or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Audeze LCD-2 Impressions Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audeze LCD-2 Impressions Thread - Page 218

post #3256 of 9694
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post
 

I've owned all of these headphones and to me the HD800's are simply on a much different level when it comes to technics, however, if you also read my first initial posts in response to NotaLEfty I brought up the musicality aspect, and noted that may be enjoyed more.

 

But what technics?

post #3257 of 9694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megalomaniak View Post
 

 

But what technics?

The LCD-2 only has bass quantity over the HD800.

When it comes to imaging, soundstage, resolve, speed they are world's apart.

post #3258 of 9694

i recently bought the lcd-2. In the hifi shop i compared them to hifiman he-500, beyerdynamics t1 and the hd800. It was a head to head race between hd800 and lcd-2. So why i bought the lcd-2? For me it sounds much more natural to me. The hd800 has a bigger soundstage, better imagening but it is too analytical for me. The LCD-2 sounds just great natural and never lost the musicality (dont know how to explain what i mean). While the hd800 dissect everything and the lcd-2 sounds more relaxed for me. As i mainly listen to Metal this lcd-2 is the perfect can for me. For Classic music i would have taken the hd800, and maybe ill buy that too when im back on money again. haha

Oh, what i forgot, i listened to a lcd 2.2 without fazor and the non leather pads. I bought it with leatherpads and fazor and it sounds lots more open and have some more power in high tones when i remember the non fazor one right. Also it has a little less deepbass. (the 2.2f)


Edited by sicknote - 6/12/14 at 5:46am
post #3259 of 9694
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post
 

The LCD-2 only has bass quantity over the HD800.

When it comes to imaging, soundstage, resolve, speed they are world's apart.

 

Speaking about that, bass and sub-bass, for me, is better technicaly in the LCD-2, not only the more quantity, but texture, density and quality, its harder to control properly a bass like this when no bass is needed, and show all its potential when its needed. A planar magnetic bass for me is over a dynamic bass all over the way technicaly.

 

Soundstage and imaging. As I said before, for classical and some others styles, yes, its bigger and very well defined, but for rock, folk, funk, country, metal, rb, reggae and those more 4 to 8 instrument styles (or maybe up to 10-12), the soundstage of the LCD-2 is better for me, I cant stand listening to rock or funk music with all that air and separation, thats so unreal for me. Every intrsument sounds thin and far. And the imaging is still very good.

 

Speed? Thats not something the LCD wants to compete about, the LCD has a lush, laid back sound, thats its style, so... Thats not better, thats different.

 

Resolve and revealing, thats one thing the HD800 makes better, its very analitycal, some people likes it, others dont.


Edited by Megalomaniak - 6/12/14 at 2:24pm
post #3260 of 9694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megalomaniak View Post
 

 

Speaking about that, bass and sub-bass, for me, is better technicaly in the LCD-2, not only the more quantity, but texture, density and quality, its harder to control properly a bass like this when no bass is needed, and show all its potential when its needed. A planar magnetic bass for me is over a dynamic bass all over the way technicaly.

 

Soundstage and imaging. As I said before, for classical and some others styles, yes, its bigger and very well defined, but for rock, folk, funk, country, metal, rb, reggae and those more 4 to 8 instrument styles (or maybe up to 10-12), the soundstage of the LCD-2 is better for me, I cant stand listening to rock or funk music with all that air and separation, thats so unreal for me. Every intrsument sounds thin and far. And the imaging is still very good.

 

Speed? Thats not something the LCD wants to compete about, the LCD has a lush, laid back sound, thats its style, so... Thats not better, thats different.

 

Resolve and revealing, thats one thing the HD800 makes better, its very analitycal, some people likes it, others dont.

Planars generally technically do bass better than everything else - dynamic or electrostatic, but the rest definitely goes to the HD800. Whether or not you

will enjoy that as much is entirely different.

post #3261 of 9694

I also recently bought Audeze LCD 2 rev 3 and chose it over HD 800 for the same reasons above. :)

post #3262 of 9694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megalomaniak View Post
 

 

Speaking about that, bass and sub-bass, for me, is better technicaly in the LCD-2, not only the more quantity, but texture, density and quality, its harder to control properly a bass like this when no bass is needed, and show all its potential when its needed. A planar magnetic bass for me is over a dynamic bass all over the way technicaly.

 

Soundstage and imaging. As I said before, for classical and some others styles, yes, its bigger and very well defined, but for rock, folk, funk, country, metal, rb, reggae and those more 4 to 8 instrument styles (or maybe up to 10-12), the soundstage of the LCD-2 is better for me, I cant stand listening to rock or funk music with all that air and separation, thats so unreal for me. Every intrsument sounds thin and far. And the imaging is still very good.

