Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › how is LCD-2 "imaging"?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

how is LCD-2 "imaging"? - Page 3

post #31 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by visualguy View Post

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.

 

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.

 


I am going to have to disagree as well. I think the LCD-2 are absolutely phenomenal in detail resolution, greater than or equal to the HE-6 or T1. In addition, they have a fantastic midrange and unrivaled bass. I think the soundstage is true to the recording unlike certain headphones like the HD-800. I listen to a lot of music on my speakers and it amazes me how accurately the LCD-2 depicts the soundstage. 

They may not be the best at imaging but we're splitting hairs here at this level.

The Stax headphones haven't really really impressed me but I haven't owned a pair so I can't comment. To me, the only headphones that I thought were a notch above the LCD-2 was the R10 and Qualia.

 


Edited by brasewel - 6/24/11 at 6:50pm
post #32 of 63

I've ping ponged between the O2 and the LCD-2 quite extensively, and as good as the LCD-2 are, they are overshadowed by the O2.  It's not an insult at all, it's kind of a good thing that there is finally another cheap(ish) headphone with the same 'relaxed clarity' of the O2.

 

There isn't too much between them in terms of tonality, but I reckon there is a fair amount of different in terms of their imaging abilities. I think we all have different perspectives on what imaging is, but for me, it's the ability to separate different aspects to create a distinct image, and not a blurred mess.

 

But seriously guys, the O2's rape in imaging, there are very few headphones that can localise bass properly (properly isn't the right term), I don't mean drums and that from good recordings, I'm talking about the insane beats that you find in the mainstream modern day crap.

 

The LCD-2 renders these beats as most people would expect, they give them great presence and kinda hit you from all directions or fill your whole head with bass.

But the O2's give them a pinpoint location in the headstage, it's really quite amazing.

post #33 of 63

Totally agree I have the 02 and LCD-2 also.  

 

However to really get the best out of the 02 you do need to invest in a top notch amplifier, so the cost of the complete setup is not inexpensive perhaps $8,000+, plus the cost of good source equipment.

 

On the other hand the LCD-2 is under a $1000 and works very well with amplifiers in the same price range, so you can have a setup approaching the quality of the 02 for one quarter of the price.  In my books that's a bargain!
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deadlylover View Post

I've ping ponged between the O2 and the LCD-2 quite extensively, and as good as the LCD-2 are, they are overshadowed by the O2.  It's not an insult at all, it's kind of a good thing that there is finally another cheap(ish) headphone with the same 'relaxed clarity' of the O2.

 

There isn't too much between them in terms of tonality, but I reckon there is a fair amount of different in terms of their imaging abilities. I think we all have different perspectives on what imaging is, but for me, it's the ability to separate different aspects to create a distinct image, and not a blurred mess.

 

But seriously guys, the O2's rape in imaging, there are very few headphones that can localise bass properly (properly isn't the right term), I don't mean drums and that from good recordings, I'm talking about the insane beats that you find in the mainstream modern day crap.

 

The LCD-2 renders these beats as most people would expect, they give them great presence and kinda hit you from all directions or fill your whole head with bass.

But the O2's give them a pinpoint location in the headstage, it's really quite amazing.



 

post #34 of 63

Yeah Stax don't impress at first but the longer you live with them the more they impress with their honesty, clarity and neutrality.

 

I cant comment on the Qualias but have both the bass light and heavy versions of the R10, I cant really say they are better overall than the LCD-2 just a different presentation.  To my ears the R10 is silky smooth and a very relaxed listen with excellent headstage, personally my favorite dynamic.  The Audeze is more direct with noticeably more bass impact which can add an excitement (Prat i think some people call it!) to the music.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brasewel View Post
The Stax headphones haven't really really impressed me but I haven't owned a pair so I can't comment. To me, the only headphones that I thought were a notch above the LCD-2 was the R10 and Qualia.

 



 

post #35 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by visualguy View Post


 


 

Agreed on the T1.

