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 219

post #3271 of 10571

I'll say this, while for Classical I prefer the HE 4, for Duets and Solos of Classical Instruments, the LCD2's faster response is nice, listening to a  very modern Cello Duet, sounds great on the LCD 2 better than the HE 4 for sure, the HE 4 doesn't have the dynamic speed of the LCD 2 either, and the LCD 2 [like my D2k] sounds a little better at louder volumes, having it around 52-57dbs it's ok, get it up to 60, 65 and around 67dbs and it's starts to shine a little more

 

 

oooh now here's an interesting song, Epica's "Solitary Ground Verision" sounds magicl on the HE 4, every time the balance of the Vocals [beautiful women with an equally stunning voice] and the music in the back ground, really strikes me...

 

let's see how the LCD 2F Compares, 

 

 

ewwww, her voice sounds wonked, to much emphasis on the low mids, her voice alone is nice, but the background is smeared, the powerful lower notes in her voice smudge up the back 

 

I was level matching the two headphones, cranking the LCD 2 up to it's "optimal 62dbs" it does sound a touch better the background get's a little cleaer, but holy crap is the her VOICE FREAKING LOUD, yes it's sounds better but it's SOO LOUD, ugh not all that comfy for my ears

 

Where as the HE 4, while not as quick dynamically, has a better overall balance, and really does a great job with the track at a whole, on what I feel is a comfortable listening level. 

 

I'll do some comparisons with the LCD 2 on the NFb 10ES2 [Thick Can Dry Amp/Dac] and w1000x [Dry Can, thick Dac, Neutral Amp] to my ears the hm801/pb2/w1000x combo is magic for eveything [minus anything EDM] I think the two headphones though share a simmilar mind set, 

post #3272 of 10571

http://headfonics.com/2011/06/hifiman-he4-more-fun-than-the-he6/

"Some even claimed they much preferred this [HE-4] to the LCD-2. In fact 5 out of 6 testers preferred this to the LCD-2. Now this had me shocked to the core given the price difference and the positioning of the headphone in terms of other competitor headphones. I am not going to say this is better than the LCD-2 to be honest, I would need some serious time with both to come to any sort of definitive listening conclusion but I will say this; the highs have a nice clean edge to them, contain fantastic detail and are in no way sharp for my tastes. They work equally well with rock, dance and soft tracks. It really quite the versatile headphone if you ask me."

post #3273 of 10571

mmmmmm, For Jazz man the LCD 2F do every just right 

 

for well mastered rock albums the LCD 2F are great

 

for poorly Mastered Rock [Looking at you J Roddy Walston and the Buisness' Essential Tremors] not so much, nothing layers rock music quite like the W1000x Does, those withdrawn upper mids... do not help this already badly master album, where as the W1000x Shoves the Vocals forward and everything else backward, the LCD 2 keeps the track decently balanced, and pushes the already pushed back vocals... back a smidge more, the High Hats sound horrendous [again this isn't the worlds best sounding album] 

 

switching to the W1000x, While I like the presentation better, the w1000x is a master at layering crappy Rock, it's a tad to harsh compared to the LCD 2 [and that's cuz imho the W1000x only really shines with a Warm Slow Dac like the Hm801, since it's such a QUICK dry headphone, and yes it's as fast as the LCD 2 in terms of dynamics and pure impulse [my w1000x is modded] and OMG the Fazor W1000x is not as fast as the orignal, the Impulse readings are LOWER for the Fazor :O ewww

 

anyways the W1000x, has the speed and dynamic shifts of the LCD 2, but it's super picky about it's source, it works best with a warmer source to smooth it out, as after I modded it, it got rather dry and tends to have a lot of "edge" to it's sound. the hm801 with it's warm sound sig pairs so nicely with my w1000x, as I said before, the LCD 2 NFB 10ES2 compare has thus far impressed me  [in some tracks] as the W1000x hm801/pb2 combo has

 

 

but gawd as Much as I like J Roddy Walston and the Buisness'  their albums have the crappiest masterings, takes the w1000x to layer the music decently, then the hm801 to get it back to sounding a little more natural... I wonder how those guys sound live 

post #3274 of 10571
Quote:
Originally Posted by jodgey4 View Post
 

http://headfonics.com/2011/06/hifiman-he4-more-fun-than-the-he6/

"Some even claimed they much preferred this [HE-4] to the LCD-2. In fact 5 out of 6 testers preferred this to the LCD-2. Now this had me shocked to the core given the price difference and the positioning of the headphone in terms of other competitor headphones. I am not going to say this is better than the LCD-2 to be honest, I would need some serious time with both to come to any sort of definitive listening conclusion but I will say this; the highs have a nice clean edge to them, contain fantastic detail and are in no way sharp for my tastes. They work equally well with rock, dance and soft tracks. It really quite the versatile headphone if you ask me."

yeaper, I'd like to get a hold of the HE 6 my self, and I might do just that when I can afford a new Amp q.q till then I might aim for the LCD -X SOME PEOPLE SAY it's a little U SHAPED, which apprently U shaped headphones are my thing, if the LCD X is a little "u'd" like the HE 4 then SIGN ME THE F*** up! 

