Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Audeze LCD2 vs Sennheiser HD800??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD2 vs Sennheiser HD800?? - Page 6  

post #76 of 1379
Well, I think my recabled HD800 sound like real life, but It will be a few more weeks before I hear the LCD-2 in comparison.
post #77 of 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth View Post

We all listen to the same "real life," but when we put on headphones our individual HRTF is replaced by the headphone designer's idea of an average HRTF.  Works for some and not for others.  That's why some cans sound "real" to some folks and not to others.  Make sense?
 


no   Seems to me that if the explanation is that we all hear different, then if someone thinks headphone A is brighter than most people, the real world would also sound brighter to them than most people.  And vice versa.  Which may be true, and in that case, finding a less bright headphone might be a relief from the bright sound of most things.  but that isn't true to the "real world" anymore.  Not that it matters of course.  I just want what sounds real to me.  Which is usually not as bright as most.  Concerts almost always sound too bright to me too, so maybe I am just sensitive.  or maybe rock concerts just have bad acoustics.  who knows.  unamped acoustic guitar sounds good.  And so do my phones.

 

I apologize for the off topic post...

post #78 of 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophonax View Post

 

Anyway, I just hopped on the list for the LCD-2s, though by the sound of it I'll be lucky to get them before August has come and gone.  It will be my first pair of orthos that I've owned, and I'll be interested to see what they can do as compared to the HD800s and T1s.  I'll admit that the FOTM syndrome has probably influenced my decision to buy a pair, but it certainly won't make them sound any better than they actually are when they're sitting on my noggin.
 

 

 

I don't think you're going to be disappointed with the Audez'e...I got to try the HD800 on multiple amps at CanJam, but the LCD-2 I only tried on the Liquid Fire...

 

they sounded how I wanted them to...simple as that...

 

the person in line in front of me (whose moniker I've now forgotten) brought his pair of HD800 to compare...he seemed to think that perhaps the LCD-2 were a little bright...I would've gone with vivid as I didn't find it unpleasant...I don't think it unfair to say that coming from Senns, anything might sound a touch bright or colored...every pair I tried didn't sound so much veiled as muted...I still liked them (HD800) quite a bit--especially on Asr's QB-9/Auditor rig--but I'd have the LCD-2 every day of the week...

 

obviously, neither of us were very familiar with the Liquid Fire amp...or the recording for that matter...so take this all with a grain of salt...but I will say that I didn't have to settle into the LCD-2's sound...I enjoyed it immediately...

post #79 of 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth View Post



We all listen to the same "real life," but when we put on headphones our individual HRTF is replaced by the headphone designer's idea of an average HRTF.  Works for some and not for others.  That's why some cans sound "real" to some folks and not to others.  Make sense?
 


IME it makes a lot of sense, the problem is that your brain is accustomed to hearing things a lot farther away from your ears than headphones, so that plays as a disadvantage since your brain takes into consideration how sound waves are affected by the body before it reaches your ears, so it compensates accordingly, and there is a lot of differences between our bodies, the variability between our HRTF's is probably quite big (I guess I just expanded a little bit what you said, I just wanted to emphasize that I support what you say).

post #80 of 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Strummer View Post




IME it makes a lot of sense, the problem is that your brain is accustomed to hearing things a lot farther away from your ears than headphones, so that plays as a disadvantage since your brain takes into consideration how sound waves are affected by the body before it reaches your ears, so it compensates accordingly, and there is a lot of differences between our bodies, the variability between our HRTF's is probably quite big (I guess I just expanded a little bit what you said, I just wanted to emphasize that I support what you say).

 

 

And add in to all that the various recording engineers, and how many recordings vary in quality.  
 

post #81 of 1379



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth View Post

We all listen to the same "real life," but when we put on headphones our individual HRTF is replaced by the headphone designer's idea of an average HRTF.  Works for some and not for others.  That's why some cans sound "real" to some folks and not to others.  Make sense?
 

 

Yes, somewhat. I'm of the belief that the best headphones get different aspects of reality correct, or we notice that. Like my RS-1 gets tonality of violins and woodwinds, HD800 for vocals, K501 for space, PS1000/K701 dynamics, Ultrasone PRO 2500 bass foundation etc. I have not heard a headphone (or any piece of audio gear) get it all sounding real. Perhaps you are trying to say that the LCD-2 gets the closest yet to accomplishing this feat.

 

post #82 of 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigzStudio 

 

 

And add in to all that the various recording engineers, and how many recordings vary in quality.  
 



 

Not to mention that we don't even know how a recording is supposed to sound to the ears of the people who made it.

post #83 of 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle View Post


Not to mention that we don't even know how a recording is supposed to sound to the ears of the people who made it.