 


I agree as well (I have the T1 and the LCD2).
post #36 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by visualguy View Post




Soundstage is constricted on the LCD-2. It's better on the HE-6.

 

The HE-6 are much better than the LCD-2 in detail resolution.
 

The T1 are somewhat better than the HE-6 in soundstage and imaging. Pretty similar in tonality and detail resolution, although I slightly prefer the HE-6 on that front.

 

All of these pale when compared to top Stax setups. The SR-009 is in a completely different league all around in my experience, but it's also much more expensive. The SR-007 is also more expensive.

 

At the price level of the LCD-2, I would go with the HE-6 or T1 instead.

 



I think you're confusing imaging and soundstaging. Might want to read up on this: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/40313/stax-sr-007-omega-ii-a-review-after-4-years-of-ownership

 

Probably the best review on this site bar none.

 

EDIT: Never mind, I saw complin already referred to this great article in the previous page. wink.gif

 

EDIT 2: Having heard all the systems in question, in my opinion both 007 MK1 and MK2 are overall the better headphones but imaging-wise, they are very close. The first thing that struck me when I auditioned the LCD2 for the first time (out of a balanced Beta22 and some top-of-the-line CDP) was how it imaged and separated sounds exactly like the O2. Not even the T1, HD800 nor the HE6 gave that kind of sensation, that natural effortlessness or so to speak.

 


Edited by K3cT - 6/25/11 at 10:04am
post #37 of 63
Psychoacoustics is an incredibly complex area and it appears even more so with headphones. I got rid of my T1's as for me they did nothing that my other 'phones didn't do better. Go Figure.

The one area where I'm really impressed with the LCD-2's is how they can play REALLY loud (assuming adequate voltage swing is available from the amp) to recreate a live gig sound without any hardening or loosing the top to bottom balance.
Edited by Ge03 - 6/25/11 at 2:12pm
post #38 of 63


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by K3cT View Post





I think you're confusing imaging and soundstaging. Might want to read up on this: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/40313/stax-sr-007-omega-ii-a-review-after-4-years-of-ownership

 

Probably the best review on this site bar none.

 

EDIT: Never mind, I saw complin already referred to this great article in the previous page. wink.gif

 

EDIT 2: Having heard all the systems in question, in my opinion both 007 MK1 and MK2 are overall the better headphones but imaging-wise, they are very close. The first thing that struck me when I auditioned the LCD2 for the first time (out of a balanced Beta22 and some top-of-the-line CDP) was how it imaged and separated sounds exactly like the O2. Not even the T1, HD800 nor the HE6 gave that kind of sensation, that natural effortlessness or so to speak.

 


from my experience with all of those phones and I owned all including the HD800 i agree pretty much with visual guy. The HE6 is similar to the t1 but slightly more transparent but a bear to drive. For most I like what the T1 does better than the planars but mostly for qualuty of the beyer build and sound. Her is right IMo og the descriptions of all the cans cant say about Stax because I have limited experience with those and he has some very nice sources to play back music on also. That Marantz is 7K

 

post #39 of 63

High-end cans I've had extensive listening with include the R10, HD800, T1, LCD-2, and HE-6.  If I had to pick an imaging champ among them, it would be the R10 -- simply the most spot-on, precise imaging I've ever heard.  Somewhat surprisingly, I'd say that the T1 is a very close second to the R10.  I find that the HD800, despite it's huge soundstage and excellent spatial presentation, performs only decently in the imaging category.  To my ears, imaging is one area where the orthos are defeated by the dynamics -- I found the LCD-2 and HE-6 to be inferior to the other three in that regard.

 

In short:

R10 > T1 >>> HD800 > HE-6 > LCD-2

 

I'd really like to hear what kind of imaging a Qualia or SR-009 is capable of producing.

post #40 of 63

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophonax View Post

I'd really like to hear what kind of imaging a Qualia or SR-009 is capable of producing.


SR-009 >>> T1 > HE-6 > LCD-2 in terms of imaging (as well as soundstage) in my experience.

