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 4

post #46 of 63

Imaging, soundstage and resolution do not all come together, they can all be good/bad independently.  They are certainly related but only so much as everything that goes into a headphone's sound is related.  I think I've heard every mix of good/bad imaginable with the above 3 factors. 

 

I don't think the LCD-2 are great at soundstage size compared to other flagships and they don't have amazing imaging, but it's not bad IME.  But they certainly don't have poor resolution.  I have to think that anyone saying the LCD-2 has poor resolution is mistaking treble presence for resolution.  The HE6 simply has more treble. 

post #47 of 63

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post

Imaging, soundstage and resolution do not all come together, they can all be good/bad independently.  They are certainly related but only so much as everything that goes into a headphone's sound is related.  I think I've heard every mix of good/bad imaginable with the above 3 factors. 

 

I don't think the LCD-2 are great at soundstage size compared to other flagships and they don't have amazing imaging, but it's not bad IME.  But they certainly don't have poor resolution.  I have to think that anyone saying the LCD-2 has poor resolution is mistaking treble presence for resolution.  The HE6 simply has more treble. 


Very true.  In fact, there were two things that really impressed me about the LCD-2 -- its beautiful mids, and its resolving power.  I personally think the LCD-2 resolves more detail than the HE-6, T1, or HD800.

 

If I were to put a 1-10 rating on each of these headphones in the categories you mentioned:

 

LCD-2

Imaging:  5

Soundstage:  4

Resolution:  10

 

HE-6

Imaging:  5

Soundstage:  6

Resolution:  8

 

T1

Imaging:  9

Soundstage:  8

Resolution:  8

 

HD800

Imaging:  7

Soundstage:  9

Resolution:  8

 

post #48 of 63

I've found that the quality of the LCD2's imaging varies according to the amp driving it (and the source of course). It's a transparent phone in that regard - if I'm using the term correctly here. It reflects the upstream components.

 

By imaging I would mean the distinctness and stability of instruments (or separate sounds) in space.

 

The LCD2 can be excellent in this regard. Maybe not to the degree of some phones out there; but it certainly is not one of its weak points IMO.

 

Its soundstage width on the other hand is average IMO. Not great, but not bad either.


 

 

post #49 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post

Imaging, soundstage and resolution do not all come together, they can all be good/bad independently.  They are certainly related but only so much as everything that goes into a headphone's sound is related.  I think I've heard every mix of good/bad imaginable with the above 3 factors. 


I don’t disagree, but from my experience taking the HD800 for example with it’s expansive soundstage, imaging tends to suffer. The best explanation I can come up with is the extra width added thins out tone and weight of instruments which impacts on definite image locations. Conversely the smaller soundstage (and more accurate to my ears) with the LCD-2 tends to snap the image into focus with better tone and weight. The images do not float and seem well grounded once the soundstage width proportion is accurate.

 

 


Edited by johnwmclean - 7/3/11 at 4:03am
post #50 of 63

+1 Totally agree. The following picture can be an illustration (K702 = LCD-2 in the figure below):

 

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=18530.0;attach=235549;image

post #51 of 63

Holy Shit! That’s nailed my explanation.

post #52 of 63

 pardon my french 

post #53 of 63

 

Quote:
 pardon my french

C'est parfaitement correct cette fois, ne laissez pas cela se reproduire.

or, as the Swahili put it,

Hiyo ni sawa kabisa wakati huu, kama si basi ni kutokea tena.

 

זה לגמרי בסדר הפעם, פשוט לא לתת לזה לקרות שוב.

post #54 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwmclean View Post


I don’t disagree, but from my experience taking the HD800 for example with it’s expansive soundstage, imaging tends to suffer. The best explanation I can come up with is the extra width added thins out tone and weight of instruments which impacts on definite image locations. Conversely the smaller soundstage (and more accurate to my ears) with the LCD-2 tends to snap the image into focus with better tone and weight. The images do not float and seem well grounded once the soundstage width proportion is accurate.

 

 


Yes that's a good point, they may be slightly related, but I wonder if the loss of imaging in the HD800 is directly related to the huge soundstage, or if it is just the way they got that soundstage, or something else entirely.  The K1000 has a huge soundstage, and it gets it in a similar way to the HD800 (angled drivers, very open air, distance from ears) yet I believe it has some of the best imaging out there.  Though I don't have tons of experience with the K1000. 

 

2 headphones I can easily think of with great imaging and small soundstage would be the HP1000 and K240 Sextett. 

 

post #55 of 63

I don't find the sound stage as huge as the /cough skylab has described ( that was the reason that why i was dying to find a Leben300xs funny enough someone pmed me a offer 3 weeks after i brought the W22 >.<! ) but the imaging is incredible. and focus as it could be and detailed. What i'd like is the LCD-2s having the stands out/holographic vocal like on the HD650s. 

post #56 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post




Yes that's a good point, they may be slightly related, but I wonder if the loss of imaging in the HD800 is directly related to the huge soundstage, or if it is just the way they got that soundstage, or something else entirely.  The K1000 has a huge soundstage, and it gets it in a similar way to the HD800 (angled drivers, very open air, distance from ears) yet I believe it has some of the best imaging out there.  Though I don't have tons of experience with the K1000. 

 

2 headphones I can easily think of with great imaging and small soundstage would be the HP1000 and K240 Sextett. 

