The Audeze LCD-2 Ortho thread (New) - Page 228

Quote:

Originally Posted by grokit 


When I compared the soundstage of the LCD2r1 directly with that of the HD800, I found the HD800 image above to represent what I heard, but the LCD2 was wider like the HE500 in that graph.
So for me the LCD2's soundstage was wider but the HD800's was more rounded, or holographic. This is very recording and listening chain dependent however, and individual results will vary. But my conclusion was that the LCD2's soundstage was quite faithful to the recording, while the HD800's was a bit enhanced regardless of the recording. It kind of makes sense when you compare the way the earcups and drivers are executed on these two headphones.

+1 on this. I always found the HD800 to have unnaturally large staging properties...

Kojaku

Quote:

Originally Posted by grokit 


Thanks for the reply!
After doing some research, I believe that there are only three iterations of the stock LCD2 SE cable. The first was the Canare speaker cable with the branded connectors, the second was the lighter-weight unbranded "new and improved" intermediate version, and the third is the current flat version. I haven't been able to listen to this new LCD-2 setup with my reference recordings yet to judge the SQ of the first two compared to the DHC Molecule with HE6 SE adapter yet, but I am almost there.

By the way, regarding the LCD2 stock headphone cable, do you know guys if there is a possibility of getting the stock cable with greater length? Most headphone cables are 3 meters and LCD2 has only 2.5. I am missing sometimes this extra half a meter and I would be happy to get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by korzena 

By the way, regarding the LCD2 stock headphone cable, do you know guys if there is a possibility of getting the stock cable with greater length? Most headphone cables are 3 meters and LCD2 has only 2.5. I am missing sometimes this extra half a meter and I would be happy to get it.

It's already mad heavy...but I'm sure you could ask alex and friends over at audez'e and they'll help you out with it...
 

Kojaku

Quote:

Originally Posted by grokit 


When I compared the soundstage of the LCD2r1 directly with that of the HD800, I found the HD800 image above to represent what I heard, but the LCD2 was wider like the HE500 in that graph.
So for me the LCD2's soundstage was wider but the HD800's was more rounded, or holographic. This is very recording and listening chain dependent however, and individual results will vary. But my conclusion was that the LCD2's soundstage was quite faithful to the recording, while the HD800's was a bit enhanced regardless of the recording. It kind of makes sense when you compare the way the earcups and drivers are executed on these two headphones.

I haven't had the chance to hear the HD800 but I'd agree that with some recordings I've heard a soundstage (from the LCD2's) similar to what's given in the HD800 example.  But not with every amp, and not with every recording.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OPR8R 

 

I haven't had the chance to hear the HD800 but I'd agree that with some recordings I've heard a soundstage (from the LCD2's) similar to what's given in the HD800 example.  But not with every amp, and not with every recording.

It's worthwhile to study photos of recording sessions. I don't know about pop/rock etc, but orchestral recordings are made with the mics sticking out from all over the place; you'd wonder how any coherent image could be formed at all. Deciding which headphone is giving the most accurate image when you have no idea about the original recording session is dicey at best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pp312 

 

 

It's worthwhile to study photos of recording sessions. I don't know about pop/rock etc, but orchestral recordings are made with the mics sticking out from all over the place; you'd wonder how any coherent image could be formed at all. Deciding which headphone is giving the most accurate image when you have no idea about the original recording session is dicey at best.

 

 

Maybe Sennheiser got it right with this one...

 I luv that pic!

Quote:

Originally Posted by pp312 

 

It's worthwhile to study photos of recording sessions. I don't know about pop/rock etc, but orchestral recordings are made with the mics sticking out from all over the place; you'd wonder how any coherent image could be formed at all. Deciding which headphone is giving the most accurate image when you have no idea about the original recording session is dicey at best.

 

I think we often don't give the recording engineer enough credit for his mix down from multiple mic's. That's really what we're listening to after all. Soundstage is just something your brain constructs. It sounds more natural from speakers because it's closer to what concerts sound like (music coming at you, hitting your whole body).

Quote:

Originally Posted by pp312 

 

 

It's worthwhile to study photos of recording sessions. I don't know about pop/rock etc, but orchestral recordings are made with the mics sticking out from all over the place; you'd wonder how any coherent image could be formed at all. Deciding which headphone is giving the most accurate image when you have no idea about the original recording session is dicey at best.

 

 

I agree completely.  Interestingly though, I find soundstage differences in electronic/dance music tracks as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erukian 

 

I think we often don't give the recording engineer enough credit for his mix down from multiple mic's. That's really what we're listening to after all. Soundstage is just something your brain constructs. It sounds more natural from speakers because it's closer to what concerts sound like (music coming at you, hitting your whole body).