 

that said though it's expensive... BUT I'm SO happy the weight of the LCD 2 is... well un noticeable to me :D I forget they are there some times! So that's good, glad I'm some what resitant to "OMG It's to HEAVY" headphone syndrome 

 

how ever, when comparing the LCD 2F to the HE 4 [which I will post a big review of on my blog and here on head fi sooon] it should be interesting,

 

My personal comparison to the LCD 2/NFB10ES2 and my hm801.pb2.w1000x [I really wanted to try this but I forget to tonight, so I figured typing it 5 times will help me remember for tommorow] I'll keep those impressions here, as I think it should be interesting how the two shine

 

although ironically, the two headphones W1000x and LCD 2 are in some what a sense polar oppisites, the W1000x sounds like garbage when it's loud [rather poor THD at 100dbs] where as the LCD 2 sounds pretty bangin when you crank it up [some excellent THD readings for 100dbs] and my own listening confirms that, the LCD 2 sounds GOOD LOUD and kinda bad quiet, [not due to bad THD it just sounds boring] the W1000x sounds GREAT quiet and sounds HORRIBLE [bad] loud [due to some bad THD readings and a wonky frq] 

 

either way I'm excited :D 


Edited by Mshenay - 6/13/14 at 10:07pm
post #3275 of 10571
The W1000X's are good looking and great sounding headphones indeed but IMO the highs were very piercing showing sibilance on vocals with my pair mad.gif

It's too late now since I sold them but a solution to tone down those fatiguing trebles would have been nice at time
post #3276 of 10571

Recently I had the pleasure to listen to Audeze LCD-2 for about 3 hours.
This was a mesmerizing experience,.

At the beginning I was sceptic - could they really sound better then my Unique Melody Merlin? Well, yeah, they do. They seem to be a natural upgrade from the customs.

Bass: deeep, strong, but, man, is it incredibely well controlled. My standard bass boost settings were bloating the most cans (HD8 DJ, D600, SRH1540), but the LCD-2's bass is still being superbly kept under control. Fantastic!

Midrange: Oh my, I'm in love. I though the Merlins had the best midrange to date, but these cans are so sweet. Detail, vocals, beautiful.

Highs: exactly how I like it. Extended, but velvetly smooth. No harshness or fatigue at all (not possible with them!). Man, was I surprised when I heared new things on some very well known tracks - I couldn't believe it.

Comfort: the leather pads are great, but for some reason, my right ear kept pushing on the inner side of the can (the left was perfectly fine).

 

Most cans grow on me in time (the Merlins needed a month if I recall correctly), but I instantly felt in love with the Audeze.

The only problem... they're open cans...

So, guys, is there any closed can similar to the LCD-2?

post #3277 of 10571
Audeze sell a closed model but way more expensive than the 2s , Mad dogs line could be an option too
post #3278 of 10571
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 

 

Those mids are to me, what is wrong with hi fi reproduction of classical guitar and piano...speakers or headphones pushed to consumers cannot separate and break down chords into their individual notes as effectively as the LCD2. 

 

For me the HD800 embodies the essence of everything that is wrong with hi-fi.  Anybody that claims the HD800 is more technically proficient than the LCD2 need to produce data and not anecdotal stories to prove their absolutes, otherwise it is mere speculation.

 

I find it futile to compare the LCD2s to the speaker experience, because most speakers are made to sound good at low levels, because roommates.  I definitely would not like my speakers to sound like the LCD2s as I can get away with the LCD2 as a reference.  Using speakers as a reference tool will incur the wrath of my fellow housemates.

 

The significant flaw that has reared it's head with me lately is the fact that the LCD2 is both bass lite and treble lite for my tastes when listening at background levels, when I want to multitask.  Which is why my K701s have racked up the most hours of all my headphones, to lift the presence region at low levels.  Then again I really need to get my Grado HF2s back into action, because that one is even better than the K701 for lower levels. 

post #3279 of 10571

Based on objective measurements, the HD800 are more 'technically proficient' than the LCD-2.

post #3280 of 10571
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

Based on objective measurements, the HD800 are more 'technically proficient' than the LCD-2.


 In what way?

post #3281 of 10571

Its bass extends extremely well considering it uses an open baffle design, it has very low distortion, a very clean impulse response, and a supremely clean 300hz square wave.  It also has the cleanest decay out of any headphone by far on CSD plots.  Purrin took it down to -50db and it still didn't show a noise floor.

