Quote:

grokit said:

Interesting, this could go a long way to explain people's varying impressions. All I was suggesting with my V-shaped statement was that there seem to be comments both about brightness as well as an enhanced low end with the Lyr, that equals a V-shaped response in my mind. Now if the mids are indeed more assertive for ortho users and non-ortho users have a more V-shaped listening experience, that would validate your varying resistance = varying response theory.

Click to expand...

Let me remind you, we're talking headphone character and not amp character.  An OTL tube amp would be far more prone to the phenomenon you guys are trying to understand.
 
 

Okay thanks, I thought you had been referring to my V-shaped response comment regarding the Lyr user impressions, I think I may be getting my threads mixed up.

Quote:

grokit said:

Okay thanks, I thought you had been referring to my V-shaped response comment regarding the Lyr user impressions, I think I may be getting my threads mixed up.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you're no more confused than the rest of us are.    This sideline did start with your comment.  It devolved from there.  
 
 

Quote:

googleli said:

Fedex delivered early so I got my pair today. Sorry to be direct but I am not impressed to say the least. How long does burn-in for LCD2 take? I have it amped from by Leben CS300XS which I understand from Skylab that it is a very good match with the LCD2. But right now the LCD2 is totally in a lower league than the ED10 (post earpad fix), IMO. I can't A/B it with the T5P yet, as T5P now sits in my office, but the LCD2 is a major disappointment to me so far. Let's hope that burn-in does change things. 

Click to expand...

I am a fan of the LCD-2s. They do things that my cheaper Sennheiser HD-650s plain don't, see my post a few pages back. I have not heard the Edition 10 nor any other competing headphones. That said, I assume from Skylab's post that perhaps the frequency balance of the LCD-2 is putting you off. I would readily concur. While the LCD-2 got a lot right for me from the start, there were times and certain recordings where they sounded veiled and congested. That impression has somewhat faded, to the point where I now feel they can have a rather strident treble. I got them in January. I cannot say whether this is a consequence of burn-in as I have recently bought some CDs that will replace my cassette collection. The cassettes are being played on a pin-sharp Nakamichi CR-7, yet the CDs are still brighter than what I was used to. My source and headphone amp is a Benchmark DAC1. That might also be a factor, but read on.
 
I feel that I got a much better handle on the character of the LCD-2s with the addition of a Behringer DEQ2496 into my system. This is a digital equalizer that now sits between my CD-transport and the Benchmark DAC1. It's one of those units that can be used as a room correction system for speakers and I got the measurement microphone with it. You can run an automated analysis that will dial-in a curve into the graphic equalizer to get a flat frequency response. Clamping the microphone between the LCD-2, this is what it came up with:
 

 
I cannot say whether a room measurement microphone is supposed to work with headphones. I should also say that, according to Behringer, their unit doesn't measure accurately below 100Hz, hence that range was excluded and appears flat. My impression when listening with the above curve was "whoa, major improvement". A warm sound, yet more open and spacious than before. The strident treble: gone. Vocals take a step backwards in the soundstage, but it sounds better and less congested. More compatible with a wider range of records than before. The above adjustment is very far from subtle. Much more than you could ever achieve with a different cable (I use the older stock cable). Whether a different amp would do something similar remains to be seen - I have an Apex Peak / Volcano with Shuguang tube on order.
 
The above is the EQ curve to achieve a flat response according to the Behringer. If you flip it on it's head, this shows what it thinks the original frequency response is like:
 

 
There is a broad 7dB peak around 1kHz and a 5dB peak around 10kHz. The latter would account for the strident treble I was hearing, the former for the congested midrange. According to this web-site:
 
http://audioprogress.free.fr/
 
"Lowther drivers present an additional of energy between 700 Hz and 2 Khz, well known as 'Lowther shout' phenomenon". While I have never heard a Lowther, I would say my LCD-2, in my system, exhibits some of the same 'shout'. Here is the frequency response plot of my LCD-2, supplied by Audeze:
 

 
At first glance it looks quite different. The way they measure is probably different from my crude $50 Behringer microphone clamped between the headphone cups. That said, my ears tend to agree with the Behringer. If you took Audeze's curve and, from around 500Hz, tilted it upwards by about 6dB, you'll get close to what I'm hearing and measuring. The 10kHz peak would be clearly visible. The 700Hz to 1kHz peak though is more pronounced than the little hump in Audeze's plot gives it credit for.
 
