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 146

post #2176 of 4945
Quote:
Originally Posted by punks15 View Post

The Rev3 isn't it? Sometimes i confused which version LCD2 that i tested

 

 

Officially there is no Rev3 of the LCD-2s  Correct me if I'm wrong.  The official version from Audeze is LCD-2.2...

post #2177 of 4945
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

 

 

Officially there is no Rev3 of the LCD-2s  Correct me if I'm wrong.  The official version from Audeze is LCD-2.2...

Thats right. Rev2 signifies the driver update. The more recent changes have only been cosmetic.

post #2178 of 4945
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMahler View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbophead View Post

I think if that is how you define it, then most mid-fi cans have sub-bass.  Of course this is all relative to 1kz.  You could show 40Hz on name that headphone but 40 to 60db down?

 

I define sub-bass as at least 40Hz and below and not that far down relative to 1kz.  This would include orchestral bass drum, pipe organ, contra bassoon and tuba.  The planars can do it, the expensive Stax can do it, some of the older Denons (5000,7000) can.  IMHO.

many mid-fi cans have some sub bass.

 

the way i look at it is there's no definitive frequency range.  One of the mastering techniques I use is if a source recording utilizes the sub bass region, I will slightly boost the recording at 30hz which is where the real core of sub bass frequencies are.  A large amount of recordings don't have this frequency region.  When I implement a low-pass, I notice there is a real area of transition from undefinable notes to definable frequencies in the 40hz-50hz.  i got into an argument with an engineer quite recently who swears that for him sub bass dies out at precisely 59hz... go figure

Reads like you're using equalization to bring sub-bass to phones that don't have much.  Of course that's legal.smile.gif  I'm too old school for that so I'm looking for a can that gives me reasonably accurate orchestral bass drum in Mahler symphonies without the boostaroo business.

post #2179 of 4945
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nehcrow View Post

Have you listened to Earsonics SM3? Could rival Westone 4 for your pick of best universal IEM

I haven't:(

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2oxide View Post

Are you going to review Audeze's latest reiteration of the LCD-2? Not sure if this has been asked but I'm not trawling through that many pages to find out sorry.

 

Baring in mind I've read this from the review itself, the cans haven't changed sonically in a while

 

I probably will include it but Sankar of Audez'e says they are nearly identical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbophead View Post

Reads like you're using equalization to bring sub-bass to phones that don't have much.  Of course that's legal.smile.gif  I'm too old school for that so I'm looking for a can that gives me reasonably accurate orchestral bass drum in Mahler symphonies without the boostaroo business.

Does it read like that?  I wasn't talking about headphone listening.  I was talking about defining where the sub-bass frequency region meets the bass frequency region.  I don't ever use EQ when listening to music.  I was talking about mastering recordings for clients and for myself. I typically master with speakers more than headphones.  bigsmile_face.gif

When you push the 30hz region just a bit, if its in the source recording (and I'm not talking about classical or binaural recordings) it adds a bit of depth to the sound.
 


Edited by DavidMahler - 1/5/13 at 9:15am
post #2180 of 4945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post


Nah, those are just made up numbers. I was probably a bit generous with the numbers anyway, as headphones like the Pro 900 and XB500 would have way over 10 with this bad scaling, lol.
Basically, a .5 difference is probably more of a point or two if they were scaled properly. My apologies. I'll try and redo the numbers to be more realistic with two starting references like the Pro 900 being a 10 in bass quantity, and the K701 (old 7 bump version) being a 6.


If Pro 900 is 10 where does it put unmodded Denon AH-D5000, same for K701, if that one scored a whooping 6 what would be number 1 then.

post #2181 of 4945

Music played through laptop speakers with a high-pass filter set at 500hz.

post #2182 of 4945
Quote:
Originally Posted by olor1n View Post


Well to me and from my rig, the HD800 maintains all the qualities of the HD650 I love and improves on its deficiencies. The HD800 is on a whole other level but it's not a completely different species. It's the uber HD650 IMO.

