Audeze LCD 2 or Hifiman HE-500

Quote:

Originally Posted by hifimanrookie 


With this i can be very short..i own a he500 and the 337 and i listened to the lyr on both the lcd 2 rev. 2 and the he500...both phones sounded better on the 337.. In almost everything..maybe only on the bass the lyr gets on top a bit..but i really didnt like the combo lyr-lcd 2 ver.2
It was missin somthing..but to be honest..the 337 was also not driving the lcd well...it sounded closed in and the bass didnt go as deep as i wished...on the other hand..the violectric v200 was wonderfull with the lcd2 ver.2 though..it really opened the can up..
In my eyes..i wouldnt consider pairing the lyr with the lcd 2..and not even with the 337 if u want the lcd on his best! For the he500 the 337 was a step above the lyr soundwise..only the bass went deeper with the lyr..
But another note..i never heard a lcd 2 ver. 1 so i dont know the sounddifference between ver.1 or ver. 2...
I guess u just have to try various configurations urself what fits u best..
As ofcourse this is all personal..in the end its ur ears that must decide...and u know that..

LCD2r1 is IMO pretty poor-sounding compared to revision 2. The treble is way too recessed with rev1, not even the "dark lively Audeze sound" that people describe, just plain dim treble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerg 

LCD2r1 is IMO pretty poor-sounding compared to revision 2. The treble is way too recessed with rev1, not even the "dark lively Audeze sound" that people describe, just plain dim treble.

Disagree. I think you've overstated the case. The LCD-2 Rev 1 just isn't that dim. In fact when I moved to it from the HD650, I initially found it too bright. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by pp312 

 

Disagree. I think you've overstated the case. The LCD-2 Rev 1 just isn't that dim. In fact when I moved to it from the HD650, I initially found it too bright. 

Maybe it was unit-unit variation, maybe that particular pair was defective, but at the meet I went to with LCD2r1 and r2 side-by-side, the r1's sounded really dim in the upper end. I guess I'll retract my statement earlier until I listen to a few more r1 units in the future.

I have to agree with Jerg on this one. As I find the LCD2 Rev 2 to be a bit too treble shy for my tastes, the Rev 1 was on a whole new level of dark... The Rev 1 was a good sounding headphone, the Rev 2 is an astounding headphone.

PERSONALLY, I like the HE-500 over the LCD2 as it has more treble energy. In terms of mids, they are both very good. It really depends on what kind of taste you have. People like the LCD2 for it's lush, organic, and mildly heavy sounding mids. I like the HE-500 as it sounds a bit lighter, faster, and just as lush and organic as the LCD2.

Amping wise, results will differ... I found that the LCD2 and the Schiit Mjolnir matches beautifully. I had the lucky opportunity of comparing the V200 and Mjolnir side by side and both a friend and I preferred the Mjolnir over the V200. I love the HE-500 with the Hifiman EF-5 and I'm planning on doing a side-by-side review of the HE-400 and HE-500 with DHC's "special" cable to describe the two's differences in detail and how they change with high-end cables, even though cable talk is non-debatable and mostly user-perceived.

The best advice I can provide you is, don't bother with the Bifrost. Don't judge yet! As my friend, Girls Generation, is VERY interested in the Mjolnir, we both went to audition the Mjolnir with the LCD2. Me paraphrasing, I said, "the JDSLabs ODAC and Mjolnir sounds pretty good together... The Gungir+Mjolnir and ODAC+Mjolnir aren't $750-$800 dollars apart in terms of sonic differences..."

The way I see it, both are excellent headphones and it's hard to go wrong with either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerg 

 

Maybe it was unit-unit variation, maybe that particular pair was defective, but at the meet I went to with LCD2r1 and r2 side-by-side, the r1's sounded really dim in the upper end. I guess I'll retract my statement earlier until I listen to a few more r1 units in the future.

Seems consistent with a good portion of the r1 experience. The two pairs I've heard were pretty recessed in the treble. Mids were even thicker as well, adding to that already suffocating signature. Strangely I found the mids on the R1 more endearing like with the SR007MK1 vs MK2. Obviously there's exceptions- most of the LCD-2s, even between the early rev2s, have variation of some sort. My pair for example is significantly brighter than the rosewood pair (the only rosewood pair I've seen out in the wild) I tried. The two newer bamboo pairs were much more consistent though, not sure why that is, guess they must be getting better with time.

IMO:

LCD-2: more textured, well-defined, extended bass; richer (depth-wise) mids with more accurate timbre; smoothed out but laid-back treble; slightly narrower sound

HE-500: Slower, good but not LCD-2 good bass, not as tight impact (even compared to the HE-400); more about the midrange, which is relatively lusher (sometimes too lush for me) and beautiful for vocals specifically; treble is smooth, clear, not recessed at all, spot on perfect for me. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by planx 

 

Amping wise, results will differ... I found that the LCD2 and the Schiit Mjolnir matches beautifully. I had the lucky opportunity of comparing the V200 and Mjolnir side by side and both a friend and I preferred the Mjolnir over the V200. I love the HE-500 with the Hifiman EF-5 and I'm planning on doing a side-by-side review of the HE-400 and HE-500 with DHC's "special" cable to describe the two's differences in detail and how they change with high-end cables, even though cable talk is non-debatable and mostly user-perceived.

Couldn't hear any of them. Poor ears went semi-deaf that day after a concert, didn't want to risk listening too much. Might get the Molecule soon, cause the HE-6 might be coming as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerg 

 

Maybe it was unit-unit variation, maybe that particular pair was defective, but at the meet I went to with LCD2r1 and r2 side-by-side, the r1's sounded really dim in the upper end. I guess I'll retract my statement earlier until I listen to a few more r1 units in the future.

Well, it's certainly true there was a lot of unit-to-unit variation, if one can judge by anecdotal evidence (and we have nothing else at this stage). Some people couldn't come to terms with theirs, others loved them and many still have theirs. I kept mine for 18 months and frankly, with a reasonably bright amp and a half decent recording, they provided me with sound quality that frequently thrilled and amazed me (i eventually sold them due to comfort issues). It's true they lacked in the extreme treble, but up to that point were actually quite lively. What's maybe more relevant though is the number of people who've moved to Rev 2 and reported not much difference, as well as the number of Rev 1 owners who've auditioned Rev 2 and decided not to change. (I tend to gravitiate to threads on this subject).

There's this, however: I only listen to classical/orchestral. Maybe if I was listening to rock or jazz, where there's more extreme treble activity, I may have found the Rev1 more lacking. Also I'm not young, so someone with better hearing may have been more bothered by the Rev 1s rolloff. There are just so many variables in subjective impressions.