how is LCD-2 "imaging"?

Well I'm using a Wyred4Sound DAC-2 and a Violectric V200 with the LCD's and the imaging is pinpoint and solid. 

 

Yes - this is true in my experience with the LCD-2. They do poorly in detail resolution - can't get good imaging or soundstage with a lack of detail. I would strongly recommend the HE-6 instead. For something better than the HE-6, check out Stax.

 

Edited by visualguy - 6/23/11 at 4:50pm

Andrew, you should ask this question in the well visited LCD Ortho thread and run it by the many people who own LCD's and see what you come up with.

 

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/453116/audeze-lcd-2-orthos/12795#post_7561149

 

I thought they were alright, it just depends what you use as a frame of reference.

 

I feel that they could use a little work in terms of vocal separation, but all in all, I wouldn't call them bad.

 

It's just that they are relatively soft in the treble, so sometimes the sonic images have trouble sounding 'sharp' when needed.

May I ask if you own a pair of LCD-2's? and if so what you drive them with?
Making such statements as if fact as " They do poorly in detail resolution - can't get good imaging or soundstage with a lack of detail." varies significantly from the experience of many owners.
My reference for detail, imaging, air and soundstage is my Meridian digital active speaker system that resolves as well as anything I've come across in more than 30 years of being in and around the audio industry, and my experience is that the LCD-2's have the ability to resolve anything the source system delivers to it. However when I took my pair to a dealers "top end" headphone open day, I was surprised on how few sources and amps could get the best out of them. Whether that is a weakness or a strength is obviously down to each individual. The best Stax systems may well resolve macro detail better but as to which creates the most involving music from top to bottom is a matter that lovers of each will no doubt debate for ever.

 

Yes - I own a pair. I've used them with my 4-board Beta 22, 3-board Beta 22, and HeadAmp GS-X. Sources are Marantz SA-7S1, Sony 5400ES, Bel Canto DAC2.5, Benchmark DAC1.

 

The LCD-2 aren't horrible, but they are the worst headphones that I own. Inferior in detail resolution and soundstage. Particularly bad for acoustic and orchestral music. I would recommend the HE-6, T1, or a good Stax (SR-507, SR-007, SR-009) as much better alternatives.

 

 

Of those amps, which do you prefer with the LCD-2?

 

No difference in sound between the Beta 22 and the GS-X when driving the LCD-2. Even with the HE-6, there's no difference (I drive the HE-6 balanced from the GS-X.)

 

I have found that they image better than any dynamic coil headphones I've heard (K1000s, HD800s), and even the JH13s.

Wow, I would send your pair back for there must be something wrong with them as that is certainly not my experience!. I would say they have some of the best imaging out there!
Edited by ianmedium - 6/24/11 at 12:14pm

Have you compared to the other headphones that I mentioned?

 

 

 

Funny how you recommend HE6 when its center image is completely missing.

 

Yea, imaging on the HE-6 is decent but falls short of its competitors. I remember the LCD-2 had very precise imaging through high-end systems.

That thread is for the Audeze devout.  Nothing bad to say and if you mention something I would duck fast.  I'm sure they are great headphones and I'd like to give them a whirl to hear for myself and compare to my T-1's.  Keep in mind all this posting is subjective.  I would expect there are many of these posters who haven't even heard a big system image where your eyes are tearing up from the beauty of the whole experience.   If you want killer imaging buy a Smyth Realiser.  Next on my list.

 

Also keep in mind there are huge differences because of your source and amp.  A better digital/analogue front end is going to help out in a huge way and help any headphone no matter how good they are at whatever trait.