Other LCD-2 frequency response plots I've seen don't have that broad depression, reaching down to -14dB around 4kHz nor quite the pronounced peak around 10kHz. Your mileage may vary. As I've said earlier, I also don't think the frequency response is the most important factor that makes or breaks a headphone. The LCD-2 is ample proof of that to my ears. For me they produce amazing tones, textures and microdynamics. The frequency reponse is somewhat more of a nuisance to me. Sometimes I feel I get used to it, but then it re-enters my mind. Not anymore though. The Behringer is staying in my system, at least until the arrival of the Apex P/V.
 
Anyhow, what am I trying to say to you, googleli? Actually, I don't know. You haven't really said why you feel the LCD-2s inferior to the Ultrasones. I hope the above was at least interesting. If that's the reason you don't like the LCD-2s then the above is one possible solution. Price-wise the Behringer is an absolute steal and, as a digital EQ, seems very transparent. Their products get a bad rap for reliability and are targeted at professional use (AES/EBU and optical connections, no BNC), but again, for the price this was an experiment I'm not regretting.

Placed my pre-order!!
 
I already EQ the heck out of my DT-880 to achieve a personal flat response to my own ears (and it sounds phenomenal btw) but still there is a lot of harmonic distortion at certain freqs. For example while the 6khz sounds "flat" in volume I'm actually hearing very little of actual 6khz signal, it's mostly masked by additional frequencies... I'm really hoping with the LCD-2, with some EQ (shouldn't need as much!) that I can get basically the same flat response but it'll be so much cleaner sounding. The square wave graphs were really impressive.

Quote:

llama_egg said:

So I remember a while back people where talking about the sides not staying in place, basically requiring them to be constantly re-tightened, did we ever find a way to solve this? No matter how tight I make it with the supplied Allen Key, it always tends to go up a couple of steps.

Click to expand...

There are two solutions (one which I used personally). You can either lock-tite the allen screws (I used purple over the full length of the screw). or you can find longer allen screws that are flush with the aluminum blocks once fully tightened, as they tend to stay in place better.

Hi Vkamicht. Since you also use an EQ, I'm wondering how you feel about cables. Do you feel a cable upgrade can bring anything to the table beyond what can be achieved by tweaking the EQ curve?
 
I've been a long time sceptic about any upgrades to my Mif-Fi system, not just cables. Recent successes with the LCD-2 and the Behringer leave me wanting to investigate again.

Quote:

fh123 said:

Hi Vkamicht. Since you also use an EQ, I'm wondering how you feel about cables. Do you feel a cable upgrade can bring anything to the table beyond what can be achieved by tweaking the EQ curve?
 
I've been a long time sceptic about any upgrades to my Mif-Fi system, not just cables. Recent successes with the LCD-2 and the Behringer leave me wanting to investigate again.

Click to expand...

Hey there. With regards to cables, no, I'm a big audio skeptic and I don't believe they provide an audible difference. (there's a thread with measurements in the science forum here too!) I would consider EQ on a completely different field than cables or other "upgrades"... even amps and DACs. EQ is something very tangible, very easy to hear changes, it's "there" and you know it's there. There's no questions about it. But then I honestly feel that you could use a $100 source and a $100 amp with the LCD-2 (or other headphones) and equalize their response for your own ears and you'll be hearing amazing sound quality unlike anyone else here... because they refuse to equalize because it's "impure". They'd rather spend $2000 on a DAC/amp combo... but whatever.

You can't EQ out poor quality electronics. Not that all low priced electronics are poor quality but you are only getting so much for the dollar or whatever currency you trade in. It boils down to more than just amplifying the signal and while I have some 100 dollar amps that sound very good, the refinements had with better amps due to higher quality parts and the ability to implement those into a better path for the signal, IMO, can and often does equate to better sound. While I am a cable skeptic, if I hear a difference then I do. What I am using now surpasses what I thought they would do, so in a way, even with my doubts, they proved themselves while going against the current (as in river). 

Well, it's a shame things are so polarized. The LCD-2s themselves are my case in point. I mentioned them to a colleague, who thought I was crazy spending $1,000 on a headphone. He's got no idea what he's missing. I have no wide experience, but have not heard this level of resolution from anything else, regardless of EQ.
 
No doubt there is snake oil out there or stuff that doesn't gel or simply makes no difference. The Benchmark DAC1 is one such component for me. I could not tell it apart from the cheap Panasonic DVD-S47 player I'm using as a DVD-A transport, other than a lower noise floor. I have not made an effort to compare again since I got the LCD-2s. It's possible the Benchmark DAC1 is contributing to the LCD-2 resolution, but really these headphones will dig out significant resolution from anything, even cassette tapes copied from other tapes.
 
