Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Battle Of The Flagships (58 Headphones Compared) UPDATE: AUDEZ'E LCD-2 Revision 2 (6/4/13)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Battle Of The Flagships (58 Headphones Compared) UPDATE: AUDEZ'E LCD-2 Revision 2 (6/4/13) - Page 87

post #1291 of 4960

different strokes for different folks for different music. All that matters is what you like! Enjoy the music!

post #1292 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by MHOE View Post

 

And the same goes with amps. Even Tyll claims O2 as a top performer. Show me a better amp+DAC under 1000USD (price/performance) with relevant evidence and I will gladly apologize you. ,-)

 

 

He said they were a top performer on the MEASUREMENT front.  What is 'relevant evidence' in your case?  Is it measurements?  Hopefully not.  Honestly this is getting to the point that's well beyond comical.  You've already sorta disowned the LCD-3 multiple times just because its FR and square wave graphs weren't as pretty as the LCD-2.

post #1293 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

 

 

He said they were a top performer on the MEASUREMENT front.  What is 'relevant evidence' in your case?  Is it measurements?  Hopefully not.  Honestly this is getting to the point that's well beyond comical.  You've already sorta disowned the LCD-3 multiple times just because its FR and square wave graphs weren't as pretty as the LCD-2.

 

Yes, measurements are the only thing that interests me regarding the amps, they have to be as precise as possible. And this apply for headphones as well if I am in the process of deciding what to buy and what not. I am not going to spend my money on something that objectively does not justify its price. Never.

 

Regarding LCD-3, they are much more things than the square waves that I am not satisfied with... You can search the topic for detailed info. ,-)


Edited by MHOE - 11/25/12 at 9:23am
post #1294 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe View Post

Amplifiers/DACS do make a big difference. 

 

I had the HD650 paired with the Meyers' Corda Cantate2. It was way better than on Asus Essence ST. Then I paired it with the Burson HA-160ds. Before the Burson i liked the hd650. With the burson I loved them.

 

Then I "betrayed" the Hd650 and got the LCD2 rev3 which I paired with the HA-160DS.

 

I had both the HD800 and the LCD2 rev 2 each for a week to test before I decided to go with the LCD2 rev3.

 

I have liked the HD800 very much. I have felt the technical masterpiece, but i liked much more listening to music with the LCD2.

 

Very little time afterwards, Darku gave me the chance to listen to both cans paired with Bursons' new product : The Conductor (which has a better and powerful amplifier and better dac).

 

The differences were huge. I always felt that the LCD2 can do better. On the Conductor i felt they gave their best. It felt like I truly listened to the cans for the first time.

 

The interesting thing is that I also loved the HD800 with the Conductor. I changed my opinion of it . It was much more musical. It had a wider soundstage, a better bass impact, the brightness was gone. I started liking listening to rock for the first time on HD800. 

 

So the amplifier/dac makes a huge difference!

 

 

 

 

 

I subscribe. I am very interested in your opinion about it too, David . :D

 

With LCD-2 rev3, you mean the version with angled connectors? I have it but not aware of that it is called rev3...?

post #1295 of 4960

Didn't you read my post?  The majority of amps will measure with the exact same dead flat frequency response, and distortion or noise floor numbers far below the audible threshold, yet they all sound different.  Unless the measurements show something EXTREMELY off, they are not what you should be looking for from an amp.

 

Why would you not be satisfied with the LCD-3?  It's well regarded as a complete step up from LCD-2. Honestly, your obsession with measurements is ridiculous.  I like a good looking set of measurements, but this is comical.

post #1296 of 4960

missing skullcandy, soul, beats and whatever other name brand crap there is. i know there ****, but you cant find the 'best headphones" without reviewing some huge brands

post #1297 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by MHOE View Post

 

With LCD-2 rev3, you mean the version with angled connectors? I have it but not aware of that it is called rev3...?

You know there's more to having a conversation that talking and waiting to talk. wink.gif (there's a listening part somewhere in there).

 

Again, read Currawong's link about measurements (and my article on innerfidelity). Where measuring the EXACT same pair of headphones yielded different measurements. basshead.gif

 

The LCD-2s and LCD-3s measure about the same with a slight edge to the LCD-3s (deeper bass and better %THD). The older LCD-3 plots were from pre-RMA pairs and ARE NOT VALID!!!!! But when you actually PUT THEM ON YOUR HEAD, the differences are quite stark in favour of the LCD-3s. Of course you can't say much more as you've NEVER heard them. biggrin.gif

post #1298 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

Didn't you read my post?  The majority of amps will measure with the exact same dead flat frequency response, and distortion or noise floor numbers far below the audible threshold, yet they all sound different.  Unless the measurements show something EXTREMELY off, they are not what you should be looking for from an amp.