Exactly.  We like to think a headphone sounds accurate but we don't really know, unless we are listening to a live recording that we heard live with our own ears.  What is better to say is that a particular headphone is more transparent than another headphone, because we can hear more detail in it that we couldn't hear on the other; same goes for a DAC.

post #84 of 1379

Yup, that's why I said it was all too subjective, so I avoid all that BS and go with what my ears enjoy.

post #85 of 1379


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IPodPJ View Post




Exactly.  We like to think a headphone sounds accurate but we don't really know, unless we are listening to a live recording that we heard live with our own ears.  What is better to say is that a particular headphone is more transparent than another headphone, because we can hear more detail in it that we couldn't hear on the other; same goes for a DAC.


so what if you weren't meant to hear ALL the details, or all the details equally?

post #86 of 1379

WELl I'm sold.....was looking at T1's to compare to my HD800.  Now the lcd2 - or both ....... thanks for taking my money .........Seriously these phones sound like they are the one!  The HD800 resolve so well, but are just missing a bit of soul

post #87 of 1379

I think it's unfair to say that the HD800 is the most uncolored can around, since both the HD800 and LCD-2 measure rather flat below 1K. When it comes to brightness, as I recall from a previous listen, the HD800 sounded brighter. Maybe I need to go listen again.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emelius View Post

 

the person in line in front of me (whose moniker I've now forgotten) brought his pair of HD800 to compare...he seemed to think that perhaps the LCD-2 were a little bright...I would've gone with vivid as I didn't find it unpleasant...I don't think it unfair to say that coming from Senns, anything might sound a touch bright or colored...every pair I tried didn't sound so much veiled as muted...I still liked them (HD800) quite a bit--especially on Asr's QB-9/Auditor rig--but I'd have the LCD-2 every day of the week...

 

obviously, neither of us were very familiar with the Liquid Fire amp...or the recording for that matter...so take this all with a grain of salt...but I will say that I didn't have to settle into the LCD-2's sound...I enjoyed it immediately...

post #88 of 1379


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post




no   Seems to me that if the explanation is that we all hear different, then if someone thinks headphone A is brighter than most people, the real world would also sound brighter to them than most people.  And vice versa.  Which may be true, and in that case, finding a less bright headphone might be a relief from the bright sound of most things.  but that isn't true to the "real world" anymore.  Not that it matters of course.  I just want what sounds real to me.  Which is usually not as bright as most.  Concerts almost always sound too bright to me too, so maybe I am just sensitive.  or maybe rock concerts just have bad acoustics.  who knows.  unamped acoustic guitar sounds good.  And so do my phones.

 

I apologize for the off topic post...


I don't think this is off-topic at all.  Objectively you may be wrong...but with all my testing so far, subjectively, I am coming to the same conclusion as you did.  The question for me has made a dramatic turn from what sounds exact to a recording to what sounds exact in terms of musicality.  i.e. the main body of tone in an instrument that gels, reacts with and reciprocates with other tonal bodies to expose the "intended musical riff", or the "soul" of the piece and it seems to me, technical brilliance is not the primary factor (though a large part).  The most detailed technical phone may not bring out as much "musical details" as one that's less technically detailed but sounds more musical because it can gel all the technical details and compose musical details with them, in doing so sounding more "detailed" to me even though technically they are not.  It's all about musicality and so it seems, as far my opinions are concerned.  After all, most recorded music does not really come with an accompanying video to illustrate to what physical environment the musical piece is meant to be heard in, so most of the time we are hearing the music blindfolded.


Edited by SP Wild - 6/14/10 at 11:42pm
post #89 of 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwkarth View Post


It just means the either you've accommodated to the 800s or that they match your particular HRTF better than the LCD-2s.  Do yourself a favor though, and give them a listen.

 

BTW, many in the music profession are dumping everything for the LCD-2s as they have opportunity to hear them.

 

Let me begin by saying that I have enjoyed reading your posts both in this and the other Audeze LCD-2 thread. You argue persuasively and with conviction for the merits of the LCD-2. This headphone has obviously been an audio revelation for you.

 

However, whether you intend to or not, your posts do read as if you know best and I think the first statement quoted above is an example of this in response to a recording engineer, who uses the HD800 as a reference headphone to monitor the recording of classical instruments.

 

With regard to your second statement, how many would you regard as "many"?

 


Edited by TheJudge - 6/15/10 at 8:30am
post #90 of 1379

Everyone's subjective experience is the most real, true or objective to them. The hard part is proving it. This thread has taken a decidedly metaphysical turn. Let's strip the sophistry back to the two competing premises from where it all began: 

 

The HD800 is better than the LCD-2 / The LCD-2 is better than the HD800.

 

You continue to philosophize away boys while I patiently wait for the comparative reviews to come in.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Audeze LCD2 vs Sennheiser HD800??