The Audeze LCD-2 Ortho thread (New) - Page 188

Quote:

Originally Posted by Girls Generation 

I don't know how good that sound card is so I can't comment. But I can recommend that you get a proper DAC before getting a cable. 

This is pretty much the preferred sound card of Head-Fi.

I don't really need a DAC when I have this card.

Is there nothing better than the Asgard for 350$ that'll go well with the LCD-2?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamageInc77 

Is there nothing better than the Asgard for 350$ that'll go well with the LCD-2?

Asgard is your safe bet. They back their stuff up and they ship it from CA.
 

I like their gear, it looks good, sounds great, and doesn't cost too much money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Himself 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamageInc77 

Is there nothing better than the Asgard for 350$ that'll go well with the LCD-2?

Asgard is your safe bet. They back their stuff up and they ship it from CA.
 

I like their gear, it looks good, sounds great, and doesn't cost too much money.

I tried the Asgard with the LCD-2s at a meet (with a familiar source and music) and didn't like it personally. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamageInc77 

Is there nothing better than the Asgard for 350$ that'll go well with the LCD-2?

As stated, a used Lyr.

Hey guys; new here and going to be picking up an LCD2.
 

This will be a major jump for me from a $120 Bose and Sennheiser HD-280 to a high end headphone (don't worry; read the crap out of these forums and other sites/reviews to know which headphones have the sound I'm looking for etc.). I've been using a Logitech z-5500 speaker system so far (which KILLS those headphones in the SQ department). However, I heard a glimpse of what warmth can sound like on another system and it's made me open up to the possibilities of what music can sound like, hence my search for a musical, awesome closer-to-analog-sounding-than-others headphone.

There's no way for me to audition these headphones so I'm just going to "go for it", heh. I'm trying to determine the better trade-off here between Rev. 1 and Rev. 2. I listen to a lot of progressive rock and just rock music in general, along with some metal.

Rev. 1: Slightly more engaging, a very addictive midrange that's solid.

or

Rev. 2: More three-dimensional soundstage (no blending of instruments), better extension and clarity but THINNER mid-range which makes the Rev. 1 to a lot of people better just for that alone for the purpose to listen to and enjoy music.

I realize though this thick midrange business that is so addictive may have mattered more to people who listen to acoustic vocal-centric music and not rock or metal at all. I quite value the three-dimensionality of instruments and soundstage... makes the music very interesting to hear that 3D... but I absolutely hate, with a passion, clinical, cold sounding music. I'll trade all the detail in the world for musicality... but I also don't like jumbled up instruments in general either.

So for rock and not vocal-centric music or jazz, classical etc. are the mids just as "engaging" with Rev. 2? Can you achieve the solidity of the mids of Rev. 1 with the right combo of amp/dac, or is this impossible (would just be a better warmth and solidity to a thin midrange inherent with the headphone, with the Rev. 1 always beating it). I get the general idea Audeze simply revised their headphone to comply with customers on lack of treble/soundstage and that the Rev. 1 is their true vision. With reading reviews, they seem to overlap in terms of whether its Rev. 1 or 2 so it makes this confusing to decide to which headphone to get and to know really which qualities go with which revision.

[Side note: thinking about a combo of W4S DAC -> WA6SE amp -> LCD2. Trying to focus on the LCD2's strengths with the warmth of WA6SE, though it also has decent soundstage and extension/punch with also ties in to the attributes of W4S, AND the LCD2 for the headphone's tactility... I might focus on the MiniMax DAC Plus though for extra warmth as I heard the W4S could sound a bit mechanical but I'm not quite sure the MiniMax is appropriate for the music I listen to and whether it will have the same impact]

[Side note 2: warmth to me at least in the context of this post means full/dense/natural/analog-sounding/depth though I do know it's also used to describe a heavy distortion/coloration]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xero 

Hey guys; new here and going to be picking up an LCD2.
 

This will be a major jump for me from a $120 Bose and Sennheiser HD-280 to a high end headphone (don't worry; read the crap out of these forums and other sites/reviews to know which headphones have the sound I'm looking for etc.). I've been using a Logitech z-5500 speaker system so far (which KILLS those headphones in the SQ department). However, I heard a glimpse of what warmth can sound like on another system and it's made me open up to the possibilities of what music can sound like, hence my search for a musical, awesome closer-to-analog-sounding-than-others headphone.

 

There's no way for me to audition these headphones so I'm just going to "go for it", heh. I'm trying to determine the better trade-off here between Rev. 1 and Rev. 2. I listen to a lot of progressive rock and just rock music in general, along with some metal.

 

Rev. 1: Slightly more engaging, a very addictive midrange that's solid.

or

Rev. 2: More three-dimensional soundstage (no blending of instruments), better extension and clarity but THINNER mid-range which makes the Rev. 1 to a lot of people better just for that alone for the purpose to listen to and enjoy music.

