
Distortion is rather average with typical bass and a few treble disturbances:
The 4 kHz one could be out of phase, resulting in a corresponding dip in frequency response.
Impedance is variable and on the low side:
Combined with above average sensitivity, it should be an easy drive for most sources:
Finally, group delay shows fair bit of disturbance which is likely due to many reflections in the cup:
LTS V3 Headphone Listening Tests and Equalization
The sound was exactly as measurements predict, good overall with a bit subdued bass response and some sharpness. I went to work with EQ starting with bass:
Despite increased and more correct bass response, there was some sharpness depending on the track. I first dialing the one at 6 kHz but the problem did not go away. It took the filter at 1.1 kHz to really balance the tonality. Once there, the fidelity was excellent Every one of my reference tracks sounded excellent including the Binaural one you see from Max Cooper. Speaking of that, spatial qualities near top of the class. The only minor miss was that bass impact was not 100% there. Maybe boosting filter there would get it us there.
Conclusions
Objectively and subjectively, the LTS V3 comes close to tonality that you would want. It is a bit bass shy and highs are a bit exaggerated. The latter you may adopt to. But best to deploy EQ. Once there, you get near reference quality headphone.
The cost is up there but I think the build quality and comfort backs it up.
I am going to recommend the LTS V3.
------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
. Base material is always a polyamide (aka. nylon or PA), usually PA12, but I tried PA6 and PA11. Parts are printed in raw PA12 (which is about similar in mechnical properties to ABS plastic most headphones use, but slightly more durable), or PA12 reinforced with glass fiber which is about 2x more rigid and stronger (the kind of plastic used to make housings of power tools like drills, so very impact resistant), PA reinforced with graphite which is 4x more rigid and a bit stronger than glass reinf., and then finally reinforced with carbon fiber which is about 8x more rigid and about 4x stronger than ABS. I don't print the parts myself, they're printed in Italy, Germany and UK. Carbon reinforced PA is used on all crucial mechanical parts such as headband pieces and yokes and hinges, and on more expensive models on the baffles too. It's the best sounding option, it's very rigid, which reduces resonances and basically parts made out of it are totally inert, you get a very deep solid "knock" on them as opposed to a hollow plasticky sound on headphones made out of plastic usually. So it's a great material, the company that prints it in the UK developed it for motorsport use initially, including Formula 1 (look at the pedals on the back of Lewis Hamiltons steering wheel, same material and production method), it makes it possible to make parts that are super light but super strong and rigid, kinda what you want on a headphone too, not just on a race car. It's just very, very expensive, so for simple parts with simple geometries it's cheaper to CNC them out of aluminium or even stainless steel in some cases, so I use it for parts that have complex geometries that can't be CNC machined. Basically, these headphones are very expensive to build as the parts are complex in design and printed out of super expensive materials, and take a lot of hand work to paint on top of that, especially compared to some 3D printed headphones today sold for much more, but that are quite simpler in terms of component design and use cheaper printing materials, most aren't painted either, but again that's preference I guess, some prefer a more rugged and simplistic build like Grado's, others like high end industrial builds like Meze or Focal. Especially the painting part takes loads of patience and attention to detail, and time as with all the drying, curing, sanding, polishing, the whole process of just painting parts for a single headphone stretches to 2 weeks, so it's definitely a hobby/labor of love, can't do this without having fun while doing it, wouldn't be worth it otherwise.