 

 

I was worried about to much air, separation and soundstage with the HD800's myself as I also listen to rock/metal. For this reason I dismissed the HD800's as not suitable for me.

 

However I took a gamble knowing I could return them for a full refund and have never looked back.

I don't hear to much air or separation or even an artificially wide soundstage, just amazing clarity, detail, speed and bass control. Absolutely nothing through the HD800's sound thin or distant either.

As such I love them for rock and metal probably more so than LCD2.2's although it can depend on the recording.

On some material the LCD's can sound congested, not a problem I have ever encountered with the HD800's.


Edited by nigeljames - 6/13/14 at 4:10am
post #3263 of 9694
Quote:
Originally Posted by nigeljames View Post
 

 

I was worried about to much air, separation and soundstage with the HD800's myself as I also listen to rock/metal. For this reason I dismissed the HD800's as not suitable for me.

 

However I took a gamble knowing I could return them for a full refund and have never looked back.

I don't hear to much air or separation or even an artificially wide soundstage, just amazing clarity, detail, speed and bass control. Absolutely nothing through the HD800's sound thin or distant either.

As such I love them for rock and metal probably more so than LCD2.2's although it can depend on the recording.

On some material the LCD's can sound congested, not a problem I have ever encountered with the HD800's.

 

Good for you if you love the rock and metal with the HD800s, honestly, I mean it. I cant stand it. Listening to a Sex Pistol's album or Hellyeah/Shadows Fall album with them is like throwing knifes in my ears.

 

Also, never felt congested with the 2.2s, not even with OSTs, movies, big jam jazz sessions. Never. Of course, classical music / big concertos are not for them.


Edited by Megalomaniak - 6/13/14 at 4:54am
post #3264 of 9694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megalomaniak View Post
 

 

Good for you if you love the rock and metal with the HD800s, honestly, I mean it. I cant stand it. Listening to a Sex Pistol's album or Hellyeah/Shadows Fall album with them is like throwing knifes in my ears.

 

Also, never felt congested with the 2.2s, not even with OSTs, movies, big jam jazz sessions. Never. Of course, classical music / big concertos are not for them.

 

It just goes to show how different experiences with the same gear can be.

post #3265 of 9694
Thread Starter 

To me, with the LCD2, the music just gets presence, it unfolds and flows into an organic whole, placing me in the midst of the performance.

 

It does nothing extra for me - it does not magnify any part of the music, I find no amplified details. It does not draw attention to itself either, I hear no strangely wide or small stage, no weird colorations. The balance is just near perfect. I have found no issues with speed - it plays it all, nothing gets mixed up.

 

With the previous r1 pads, the bass always drew a bit of extra attention, growing darker and bigger when present. Now with the r2 pads, it steps back a bit, still going as deep and as textured, but without that extra strength to it.

 

If it has a sound of it own, it's the sound of perfection.

( Apparently, with the Fazor, they have perfected it even further, but since I have not heard the difference, I don't hear a need to improve perfection further.)

Well done, Audeze :beerchug: 

post #3266 of 9694
What is the difference between the R1 and R2 pads?
post #3267 of 9694
Thread Starter 

The R2 pads are softer, better made overall, (I find them much more comfortable), and the dust protector seems to be slightly less dense.

post #3268 of 9694

Whoa just got my Loaner LCD 2 in and man... THOSE MIDS... they sound rather strange to my ears, and by strange I mean the coloration in the spectrum, it's almost as if they are forward... but they aren't...

 

how ever the treble was SUPER smooth :3, not at all dark like ppl said, ALSO THE WEIGHT they are SO LIGHT! 

 

Also my gawd yes this headphone is AN ABASOULETE upgrade to the HE 400, the simmilarity in the color of each is to my ears VERY simmilar, First thing I noticed was [those mids] or lack there of, central mids are nice but the upper mids seemed.... really forward and recessed at the same time, listening to a dub step tune right at like 1.5k-3k range sounds... recessed, but the lower mids are very forward, ugh it sounds like the HE 400 >.> BUT without the linear sub bass, some of you like to say "THE LCD 2 is a top tier CAN, cheap cans add texture to bass, and I disagree, I can hear rolled of sub bass of this Fazor Model,

 

also VOICES sound STRANGE,,, they sound BIZZARE to my ears the upper mids are recessed and the lower mids are so forward 

 

and the Spectrum agree's that drop from 1khz, so sharp [these have Fazor]

 

non the less I'm going to listen to them NON STOP, for today and the weeken till next Monday, on Monday I'll see how the HE 4 and LCD 2 Fazor Compare 

post #3269 of 9694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post
 

Whoa just got my Loaner LCD 2 in and man... THOSE MIDS... they sound rather strange to my ears, and by strange I mean the coloration in the spectrum, it's almost as if they are forward... but they aren't...

