Barry S
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2012
- Posts
- 1,186
- Likes
- 264
With the LCD2.2, the Mjolnir brings the mids and highs more forward and resolves a lot more detail than the Lyr. However, it also expands the dynamics at the low end. I'm ready to call the LCD2.2 less warm and dark with the Mjolnir + Gungnir, but bright?--No, I wouldn't go that far. There's none of the sibilance or harshness (to me) from excess upper mid/treble energy with the Mjolnir. The LCD2.2 moves from markedly dark and warm with the Lyr to slightly dark and warm--or even sitting on the knife edge between dark and bright, with the Mjolnir.
The Mjolnir doesn't make the LCD2.2 sound thinner than the Lyr, unless you consider the massing of midrange details "thick". In all respects, I consider the Mjolnir as an upgrade from the Lyr. It presents a lot more detail and dynamics across the full spectrum of the LCD2.2.
The Mjolnir doesn't make the LCD2.2 sound thinner than the Lyr, unless you consider the massing of midrange details "thick". In all respects, I consider the Mjolnir as an upgrade from the Lyr. It presents a lot more detail and dynamics across the full spectrum of the LCD2.2.
I've been reading some reviews on the Mjolnir and quite a few people mention that it is too bright and one guy even mentioned that it sounds thinner than the Lyr. Is this true? I was starting to warm up to the idea going from Lyr+Bifrost to Mjolnir+Gungnir but now I'm not so sure. The reason for swapping is that I feel the Lyr+Bifrost sounds too thin specially in the mid bass.
Can anyone who's used the MJ extensively confirm that its sound sig is skewed with a mid-range emphasis? Or let's put it this way, is the amp more suitable to playback jazz/vocal/audiophile recordings but not really ideal for classical/hard rock/metal/movie scores?