 

There's no getting around the technical merits of the HD800.  That isn't to say that it sounds good to a lot of people-- including me.

post #3282 of 10571
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

Its bass extends extremely well considering it uses an open baffle design, it has very low distortion, a very clean impulse response, and a supremely clean 300hz square wave.  It also has the cleanest decay out of any headphone by far on CSD plots.  Purrin took it down to -50db and it still didn't show a noise floor.

 

There's no getting around the technical merits of the HD800.  That isn't to say that it sounds good to a lot of people-- including me.

 

Agreed, however I think the truth is in the middle.  Audeze and Senheisser trade blow for blow in the measurements department, and there is'nt a knockout victory, merely a points based decision, with the judge being the end user.

post #3283 of 10571
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
 

 

Those mids are to me, what is wrong with hi fi reproduction of classical guitar and piano...speakers or headphones pushed to consumers cannot separate and break down chords into their individual notes as effectively as the LCD2. 

 

For me the HD800 embodies the essence of everything that is wrong with hi-fi.  Anybody that claims the HD800 is more technically proficient than the LCD2 need to produce data and not anecdotal stories to prove their absolutes, otherwise it is mere speculation.

 

I find it futile to compare the LCD2s to the speaker experience, because most speakers are made to sound good at low levels, because roommates.  I definitely would not like my speakers to sound like the LCD2s as I can get away with the LCD2 as a reference.  Using speakers as a reference tool will incur the wrath of my fellow housemates.

 

The significant flaw that has reared it's head with me lately is the fact that the LCD2 is both bass lite and treble lite for my tastes when listening at background levels, when I want to multitask.  Which is why my K701s have racked up the most hours of all my headphones, to lift the presence region at low levels.  Then again I really need to get my Grado HF2s back into action, because that one is even better than the K701 for lower levels. 

I know you're a LCD-2 fanboy, which is fine, but please, dude.

 

It may be your preference to dislike the HD800, but don't try to speak gospel. It's pretty ignorant and frankly stupid to demand objective data,

(after-all this part of the forum is about subjectivity) when there are plenty data points out there to mull over. WHICH will show you

that indeed the HD800 is technically more proficient. But never-mind that, people can still be contrarian, if that's what their ears tell them.

post #3284 of 10571

I wonder when Audeze will introduce an all new platform to their cans as all their offerings have shared the same platform. 

post #3285 of 10571
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
 

 

Those mids are to me, what is wrong with hi fi reproduction of classical guitar and piano...speakers or headphones pushed to consumers cannot separate and break down chords into their individual notes as effectively as the LCD2. 

 

For me the HD800 embodies the essence of everything that is wrong with hi-fi.  Anybody that claims the HD800 is more technically proficient than the LCD2 need to produce data and not anecdotal stories to prove their absolutes, otherwise it is mere speculation.

 

I find it futile to compare the LCD2s to the speaker experience, because most speakers are made to sound good at low levels, because roommates.  I definitely would not like my speakers to sound like the LCD2s as I can get away with the LCD2 as a reference.  Using speakers as a reference tool will incur the wrath of my fellow housemates.

 

The significant flaw that has reared it's head with me lately is the fact that the LCD2 is both bass lite and treble lite for my tastes when listening at background levels, when I want to multitask.  Which is why my K701s have racked up the most hours of all my headphones, to lift the presence region at low levels.  Then again I really need to get my Grado HF2s back into action, because that one is even better than the K701 for lower levels. 

 

Agree'd [minus ur HD 800 rantings], the LCD 2 sounds wonderful at about 65 dbps which when I get off work is great, but early in the morning and late at night, I like to listen at around 50-55dbs and at that volume while the LCD 2 is still faster, the HE 4 Sounds better,

 

So I'm really at a loss here as to which I prefer 

 

and that's the HUGE issue. At HIGH Volumes it's clear the LCD 2 is a step above the HE 4, at lower volumes, the LCD 2 sounds like a rather poor side grade to the HE 4, yes it's faster but the tonal balance is off. Comfort wise, the LCD 2 Fazor with Vegans feels fine on my head, I don't get why ppl call these "heavy"  my only issue with the LCD 2 is that it touches my ears from time to time, due to how squishy these vegan pads are. 

 

And may I say at louder Volumes it does sound REALLY GOOD <3 

 

but it's a little unfair to compare two headphones that when level matched... sound simmilar. the HE 4 is better at lower volumes, where as the LCD 2 is better at higher volumes :/ but for the sake of Fair ness I'll have to compare em each at 65 dbs 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

Its bass extends extremely well considering it uses an open baffle design, it has very low distortion, a very clean impulse response, and a supremely clean 300hz square wave.  It also has the cleanest decay out of any headphone by far on CSD plots.  Purrin took it down to -50db and it still didn't show a noise floor.

 

There's no getting around the technical merits of the HD800.  That isn't to say that it sounds good to a lot of people-- including me.

Indeed dude that 300 Square was supreme! I need to hear an HD 800 now q.q 


Edited by Mshenay - 6/14/14 at 8:56am
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