 

how ever the treble was SUPER smooth :3, not at all dark like ppl said, ALSO THE WEIGHT they are SO LIGHT! 

 

Also my gawd yes this headphone is AN ABASOULETE upgrade to the HE 400, the simmilarity in the color of each is to my ears VERY simmilar, First thing I noticed was [those mids] or lack there of, central mids are nice but the upper mids seemed.... really forward and recessed at the same time, listening to a dub step tune right at like 1.5k-3k range sounds... recessed, but the lower mids are very forward, ugh it sounds like the HE 400 >.> BUT without the linear sub bass, some of you like to say "THE LCD 2 is a top tier CAN, cheap cans add texture to bass, and I disagree, I can hear rolled of sub bass of this Fazor Model,

 

also VOICES sound STRANGE,,, they sound BIZZARE to my ears the upper mids are recessed and the lower mids are so forward 

 

and the Spectrum agree's that drop from 1khz, so sharp [these have Fazor]

 

non the less I'm going to listen to them NON STOP, for today and the weeken till next Monday, on Monday I'll see how the HE 4 and LCD 2 Fazor Compare 


When I looked at the FR graph of that pair, after a bit of listening, I'm hearing exactly what the graph shows. Tyll is 100% correct in that the sub bass needs to return to former pre-Fazor levels, and the upper mids-lower treble need the lift you mention. "Treble" treble can stay dark for all I care, just for long-listening-sessions' sake. I was skeptical of Tyll, as he's obviously quite opinionated in his ideas of what sounds natural and neutral/flat... But he's 100% correct.

post #3270 of 9694
Quote:
Originally Posted by jodgey4 View Post
 


When I looked at the FR graph of that pair, after a bit of listening, I'm hearing exactly what the graph shows. Tyll is 100% correct in that the sub bass needs to return to former pre-Fazor levels, and the upper mids-lower treble need the lift you mention. "Treble" treble can stay dark for all I care, just for long-listening-sessions' sake. I was skeptical of Tyll, as he's obviously quite opinionated in his ideas of what sounds natural and neutral/flat... But he's 100% correct.

YUP, I like the HE 4 since it's pretty amazingly neutral

 

that said, Vocals are pretty amazing on the LCD 2.2F very natural and sooo smoooth, SOME Voices how ever are not even natural, but I was listening to a Video, and on the video the LCD 2 sounded a little wonked, listening to music it depends HEAVILY on the Voice, Japanese as a language sounds horrific on the LCD 2, the phonics os the language make for a wide range of sounds,, where as Mongolian seems a little more "extreme" in the spectrum it covers, and I REALLY love how Japanese sounds [since as voices vary, the wide tonal range of the  language sounds amazing with so mny different voices] 

 

yea the HE 4 does a much nicer job

 

oooh panios... Ryuchi Sakamoto sounds very nice great body and tactility in that, or rather the coloration of the LCD 2 matches panions nicely, it accents certian notes, put's emphasis on well the lower mid notes, and they sound really wonderful. Listening to my HE 4 as I was reading my post I didn't partciulary notice any part of the Panio stand out, how ever with the LCD 2.2F I could notice the forward nature of the low mids, and it was NICE. IT STOLE my attention away, then Ryuchi switched to a higher set of octaves and the magic was lost... 

 

now listening to a Accapella song, and I really like how the coloration layers the music, in my honest opinion, the LCD 2 has a lot in common with my W1000x [sub bass roll off, a unique colored sound that layers music] ofc the LCD 2 is faster, has smoother but noticeably dark treble and MUCH LESS Upper Mids, the w1000x is a little shy in the lower mids. How ever the LCD 2, unlike the w1000x, doesn't work with all kinds of music. But it is technically better, better sepeeration, a more balanced sound stage.

 

Still the two share a simmilar sense of tactility and musical layering, the LCD 2F is Wider and a touch deeper, and is a little more "composed" during busy passages, but like the W1000x, it's color does lead it to sounding "conjested" or busy at times. it's because the freq isn't neutral some sounds, regardless of the mastering of the track are forward over others, and while every headphones has "frequanices forward over others" it's audible  on the LCD 2, but that same "flaw" is what makes it great 

 

my point is the "color" or un even frequancy response of the LCD 2, I can understand why some people love it so much, I own a W1000x [which I'm not sure I'll be selling any time soon] and when paired with my Hm801 and pb1, the W1000x is so unique. 

 

I"ve had em for one day and I don't think I'll b selling my HE 4 for one, even with Fazor it's still a very colored can, it works good for all kinds of music, great for most music and HEVEANLY for some music, where as the modest HE 4 [to my ears and for my tastes] is great for kinds all music, and HEAVENLY for a lot. ANd that's just due to it's "color" or lack there of 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Audeze LCD-2 Impressions Thread