HE-6/LCD-2 vs the classics (R-10, Qualia, K1000, Stax, L3000, etc.) Avoid the landmines. - Page 3

Organ music quite clearly show the difference between LCD2 and HE6. If you've ever been to a live performance you will know only the HE6 can make it tolerable

I would no go to say the HE6 is better than the LCD2 they are both outstanding headphones with different presentations and I also love the hD800 but for transparency both planars excel in opening a clear window into the music but both planar are excellent as well as the HD800 which does classical music better than the planars because of the very wide and deep soundstage. Hell I love all three.

Jamato8: That´s what I was expecting to hear. It´s still based on the same driver technology, it would be a miracle if it had a vastly different soundstage. The poor soundstaging is common to all ortho drivers I think, it´s just one of the setbacks of the technology and probably one of the reasons orthos lost to dynamics in the mainstream market. As for the highs, I was hoping it would not squash the highs as much as the LCD-2 does (bringing it closer to the ideal diffuse field EQ) and thus be a lot more neutral.
 

 

 

We´ll have to agree to disagree. While I agree that headphones usually have a boosted treble, but there is actually a technical reason for this (see diffuse field EQ). All headphones need to have a treble spike to become neutral (they are almost all trying to mimic speakers in a normal reflecting room environment), it´s just because of how close the driver is to the ear. All headphones, in a way, are a poor imitation of speakers. Even the LCD-2 spikes in the treble for the same reason (but not nearly enough, it´s still on the -dB side easily all the time in the highs). The problem is, apparently getting the diffuse field EQ done correctly without sibilance or spiky sound is extremely difficult, and most overdo it. The LCD-2 overdoes it in the wrong direction, but it´s just as inaccurate as many spiky headphones. The HD 800 isn´t neutral either, but to me it´s way, way closer to neutral than LCD-2. It overdoes the highs (not that much though), but it´s closer to the ideal than the LCD-2. With the LCD-2, I feel around 30% of the sound is heavily colored, almost butchered. It´s a classic retro easy listening sound signature, but not what I would call hi-fi. Compare the LCD-2 highs to properly calibrated studio nearfields and you´ll see how lacking the highs are. The studio gear (ADAM, Genelec and so on) will show what neutrality really sounds like (and it´s nowhere near what the LCD-2 does with the highs). The HD 800 are a lot closer to them than the LCD-2. The LCD-2 in my view have a "fun", easy listening retro sound signature. 

 

As for soundstage, well, it´s the canvas everything is painted on. Sure, speakers have a better soundstage, but they are the reference headphones are trying to reach (with new tech such as angled drivers etc). Without a large soundstage what is left is a very two dimensional and congested sound. The closer a headphone gets to good speakers, the better it is in my book. The HD 800 deserve a lot of praise for being the first headphones that sometimes sound like you are listening to speakers. That´s the highest compliment that a headphone can have in my view. The LCD-2 never even get close to that sensation.

 

Personally I think the LCD-2 is getting so much hype because a lot of people are fed up with the main issue with headphones in general (sibilance and overdone diffuse field EQ) and are just glad to see a headphone that at least isn´t painful to listen to sometimes. The problem is that this is done via heavily coloring the highs (overdone if you ask me). The entire medium is flawed compared to speakers, but it has it´s own strenghts (good for others in the same house etc). The only headphones I´ve heard that have been able to get be non-painful without destroying the highs are STAX. The HD 800 is close, but overdoes it too (just in the other direction, but it´s still closer to the ideal).

I see you haven't learned much about what is and isn't an acceptable posting style on this site, have you, Mr. Green?

There's a difference between having a difference in taste and spreading total lies about how headphones and the ear work. Sorry if I expect the objective truth to be posted when it is the objective truth.

 

Notice, that I haven't made a single comment about the gentleman who considers the LCD-2 the "best headphone ever made", that is his opinion and it is his right to have it. It is flat out incorrect to say what the man I have quoted has said.

Ah, ok. I need to read up more on the topic. Almost, same idea at least :) Also I have to say I agree that a modest STAX setup is way beyond what the LCD-2 can do. Audio is so subjective though (neutrality isn´t though), I think it´s great there are so many choices in the headphone world these days.

 

EDIT: and needless to say, I´m obviously a fan of diffuse field eq headphones, so the LCD-2 is not my cup of tea.

That isn't my point, ,Mr. Green. Swearing isn't allowed on head-fi. And your use of it makes your whole post seem like a personal attack. If you really want to be able to contribute what I think are very good viewpoints you have, you simply must learn to be just a wee bit nicer to people.

I've used the language in the manner it was intended to be used - to provide emphasis. I am not attacking the person at all, merely his misinformation, which he has clearly received through the perpetuation that occurs throughout audiophile community. Emphasis is required to stop such a culturally ingrained practise.

 

I haven't said anything that even resembles an angry person. It is in fact you who are resorting to an ad hominem-esque agressive posting tactic. Mine was not to-the-man at all.

Unless "modest" means a Blue Hawaii level of control, I'm going to have to disagree with you there: 

 

 

 

Well let us PLEASE keep this thread ON TOPIC. There are plenty of threads in which to hash out general comments about these headphones. THIS thread, which was interesting, is about how the LCD-2 and HE-6 compare to classic headphones.

I am one of those folks that was never really very impressed by the K1000. So IMO they are bested by the new-gen planars. Further, I think the L3000 is really not a very good sounding headphone, and the planar pair are far above and beyond them.

My Stax experiences have been limited to meets, so I have no comment there. And I have, sadly, never heard the Qualias.

But I will say this - the LCD-2 and HE-6 can compete with headphones Much more expensive than that are, and compete with success.

 

A waterfall plot tells you how long it takes a speaker to stop after flux has stopped. During operation, an electrostatic speaker (specifically a push-pull type, which all Stax are) applies force in both directions, instead of just a single direction with a restorative force in charge of bringing it back to it's original position. What you see there is merely the decay for an impulse, and not a passage of music. I think the LCD-2 probably uses a similar approach to the stax as well (I know there are some orthos that do, but the diaphragm is inherently heavier, and the field weaker).

 

If you want to get even more technical, we can talk about the frankly less than ideal frequency response of the LCD-2.

If you wish, you can continue to misuse graphs you do not understand, though.

 

Try the square wave one.

...how condescending :/  everyone knows what a waterfall plot is, as well as how stats work. 

 

if you indeed are a fan of separating "objective truth" from opinion, please refrain from stating that the LCD-2's have a "frankly less than ideal frequency response," and instead say that "in my opinion, I prefer a diffuse field eq sound."  I understand what you are trying to explain time and time again, but you come off as pretentious instead of educational. 
 

 

But the objective ideal is a real-life presentation. I have no discernable preference at this point between diffuse and free-field. Anything outside of real-life presentation (that is, the presentation of a flat speaker) is an opinion.

 

If you want to talk about the role of seats etc in shaping sound then sure, but I don't think that would qualify as ideal in the slightest, merely a necessary fault of the live performance medium

 

Frankly, if you "know what a waterfall plot is" and understand how it applies to the in-operation use of these headphones (which accounts for only a fraction of their usability, as rarely does a music file contain no data), I'm not sure why you'd link those graphs.

 

 

Actual discussion on the headphones is clearly a better way for the thread to go than "I like <x> more than <y>". As we've already seen there's a clear difference between people's opinions of each headphone: trying to come to consensus on majority is not a good way to go.