 

Why would you not be satisfied with the LCD-3?  It's well regarded as a complete step up from LCD-2. Honestly, your obsession with measurements is ridiculous.  I like a good looking set of measurements, but this is comical.

 

Didn't you read my posts about what I require from an amp and DAC? You are free to find it... If an amp/DAC do not offer it, it's not good enough for me.

 

I would not be satisfied with LCD-3 because they measure worse, are less neutral than LCD-2 rev2 and cost 2x more... I want from 2000USD cans to be twice better in all my requirements (relatively), at least. I guess only Stax SR009 would do it for me for 2000 - 3000USD. But certainly not for the price of 10000+USD.


Edited by MHOE - 11/25/12 at 9:42am
post #1299 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by MHOE View Post

 

Didn't you read my posts about what I require from an amp and DAC? You are free to find it... If an amp/DAC do not offer it, it's not good enough for me.

 

I would not be satisfied with LCD-3 because they measure worse, are less neutral than LCD-2 rev2 and cost 2x more... I want from 2000USD to be twice better in all my requirements, at least. I guess only Stax SR009 would do it for me for 2000 - 3000USD. But certainly not for the price of 10000+USD.

Please stop derailing this thread.

post #1300 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post

You know there's more to having a conversation that talking and waiting to talk. wink.gif (there's a listening part somewhere in there).

 

Again, read Currawong's link about measurements (and my article on innerfidelity). Where measuring the EXACT same pair of headphones yielded different measurements. basshead.gif

 

The LCD-2s and LCD-3s measure about the same with a slight edge to the LCD-3s (deeper bass and better %THD). The older LCD-3 plots were from pre-RMA pairs and ARE NOT VALID!!!!! But when you actually PUT THEM ON YOUR HEAD, the differences are quite stark in favour of the LCD-3s. Of course you can't say much more as you've NEVER heard them. biggrin.gif

 

Your RMAd pair is nowhere near LCD-2 rev2 in terms of neutrality... If you think it is, post evidence.

 

As well, there is a measurement of rev2 version of LCD-3 on innerfidelity - with the same bad results in my point of view.

post #1301 of 4960

For the LAST TIME:

 

Measurements Only:

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD3Rev2sn2613375circa2012.pdf

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2Rev2.pdf



LCD-2 and LCD-3:

1.) Bass goes deeper on the LCD-3s and doesn't drop off until 40Hzish, while on the LCD-2 Rev. 2s its 60Hz.

2.) The upper mids roll off faster on the LCD-2s (not a good thing as female vocals can sound withdrawn and too laid back). On the LCD-2s, the roll off starts at 1kHz and on the LCD-3s its closer to 2kHz.

3.) Treble is a bit too subdued on the LCD-2s when compared to the LCD-3s. 

 

The 30kHz square wave responses seem within the tolerances of the measuring devices, so let's call them about the same. But on the 300Hz graph, you will see that the first spike on the LCD-3s is larger than on the LCD-2s. This is a good thing. Its what likely gives the LCD-3s the better ability to image. When I was talking to Tyll, he thought that was why the LCD-2s imaged so poorly. That equal double spike likely caused one to hear the same thing twice and thus collapse the sound stage.

 

Now % THD, the difference in %THD between 90 and 100dB on the LCD-3s shows that the drivers are better responding to the inputs while on the LCD-2s, they're more jumbled together (not as good as the LCD-3s, though still very good).

 

Now even with everything I mentioned above, there is the limitations of the measurement systems. I STRONGLY suggest you read both of these BEFORE commenting further to help open your horizons on the subject:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/632286/aes-2012-paper-relationship-between-perception-and-measurement-of-headphone-sound-quality

 

and

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/expert-tests-innerfidelitys-headphone-measurement-repeatability-and-reproducibility

 

Now, how does one quantify, imaging, transparency, PRaT, detail retrieval, etc....? These are all very valuable pieces of information that you're totally missing!