 

I realize though this thick midrange business that is so addictive may have mattered more to people who listen to acoustic vocal-centric music and not rock or metal at all. I quite value the three-dimensionality of instruments and soundstage... makes the music very interesting to hear that 3D... but I absolutely hate, with a passion, clinical, cold sounding music. I'll trade all the detail in the world for musicality... but I also don't like jumbled up instruments in general either.

 

So for rock and not vocal-centric music or jazz, classical etc. are the mids just as "engaging" with Rev. 2? Can you achieve the solidity of the mids of Rev. 1 with the right combo of amp/dac, or is this impossible (would just be a better warmth and solidity to a thin midrange inherent with the headphone, with the Rev. 1 always beating it). I get the general idea Audeze simply revised their headphone to comply with customers on lack of treble/soundstage and that the Rev. 1 is their true vision. With reading reviews, they seem to overlap in terms of whether its Rev. 1 or 2 so it makes this confusing to decide to which headphone to get and to know really which qualities go with which revision.

 

[Side note: thinking about a combo of W4S DAC -> WA6SE amp -> LCD2. Trying to focus on the LCD2's strengths with the warmth of WA6SE, though it also has decent soundstage and extension/punch with also ties in to the attributes of W4S, AND the LCD2 for the headphone's tactility... I might focus on the MiniMax DAC Plus though for extra warmth as I heard the W4S could sound a bit mechanical but I'm not quite sure the MiniMax is appropriate for the music I listen to and whether it will have the same impact]

[Side note 2: warmth to me at least in the context of this post means full/dense/natural/analog-sounding/depth though I do know it's also used to describe a heavy distortion/coloration]

Go for the Rev.2 They are pretty much better all around. If you go with rev.1, you will have buyers remorse within a week.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sphinxvc 


The rev. 1 trumps the rev. 2 in the musicality and engagement department to my ears. The rev.2 is closer to the clinical side, relatively speaking. With a proper solid state amp, you'll have more luck achieving your stated objectives as opposed to trying to warm up a rev.2.
The apache with the rev.1 is still one of the better LCD-2 rigs I've spent some time with. Ditto for Beta. My own Rev.2 were mostly unengaging next to those experiences. But all this talk is very contextual, the difference between the two in actuality is quite subtle.
I would skip the 6SE, quality power and a well built tube amp are expensive things, and personally I think your dollars would go farther, fit the weaknesses of the LCD-2 better, and extract maximum potential better, with something like a 2-channel Beta.
But, good luck with your decision, and I'm sure you won't be disappointed either way.

Thanks; I ruled Beta 22 out awhile ago because of the DIY nature and the fact it's hard to find assembled at a decent enough price. What are the specific changes in the sound with the Apache/other solid state amps that make it better for you than tube amps? Can I ask which DAC you used for the LCD2 and genres of music you're listening to as well? Thanks a lot!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xero 

Thanks; I ruled Beta 22 out awhile ago because of the DIY nature and the fact it's hard to find assembled at a decent enough price. What are the specific changes in the sound with the Apache/other solid state amps that make it better for you than tube amps? Can I ask which DAC you used for the LCD2 and genres of music you're listening to as well? Thanks a lot!

It's not that I categorically find them "better" than tube amps, its that they're more effective/economical below a certain price point in my opinion, at least for the LCD-2.  I'm sure something like the Balancing Act would drive the 2's well past their potential.  The "good" solid state amps I've heard, like the Apache or Beta22 have had very precise attack (especially in the bass), very low noise floor (for maximum detail & micro-detail retrieval), precise imaging and smooth but nicely extended treble.  I think that formula mixes well with the weaknesses of the LCD-2.  

Sources: I use a Antelope Zodiac DAC at home and have used my 2s with a little known tube amp & a DIY First Watt F3.  The Apache was paired with an MDHT balanced Havana (tube based), and the Beta with a Cary Xciter DAC.  And for music genres...I listen to rock, metal, classical, jazz, & folk most of the time.

If you like precision, then the LCD2.2. is a better bet. The mids are still very engaging and natural in comparison to virtually every other dynamic headphone. The LCD2.1 has a midrange magic indeed, but the slight lack of focus and delineation may be a cause for you to 'upgrade' in the future.

Still, my favourite headphone experience was the minutes I spent with the LCD2.1 and the Leben CS600. Ahhhh!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamageInc77 

Go for the Rev.2 They are pretty much better all around. If you go with rev.1, you will have buyers remorse within a week.

x2

@Xero, you can get the musicality you want from a tube amp, a better treble extension and expanded sound stage is quite nice to have with the rev2. and you're gonna need that extra treble for rock and metal believe me, very warm sound signature can muddy the sound a lot. plus the build quality is durable on the newer models and the softer earpads, it's a no-brainer. << IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_Himself 

My HD800 comes tomorrow. Time for a showdown.

I really didn't like the HD800 in store, at home does make a difference though.