 


Much of the imaging capability of the K1000 is due to the natural crossfeed that this design produces.  The perception of natural imaging is due to this type of crossfeed and enables our brains to more accurately detect instrument placement or locations of other sounds.   Much of this ability is based on psychoacoustics that are as individual as our fingerprints.  A very good explanation of this natural ability to localize sounds is found in the K1000 user manual.  

 

Without this natural crossfeed, our ability to accurately determine the location, both in width and depth, is lost, and the sound tends to become 2-dimensional, rather than 3-dimensional.  Most conventional headphones do not allow for our ears to receive this small amount of crossfed sound, hence the perception of the music is contained largely within the space between the ears.

 

I have found by considerable experimentation that it is possible to recreate quite accurate imaging in most circumaural headphones by the use of an appropriate amount of crossfeed and an appropriate volume setting.   A device such as the Corda Cross-1 allows one to determine the appropriate amount of crossfeed for ones own ear physiology.   Additionally, it is necessary to select a volume level that approximates what one hears live for a given type of sound, as our brain uses varying levels of amplitude in conjunction with the natural crossfeed to accurately determine placement of individual sounds.  I equate the adjustment of volume level to the focus of a telescope...the image will be blurred both with focus too short and too long, but at the proper focus, the image just snaps into clarity.

 

A good example of this would be to compare the ability to localize individual instruments in a string ensemble playing at a typical moderate volume to that heard at a rock concert with extremely high volume levels.   At this  higher sound level, it becomes nearly impossible for the ear to accurately determine the placement of the individual instruments, rather it becomes a palette of wall-to-wall sound whereas at the lower volume the string ensemble or jazz group, it is quite easy to localize specific instruments.

 

Given the appropriate level of crossfeed and the appropriate volume setting, our brains are "tricked" into perceiving this scenario as a real event and can more accurately produce a much more realistic sense of placement width and depth.  

 

What all of the above accomplishes is artificially creating to some degree what is heard in a binaural recording, using microphones that are mounted in the ears of an artificial head.  Binaural recordings are able to recreate a 3-dimensional images that are almost unbelievable. 


Edited by HiFlight - 7/11/11 at 7:27pm
post #57 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrucYSN View Post

I don't find the sound stage as huge as the /cough skylab has described ( that was the reason that why i was dying to find a Leben300xs funny enough someone pmed me a offer 3 weeks after i brought the W22 >.<! ) but the imaging is incredible. and focus as it could be and detailed. What i'd like is the LCD-2s having the stands out/holographic vocal like on the HD650s. 



which LCD do you have?

 

post #58 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophonax View Post

 

LCD-2

Imaging:  5

Soundstage:  4

Resolution:  10

 

T1

Imaging:  9

Soundstage:  8

Resolution:  8

 

HD800

Imaging:  7

Soundstage:  9

Resolution:  8

 



It's kind hard to believe you put T1 resolution 2 points below the LCD2.

post #59 of 63

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by flaming_june View Post





It's kind hard to believe you put T1 resolution 2 points below the LCD2.


There is a new LCD out now.  

 

post #60 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFlight View Post

Much of the imaging capability of the K1000 is due to the natural crossfeed that this design produces.  The perception of natural imaging is due to this type of crossfeed and enables our brains to more accurately detect instrument placement or locations of other sounds.   Much of this ability is based on psychoacoustics that are as individual as our fingerprints.  A very good explanation of this natural ability to localize sounds is found in the K1000 user manual.  

 

Without this natural crossfeed, our ability to accurately determine the location, both in width and depth, is lost, and the sound tends to become 2-dimensional, rather than 3-dimensional.  Most conventional headphones do not allow for our ears to receive this small amount of crossfed sound, hence the perception of the music is contained largely within the space between the ears.

 

I have found by considerable experimentation that it is possible to recreate quite accurate imaging in most circumaural headphones by the use of an appropriate amount of crossfeed and an appropriate volume setting.   A device such as the Corda Cross-1 allows one to determine the appropriate amount of crossfeed for ones own ear physiology.   Additionally, it is necessary to select a volume level that approximates what one hears live for a given type of sound, as our brain uses varying levels of amplitude in conjunction with the natural crossfeed to accurately determine placement of individual sounds.  I equate the adjustment of volume level to the focus of a telescope...the image will be blurred both with focus too short and too long, but at the proper focus, the image just snaps into clarity.

 

A good example of this would be to compare the ability to localize individual instruments in a string ensemble playing at a typical moderate volume to that heard at a rock concert with extremely high volume levels.   At this  higher sound level, it becomes nearly impossible for the ear to accurately determine the placement of the individual instruments, rather it becomes a palette of wall-to-wall sound whereas at the lower volume the string ensemble or jazz group, it is quite easy to localize specific instruments.

 

Given the appropriate level of crossfeed and the appropriate volume setting, our brains are "tricked" into perceiving this scenario as a real event and can more accurately produce a much more realistic sense of placement width and depth.  

 

What all of the above accomplishes is artificially creating to some degree what is heard in a binaural recording, using microphones that are mounted in the ears of an artificial head.  Binaural recordings are able to recreate a 3-dimensional images that are almost unbelievable. 

The truth or error in the bolded statement above is entirely dependent upon how the original material was recorded, as mentioned in the last sentence in the above post.  If recorded properly, NO cross-feed is needed nor wanted between left and right drivers.
 

 

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"?