 

The SR-009 are superb - I've been trying hard to find something to complain about without success... Well, they still don't sound as good as a high-end speaker setup, but I don't think any headphones ever will.

 

post #41 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophonax View Post

High-end cans I've had extensive listening with include the R10, HD800, T1, LCD-2, and HE-6.  If I had to pick an imaging champ among them, it would be the R10 -- simply the most spot-on, precise imaging I've ever heard.  Somewhat surprisingly, I'd say that the T1 is a very close second to the R10.  I find that the HD800, despite it's huge soundstage and excellent spatial presentation, performs only decently in the imaging category.  To my ears, imaging is one area where the orthos are defeated by the dynamics -- I found the LCD-2 and HE-6 to be inferior to the other three in that regard.

 

In short:

R10 > T1 >>> HD800 > HE-6 > LCD-2

 

I'd really like to hear what kind of imaging a Qualia or SR-009 is capable of producing.


Interesting. It's pretty much the opposite for me with the R10 = Qualia >> LCD-2 >= HE-6 > T1 >> HD800

The HD800 has an artificial soundstage that sounds like you're in an auditorium. It's not how the music is supposed to sound atleast to my ears.

The imaging on the Qualia is simply top notch.

 

post #42 of 63

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by brasewel View Post

Interesting. It's pretty much the opposite for me with the R10 = Qualia >> LCD-2 >= HE-6 > T1 >> HD800

The HD800 has an artificial soundstage that sounds like you're in an auditorium. It's not how the music is supposed to sound atleast to my ears.

The imaging on the Qualia is simply top notch.

 


I hear you on the HD800.  I personally like its soundstage, but I agree it sounds like you're in a very large space.  Some of the imaging information seems to get lost in that giant space...

 

As for the orthos, they really seem to be hit or miss -- maybe they're very HRTF-dependent.  I've heard plenty of people who were very impressed with the orthos' soundstage and imaging, and plenty of others who thought they did a poor job of it.  Really goes to show that you can trust little else but your own ears.

post #43 of 63

So true but also the synergy with amps and  sources on any particular headphone will also make a difference on my System the T1 does best its just the synergy of Beyer 600 ohms cans with my tube amps that does best. And all headfliers do have different preferences. truth be told they are all good and all have their faults. Now when the perfect headphone comes along(never will) that will be a great discussion

post #44 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank I View Post

So true but also the synergy with amps and  sources on any particular headphone will also make a difference on my System the T1 does best its just the synergy of Beyer 600 ohms cans with my tube amps that does best. And all headfliers do have different preferences. truth be told they are all good and all have their faults. Now when the perfect headphone comes along(never will) that will be a great discussion



x2

post #45 of 63

It’s good to see such diverse opinions, making for very interesting reading indeed. I’ll briefly describe what I’ve experienced with my system (see sig.).

 

HD800

The soundstage is exaggerated by fair amount, adding air but sacrificing tone i.e. instruments and voices thinning out from an over extended image. The HD800 married better with the EHHA than the Beta22, the tube amp smooths the phone out to a desirable degree.

I found imaging very good, but I am somewhat distracted by an artificial quality, I think naturalness and imaging go hand in hand, I would not call the HD800 natural.

 

HE-6

These are my least favourite. Whilst the bass was sensational, I found upper midrange a little too prominent for my tastes, masking a possibly beautiful midrange.

Imaging and soundstage therefore suffered. For the record I could drive these phones to good levels as my balanced EHHA is a speaker build.

 

K1000 (bass heavy version)

With the right music they sing. Imaging is as good as I’ve heard from any phone. Unfortunately the soundstage and imaging fall apart to a degree with more demanding source material, not the best all rounder, but for me a king with acoustic music and vocal.

 

LCD-2

Have a naturalness and tone that makes for the excellent imaging. Instruments have weight and presence, everything is grounded firmly and rock steady. The soundstage seems natural to my ears, the treble has just the right balance.

The LCD-2 is my overall pick for imaging over a wide musical genre.

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › how is LCD-2 "imaging"?