Schiit Mjolnir headphone amplifier - Page 167

They correlate in my book. A headphone with no treble has no detail.

fi first daft J2? Never heard of the dame.

Short version of it is the First Watt J2 is a world class low watt amplifier/room heater.

jeje...good one...unless you are somehow being serious.

Very serious.  The J2 is an incredible amplifier for efficient speakers and inefficient headphones.  It's also very hot, ie room heater.

Low watt a la less than 10 watts per channel?

Treble isn't the only part of the FR that contains detail... And you're also exaggerating how rolled off the LCD2s are.

Did my homework. 25 watts per channel. Looks like one of those megaliths from Stonehenge...not eye candy for sure. Still biting the bullet/cyanide pill with the darkstar.

I didn't say LCD-2 has no detail. You made that connection yourself. It has lowered treble and thus lower detail. Most detail does reside in the treble. That is where you get audible sharpness and definition, etc., effects that give boundary to sounds in bass and midrange. Without proper treble you lose the detail that makes the rest into definable sounds and they become blunt incoherent masses.

Especially true with classical music recordings...that's why the LCD sucks with classical while it thrives with rock.

As much as I love the Dark Star, the J2 stomps it badly...IMO, of course.

 

Wow, I wouldn't go so far as to say it 'sucks' with classical.

 

Since when did audible sharpness and definition equate to detail? Maybe your definition of detail and mine are quite different, so let's agree to disagree.

 

I do agree that the LCD2 has less treble quantity in comparison to other cans like the HD800, but in my opinion, realistically the difference is not quite so huge as you guys make it to be, especially with good aftermarket cables, which I am not going to go into. Also, in my personal opinion, I don't perceive the LCD2 to be that lacking in detail retrieval, unless in a relative context. Descriptions and words online blow things way too much out of proportion. No offense or disrespect intended.

The LCD-2 scales less than the HD800.  That's part of the problem.  While on modest gear the two are comparable on technical ability, when scaled up the LCD-2 kind of stay where it was and the HD800 moves up.

 

It's part of the draw for the LCD-2.  It sound good on nearly anything.

 

While on that same rig, the HD800 would sound as technically competent but have a top tilted tonal balance.  Or put another way... I loved the LCD-2/3 over the HD800 by a lot until I got the PWD2... now I get it.

 

This graph will give you a good idea of where terms and instrument fall as far as frequency .

 

 

Detail is a collection of definitions grouped together. It's the attributes that combine to give a 'finished' sound. All the 'details' have been done, so it is finished. Much as a paint job is not finished until it has been sanded smooth and clear coated, a sound is not finished until it has the definition and sharpness that makes it sound like something you can recognize. I think perhaps you are confusing detail with texture, which is present at all frequency levels.

Have you heard both LCD-2 and HD800 on a low-fi and hi-fi system? What Solude says is true. And yes, there is a chasm between the LCD-2 and HD800 in regard to detail. I'm not using fancy aftermarket cables either. My HD800 cable is the cheapest balanced cable I could get made and I'm using the stock LCD-2 balanced cable.
Edited by Maxvla - 2/17/13 at 5:05pm

Let's not forget that there's detail in recordings in the bass and mids too! Yes, the HD800s give one more details with regards to treble...but for mids/bass, the detail advantage goes to the LCD-X to my ears. 

 

There's also imaging detail, that goes to the HD800s. So pick your preferences (or both headphones ).