or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › The Audeze LCD-2 Ortho thread (New)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Audeze LCD-2 Ortho thread (New) - Page 426

post #6376 of 7128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audio Reiner View Post
 

I have a new LCD-2
Since yesterday.

My first impression: terrible!
My first thought: I'll send it back
Second thought: I'll give it a chance. The burn In process could heal the mid ranges.
 
And now, at the end of day 2, the sound is yet not pretty good at all but not comparable to the sound yesterday.

Which experience do you have with the burn in process at the LCD-2? How long does it need before the sound is stable good?

 

Orthos are known for not needing such "burning" times, mine sounded awesome day 1, my very first album was Led Zeppeling's Physical Grafitti and absolutely fall in love with them, still today they sound similar.

 

FYI, I run them with a Matrix M-Stage which drives them pretty well, but sometimes the bass and sub-bass isnt just there due to the not enough power amp, my Fiio E7 drives them poorly.

 

The Burson Soloist where I tried them gives more bass and subbass, texture to the mids, the Violectric V200 just... you gotta hear that.


Edited by Megalomaniak - 5/2/14 at 1:49am
post #6377 of 7128
Quote:
Originally Posted by mithrandir38 View Post
 


Here is the freq response graph provided by Audeze in PDF.  They no longer ship the headphones with paper graphs, but are very responsive by email.

notice the small -5 db shelf at 40 hz.

 

Thats not bad at all, look at mine and the typical LCD-2 graph:

 

 

Mine does have a flat response from 0 to 1khz at 90db, but yours do start at 90db, then raise the bass to 95-93db until the 1khz. So we could say yours are a bit more bassier than the usual LCD-2 Rev2 like mine.

 

This summer im going to a meeting here in Spain, and there will be a couple of LCD-2 with fazors, Ill try to hear all the differences with my rig.

 

Despite some minimal details, I dont feel I will find any big differences, maybe as I say details, such as being easier to drive (as fazors are more efficient), but the usual Rev2 has a fantastic bass, mid and treble, just like yours. Graphs arent all, Sennheiser PX100-II has a similar graph response to the HD650, and they sound sooooo different.


Edited by Megalomaniak - 5/2/14 at 1:57am
post #6378 of 7128

Fazor shouldn't have any effect on efficiency. The LCD-X (and XC) were more efficient due to the new driver design. Since (as far as we've been told) the LCD-2 still has the same drivers, efficiency should be the same.

post #6379 of 7128
The fazors themselves don't change the efficiency, but the stators are changed as well, so that's what's really changing the efficiency.
Edited by fenderf4i - 5/2/14 at 6:32am
post #6380 of 7128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megalomaniak View Post

 

Mine does have a flat response from 0 to 1khz at 90db, but yours do start at 90db, then raise the bass to 95-93db until the 1khz. So we could say yours are a bit more bassier than the usual LCD-2 Rev2 like mine.

They're referring to the fact that 0 - 40 Hz is 3-5 dB lower than the rest of the bass register, not that the 40+ is pushed +3 - 5 dB. The change should make them sound a little less fat in the sub-bass, so that would make it less bassy and the upper bass and mids seem more forward, I would imagine.

 

I agree with you that graphs aren't the whole story at all. I'm wondering how they all compare myself. Please let us know what your impressions are after the meet!

post #6381 of 7128
Quote:
Originally Posted by sludgeogre View Post

They're referring to the fact that 0 - 40 Hz is 3-5 dB lower than the rest of the bass register, not that the 40+ is pushed +3 - 5 dB. The change should make them sound a little less fat in the sub-bass, so that would make it less bassy and the upper bass and mids seem more forward, I would imagine.

I agree with you that graphs aren't the whole story at all. I'm wondering how they all compare myself. Please let us know what your impressions are after the meet!
they are definitely a little less fat down below. when I auditioned them at RSPE in los Angeles, the highs were definitely less prominent and the lows more extended. that being said, they still sounds great. I just wish the roll off started at 30 rather than 40.
post #6382 of 7128
how is mine compared to others ?? biggrin.gif


Edited by TontonJoK - 5/2/14 at 12:15pm
post #6383 of 7128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defiant00 View Post
 

Fazor shouldn't have any effect on efficiency. The LCD-X (and XC) were more efficient due to the new driver design. Since (as far as we've been told) the LCD-2 still has the same drivers, efficiency should be the same.

 

Well, my LCD-2 is rated at 90db per mw at 60 ohms and the newer ones are 94db at 70ohms, so if thats not more efficient...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sludgeogre View Post
 

They're referring to the fact that 0 - 40 Hz is 3-5 dB lower than the rest of the bass register, not that the 40+ is pushed +3 - 5 dB. The change should make them sound a little less fat in the sub-bass, so that would make it less bassy and the upper bass and mids seem more forward, I would imagine.

 

I agree with you that graphs aren't the whole story at all. I'm wondering how they all compare myself. Please let us know what your impressions are after the meet!

 

I know, I mean that despite the unflatter response, it has the same level of sub-bass as mine, but a bit boosted bass, so the contrast might sound as you say, less bassier due to the less sub-bass, but still, mid hump may be stronger like in the HD650 more or less.

 

But as I said, i dont really feel that A/B would make a deal difference, at all. So to all Fazor owners, dont worry about sub-bass, it is there, will be and you'll love it.

 

God, sub bass is even awesome with my matrix m-stage.


Edited by Megalomaniak - 5/2/14 at 4:08pm
post #6384 of 7128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megalomaniak View Post

 

 

I know, I mean that despite the unflatter response, it has the same level of sub-bass as mine, but a bit boosted bass, so the contrast might sound as you say, less bassier due to the less sub-bass, but still, mid hump may be stronger like in the HD650 more or less.

 

 

You can move the FR up and down the graph in the Y direction, it doesn't make much of a difference. It's not about how high the graph is, it's how high a specific frequency is in comparison to the rest of the range. If you moved the long flat line of both graphs together, you'd get very similar treble, very similar midrange, and a slight subbass drop below 50Hz. The lower midrange/bass isn't boosted in the Fazor LCD-2's, the graph is just placed higher up.

post #6385 of 7128

Understood :o2smile:

post #6386 of 7128
Ah neat, I stand corrected, I didn't realize the actual efficiency numbers had changed.
post #6387 of 7128

Yeah, I didn't notice that either, I'm surprised there has been such a large difference with such an (according to Audeze) minor change.

post #6388 of 7128

I've brought a LCD2 second hand, from around early 2013 while on holiday. At the current time I can only listen from my Fiio X3 but its basically up to expectation of what I wanted from it. Absolutely killer for my metal and hard rock so far. Still won't take the mantle for classical or electronic, for me.

post #6389 of 7128
I recently received a pair of these bought from a fellow headfier. Must say, I am very impressed with the sound through my Lehmann linear amp!
post #6390 of 7128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Megalomaniak View Post
 

 

Well, my LCD-2 is rated at 90db per mw at 60 ohms and the newer ones are 94db at 70ohms, so if thats not more efficient...

 

 

When did that change?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › The Audeze LCD-2 Ortho thread (New)