I'm trying to make an effort to sort out the wheat from the chaff, while keeping an open mind. The LCD-2s get a big thumbs up, so does the Behringer. Both were a surprise.
 
People have different ideas about the importance of source vs. amps vs. speakers. If the LCD-2s with a $100 source and amp is all I need, that would be nice. On the other hand, I wouldn't have bought these $1,000 headphones with that attitude. Perhaps there are other components that will bring big improvements too.
 
By the way, I do hear differences between cables. I just think they bear no relation to price. I'm using a cheap extension cable for the headphone lead and I honestly couldn't tell it apart from the LCD-2 cable alone. On the other hand the very first premium cable I bought was an interconnect for my first CD player 18 years ago. I put it in, feeling happy about having upgraded my patch lead to something half-decent, or so I thought. Later comparisons found the new cable noticeably veiled / rolled off at the top compared to the standard patch lead. When I removed the phono connectors, it looked like a solid core power cord with blue and brown conductors. This is what I paid $20 for?

A headphone, no matter the quality, cannot "dig out" details that do not exist in the source material.
Quote:

fh123 said:

It's possible the Benchmark DAC1 is contributing to the LCD-2 resolution, but really these headphones will dig out significant resolution from anything, even cassette tapes copied from other tapes.

Click to expand...

I followed Skylab's advice and gave the LCD2 more listen last night. I start to realize the strength in the LCD2. Fresh out of the box the LCD2 reminds me of the SE530 which I disliked with a passion, worst IEM purchase I made to date. The bass sounded a bit bloated as opposed to really deep and hard as I would expect since reading many of the positive reviews here. The LCD2's mids really shine after a few hours of opening up though - still not as transparent as and still at a tad little lower resolution than the ED10. It is hard to believe but it seems that the ED10's bass is indeed better (not louder) than this recognized "King of Bass". But now I start to appreciate the LCD2's flat response from low to mid range. Saxophones in "Jazz at the Pawnshop" sounds different, but nevertheless very engaging and musical. X-axis soundstage is astonishing on the LCD2. One thing I am sure that the LCD2 can never be as good as the ED10 is comfort - whenever I have the LCD2 on, I really appreciate how light the ED10 is, and how comfortable the Ethiopean Sheep Skin earpads of the ED10s are. My neck actually felt strained after 1.5 hours of listening. Hope it won't affect neck spine. More impressions after burn in (both mental burn in and actual LCD-2 burn in).  

True enough, but that's not what he said.  
 
My take on revealing resolution is simply this. I think orthos do something unique, it's to shine a light on what IS in the recording by not adding distortion.  Even my humble T50rp mods are preferable to me to my HD650s because they simply are less grainy, so while they initially appeared less "detailed," once my ears realized what I was hearing was the absence of grain and distortion, that I began to hear deeper into the music than I'd previously been able to with phones.  They reveal more true detail because they add less false content.  
 

Quote:

monelly said:

A headphone, no matter the quality, cannot "dig out" details that do not exist in the source material.

Click to expand...

 
Of course they can't. But they do show my sources haven't been the limiting factor. Furthermore they reminded me how easily tape (and vinyl) can compete with CD, even when it's a copy. Yes the analogue sources have all the obvious problems, some tape hiss in this case. The tape I was listening to was a recording of the song "Tomorrow". I had previously noticed the voices, panned hard to both sides, had an interesting effect on them. Listening via the LCD-2s I heard that it wasn't an effect at all, but that the voices had been multi-tracked with a cello playing in unison. It appeared deliberately arranged, as you might do in an orchestral composition, so the voice and cello would together form a new timbre, but the LCD-2s revealed plainly how it was done. Unbelievable. Later on the same tape I noticed a bass, which clearly wasn't a bass at all, but sounded like a sampled bass played on a keyboard. I'd never noticed before.

I suppose my point is that it has to be a really crappy source that won't benefit from LCD-2s at all. I'm talking copies of old 78 records or something like "In a gadda da vida" here. Perhaps also badly compressed MP3s (I don't use them). The LCD-2s are so good at resolving timbre, they tend to give additional insight with almost anything. Compared to what I'm used to anyway. The tape, being a copy of a friend's mix-tape, was surprising and the above were merely examples.