Amen to that. I went to a concert to Beneroya hall last Friday, noting again how different the sound is from listening to either speakers  or ( especially) headphones. However, it is important (for me, anyway) to acknowledge that this is okay. Sometimes (Shock! Horror!), I prefer listening to headphones, especially to listen to details for many pieces. But nothing can come close to listening to some of the big orchestral works live ("Mars," for example.) As OPR8R noted also, Electronic music has a "soundstage,"  which is artificial, and also okay. How to determine what headphone best recreates these imaginary soundstages should be a fun debate.

Jerg, so that is the dampening that sits behind the driver (felt and foam).  I do notice the HE-500's have next to no damping then, as the driver can easily be seen via the grill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerg 

The "wall-of-sound" effect is because LCD2s are heavily damped, unfortunately that damping scheme is also what makes it sound like an Audeze headphone. I can make my HE400s sound quite LCD2-like with similar driver-back damping with foam and felt, without the properly tuned bass response / smooth mids ofc, but as a proof of concept.

 

In fact a mod that's rising in popularity fast in the HE400 owners thread is to replace the stock Hifiman grills with new ones cut out from more "open" steel mesh, which has a huge positive impact on the separation and openness of sound. Planars are notoriously sensitive to backwaves from anything in the way of the drivers.

OPR; Big orchestral works is not something I listen to often so I cannot comment on how 18 voilins would sound. I wouldn't expect to hear each and every one of the 18 voilins though but I do expect cohesion and clarity of the voilins being played. If one is slower, another is faster, it shouldn't come out as "mush". That's how it sounds to my ears.

Playing the same pieces of work on the K501's sound fantastic. The space, the instruments, it all comes together. The K501's tend to place the listener in the first row (as opposed to being the conductor or the instrument player).  I simply adore them for classical and jazz work, they are stunning.  They do share more similarities with the HE-500's then they do with the LCD2's in terms of instrument seperation and presentation, where as in terms of vocal presentation, the K501's are very similar to the LCD2's.

LCD2's vocal work is stunning and I cannot give it enough praise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OPR8R 

Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but it seems to me that things like soundstage with the LCD's are largely amp dependent.  I don't think just any amp is capable of opening up LCD-2's, or at least that hasn't been the case in my experience.

 

Also, I've only observed the "wall of sound" phenomemon while listening to large, orchestral classical music.  In those cases, what I'm hearing is similar to what I hear when I go to the symphony.  I don't expect that I should be able to hear 18 distinct violins when they're all playing at once.  I think this has been mentioned before in this thread.

 

That doesn't mean people shouldn't and/or won't enjoy phones that do deliver a higher level of instrument separation.

preproman: Running the HE-500's off of the ROC SA, I did not find them to sound hot, sharp or sparkly (even when listened to flutes or axel roses voice). Highs were sort of just there. Once I put them on the Auditor, it all changed. The highs became lively, in a different sort of way. The reason for their livelyness is that they became more clear and extended (never like the Grado RS1 extended, that's pure torture). This was a welcomed change to my ears, and really showed me what amp rolling can do for the HE-500's.  Needless to say, its become my go-to setup with unprescended clarity and top end.

The bass also improved on the Auditor, with great detail extraction, followed by tightness. Whether it goes lower then the ROC SA, I'd say its on par.

Quote:

Originally Posted by preproman 

 

  

 

Yes I agree - our hearing is definatly different.  IMO the HE-500s can get a little hot / sharp / sparkly or what ever you want to call it > at times up top.  The LCD-2.2s never, ever get hop up top - ever.

pp312: The LCD2's ability to extract details is great, its presentation of those details is a desired or not trait.  As I stated earlier, the K501's which are praised for their ability to reproduce classical pieces have more in common with the HE500's then they do with the LCD2's when it comes to presenting said pieces.  Based on what my ears hear. My own opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pp312 

 

Good point, and links with what I've been saying about the obsession with detail. You don't hear much detail in a symphony concert (or probably any other kind as well). You mostly hear a homogeneity, a number of instruments blending together, with "detail" as we mean it appearing with the tinkle of a triangle, the clatter of a castanet or xylophone, the crash of a cymbal--but otherwise just a wall of sound, with the sound patterns changing according to the orchestral forces predominating (horns, trombones etc). As you say, this doesn't preclude people preferring a more etched sound where they can pick out detail more easily, but it's not natural, and it's unfair to criticise a phone for not presenting exaggerated detail.  

As stated it's generally 'fake' soundstage when it comes to Electronic music (depending on the style of course). It's still very much there though. Cans that do staging differently than others are still easy to pick apart with Electronic music.

The HD800 for instance did a lot of my favorite low key/downtempo Electronic music much better than the LCD 2 because of the staging aspect. Stuff like Burial, Above & Beyond, and BT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OPR8R 

 

I agree completely.  Interestingly though, I find soundstage differences in electronic/dance music tracks as well.