Funny, but I hear very few similarities between the HD800 and the 650/600 series. I wouldn't even know they were from the same maker. The HD800s sounded totally different from every

previous Senn I had (424s long ago, 600s, 650s).

post #2183 of 4945
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by olor1n View Post

Well to me and from my rig, the HD800 maintains all the qualities of the HD650 I love and improves on its deficiencies. The HD800 is on a whole other level but it's not a completely different species. It's the uber HD650 IMO.
Funny, but I hear very few similarities between the HD800 and the 650/600 series. I wouldn't even know they were from the same maker. The HD800s sounded totally different from every
previous Senn I had (424s long ago, 600s, 650s).

I explained my stance in a subsequent post. I never stated they sounded the same. You're inferring that.
Edited by olor1n - 1/5/13 at 3:26pm
post #2184 of 4945
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMahler View Post

 I don't ever use EQ when listening to music.
 

 

You're such a good boy, David. You may have porridge with condensed milk on it tonight.  biggrin.gif

post #2185 of 4945
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMahler View Post

 I don't ever use EQ when listening to music.
 

 

You're such a good boy, David. You may have porridge with condensed milk on it tonight.  biggrin.gif

LOL!

post #2186 of 4945
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pp312 View Post

You're such a good boy, David. You may have porridge with condensed milk on it tonight.  biggrin.gif

Well, I bolded that because I was responding to the assumption that I utilize EQ to fix headphone weaknesses. If I did this, the comparisons I've made would be almost meaningless, so I wanted to make it clear.

....now.... Pass the condensed milk! wink.gif
post #2187 of 4945
Quote:
Originally Posted by olor1n View Post


I explained my stance in a subsequent post. I never stated they sounded the same. You're inferring that.

Apologies if I mis-characterized or misinterpreted your implications. I was dead wrong to imply that w/o fully reading your comments sir.

 

It's just that personally, (and I hope I'm not taking this out of context, and I did look over your earlier posts, but I may have missed something), I guess I do disagree somewhat.

You said that the 800s are a "progression" from the 650s, and to my ears they seem go in a completely different direction, 

meaning very revealing in the high frequencies, as opposed to the 650s which seem, not exactly stuffy, but with a thicker, somewhat foggier signature (not as much as the 600s).

So in that sense, as you said, the 800 does indeed "improve on the 650's deficiencies."

 

I actually could believe that Audezes were based on the 600/650s. Not knowing better, I would believe the LCD2 was the next generation HD650.

Thanks olor!


Edited by rgs9200m - 1/5/13 at 5:21pm
post #2188 of 4945
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgs9200m View Post

Apologies if I mis-characterized or misinterpreted your implications. I was dead wrong to imply that w/o fully reading your comments sir.

 

It's just that personally, (and I hope I'm not taking this out of context, and I did look over your earlier posts, but I may have missed something),

but you said that the 800s are a "progression" from the 650s, and to my ears they seem go in a completely different direction, 

meaning very revealing in the high frequencies, as opposed to the 650s which seem, not exactly stuffy, but with a thicker, somewhat foggier signature (not as much as the 600s).

So in that sense, as you said, the 800 does indeed "improve on the 650's deficiencies."

 

I actually could believe that Audezes were based on the 600/650s. Not knowing better, I would believe the LCD2 was the next generation HD650.

Nah, HE500s are the next-gen HD650 in tonality.

 

LCD2/3 are a bit different, I'd go so far as to say they are the originator of their own "branch" of sound (dead-neutral bass ~ mids, slightly toned down but still neutral treble with strong extension).

post #2189 of 4945
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerg View Post

Nah, HE500s are the next-gen HD650 in tonality.

 

LCD2/3 are a bit different, I'd go so far as to say they are the originator of their own "branch" of sound (dead-neutral bass ~ mids, slightly toned down but still neutral treble with strong extension).

Gee, just before I mentioned the Audeze/650 similarity, I was going to say that the HE500 was the next gen 650. I l-o-v-e my HE500s. Maybe not the most challenging sound, but sooo damn musical and addictive, and open-sounding too! Thanks.

post #2190 of 4945

Great discussion. I use 650's,and have owned Audeze 2.1 and 2.2 (I liked the 2.1 more). I found the latter heavy for extended listening. Is teh HE 500 lighter and more comfortable?

 

Thank you

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)