 

So, please just move on. Yes, your LCD-2 r.2s are fantastic headphones, but not the last word in terms of being the best there out there. Nor is your opinion or ability to interpret these graphs the last word. So please start your own thread (as the Moderator asked you to) and stop ruining this brilliant thread. 


Edited by MacedonianHero - 11/25/12 at 9:56am
post #1302 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by MHOE View Post

 

Your RMAd pair is nowhere near LCD-2 rev2 in terms of neutrality... If you think it is, post evidence.

 

As well, there is a measurement of rev2 version of LCD-3 on innerfidelity - with the same bad results in my point of view.

Yes they are and it is quantifiable...just read my post above. biggrin.gif


Edited by MacedonianHero - 11/25/12 at 9:58am
post #1303 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post

For the LAST TIME:

 

Measurements Only:

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD3Rev2sn2613375circa2012.pdf

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2Rev2.pdf



LCD-2 and LCD-3:

1.) Bass goes deeper on the LCD-3s and doesn't drop off until 40Hzish, while on the LCD-2 Rev. 2s its 60Hz.

2.) The upper mids roll off faster on the LCD-2s (not a good thing as female vocals can sound withdrawn and too laid back). On the LCD-2s, the roll off starts at 1kHz and on the LCD-3s its closer to 2kHz.

3.) Treble is a bit too subdued on the LCD-2s when compared to the LCD-3s. 

 

The 30kHz square wave responses seem within the tolerances of the measuring devices, so let's call them about the same. But on the 300Hz graph, you will see that the first spike on the LCD-3s is larger than on the LCD-2s. This is a good thing. Its what likely gives the LCD-3s the better ability to image. When I was talking to Tyll, he thought that was why the LCD-2s imaged so poorly. That equal double spike likely caused one to hear the same thing twice and thus collapse the sound stage.

 

Now % THD, the difference in %THD between 90 and 100dB on the LCD-3s shows that the drivers are better responding to the inputs while on the LCD-2s, they're more jumbled together (not as good as the LCD-3s, though still very good).

 

Now even with everything I mentioned above, there is the limitations of the measurement systems. I STRONGLY suggest you read both of these BEFORE commenting further to help open your horizons on the subject:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/632286/aes-2012-paper-relationship-between-perception-and-measurement-of-headphone-sound-quality

 

and

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/expert-tests-innerfidelitys-headphone-measurement-repeatability-and-reproducibility

 

Now, how does one quantify, imaging, transparency, PRaT, detail retrieval, etc....? These are all very valuable pieces of information that you're totally missing!

 

So, please just move on. Yes, your LCD-2 r.2s are fantastic headphones, but not the last word in terms of being the best there out there. Nor is your opinion or ability to interpret these graphs the last word. So please start your own thread (as the Moderator asked you to) and stop ruining this brilliant thread. 

 

All I can say about your view on the graphs is - I do see them in a completely different way.

 

Everything you've said, from your evaluation of bass FR, treble, %THD+noise and pretty everything is a nonsense to me and it does not matter whether I look at it with my glasses on or off, or change resolution of my screen.

 

I will let anyone to create his/her own opinion then...

 

If anyone is interested - there is no single measurement where LCD-3 are better from those graphs above. Feel free to PM me for more info...


Edited by MHOE - 11/25/12 at 10:06am
post #1304 of 4960
Quote:
Originally Posted by MHOE View Post

 

All I can say about your view on the graphs is - I do see them in a completely different way.

 

Everything you've said, from your evaluation of bass FR, treble, %THD+noise and pretty everything is a nonsense to me and it does not matter whether I look at it with my glasses on or off, or change resolution of my screen.

 

I will let anyone to create his/her own opinion then...

 

If anyone is interested - there is no single measurement where LCD-3 are better from those graphs above. Feel free to PM me for more info...

 

Imagine that...someone actually describes the measurements and why A is better than B and all you have to say is "pretty everything is a nonsense to me and it does not matter whether I look at it with my glasses on or off, or change resolution of my screen." 

 

God forbid that you actually "read the graphs" that clearly show my points mentioned previously. 

 

You win...I can't argue with that logic. rolleyes.gif


Edited by MacedonianHero - 11/25/12 at 10:14am
post #1305 of 4960

Once again, MHOE, I think you need to start your own thread, in which you review headphones based solely on their measurements--including headphones you have never heard. And, once again, this isn't the thread to do it in.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Battle Of The Flagships (58 Headphones Compared) UPDATE: AUDEZ'E LCD-2 Revision 2 (6/4/13)