Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › HE500 or LCD2 or both? (please share your impressions) Mini Review and POLL (please vote)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HE500 or LCD2 or both? (please share your impressions) Mini Review and POLL (please vote) - Page 14

Poll Results: If you could only keep one...?

 
  • 44% (110)
    HE500
  • 55% (139)
    LCD2 (either rev)
249 Total Votes  
post #196 of 491

Warm is like less dark.  So the LCD-2.2 is past the warm stage.  First  you get warm then you go dark.  The HE-500s, LCD-3s, HD650s just stay in the warm area.. where the LCD-2.2 go straight to dark.

 

This only my opinion and not to be taken as fact..biggrin.gif

post #197 of 491

Warm, dark. So confusing.triportsad.gif

Based on what I've been reading LCD-2 should have been some sort of Dark Knight, to my pleasant surprise I've found them having better treble than HD650 and D5000.

 

 

http://www.head-fi.org/a/describing-sound-a-glossary

 

Quote:

Warm - Good bass, adequate low frequencies, adequate fundamentals relative to harmonics. Not thin. Also excessive bass or mid bass. Also, pleasantly spacious, with adequate reverberation at low frequencies. Also see Rich, Round. Warm highs means sweet highs.

Dark - A tonal balance that tilts downwards with increasing frequency. Opposite of bright. Weak high frequencies.

 

Based on that definition I would call them warm, but perhaps not "dark", but again it's all relative.
 

post #198 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT View Post

Warm, dark. So confusing.triportsad.gif

Based on what I've been reading LCD-2 should have been some sort of Dark Knight, to my pleasant surprise I've found them having better treble than HD650 and D5000.

 

 

http://www.head-fi.org/a/describing-sound-a-glossary

 

 

Based on that definition I would call them warm, but perhaps not "dark", but again it's all relative.
 

rev1 was dark, so dark it sounded muffled somewhat. Rev 2 had more present treble, that is a smidget below neutral, so technically it is 'dark' but tonally it is just fairly neutral yet not bright or sibilant.

post #199 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew_WOT View Post

Dark - A tonal balance that tilts downwards with increasing frequency. Opposite of bright. Weak high frequencies.

 

 

I would say this describes the LCD-2.2.  However, I would not say that the high frequencies are weak.    Or maybe weak when compared to the HE-500s and not weak when compared to the HD650s. 

blink.gif

post #200 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

Warm is like less dark.  So the LCD-2.2 is past the warm stage.  First  you get warm then you go dark.  The HE-500s, LCD-3s, HD650s just stay in the warm area.. where the LCD-2.2 go straight to dark.

 

This only my opinion and not to be taken as fact..biggrin.gif

 

 

 

Dark vs Bright

 

Warm vs Cold

 

Dffernt things in physics, different things in audio vocabulary. 

 

Dark and Warm, Dark and Cold, Warm and Brigh, Cold and Bright - they are all possible combinations in my vocabulary and experience. 

 

Warmness has to to with the presence of mids and mid-bass, bright/dark has more to do with the degree of presence of treble. 

 

There are of course other words available too. Lush, silky, smooth, hard etc. but I aint gonna make a dctionary here :P

post #201 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardilla View Post

 

 

 

Dark vs Bright

 

Warm vs Cold

 

Dffernt things in physics, different things in audio vocabulary. 

 

Dark and Warm, Dark and Cold, Warm and Brigh, Cold and Bright - they are all possible combinations in my vocabulary and experience. 

 

Warmness has to to with the presence of mids and mid-bass, bright/dark has more to do with the degree of presence of treble. 

 

There are of course other words available too. Lush, silky, smooth, hard etc. but I aint gonna make a dctionary here :P

 

 

OOOO Got cha...

post #202 of 491

dark ?! warm ?!! that's very confusing but it's actually make sense guys, read adrilla's post. i mean finally i realized the difference between the sound of my Denon D5k and my LCD-2. If we're talking about warmness here then the denons are really warm but in the darkness area I've never heard anything like the audeze LCD-2. But this is could be a tow-edged positive for them, when i had the T1 i was shifting between them and the DT990 from time to time. With the LCD-2 i couldn't even put the DT990 on because they sound VEEEERY COLD and thin that i gave them up ... god i love how my journey ended up with the audeze LCD-2, it's very hard to remember how i was enjoying the sound of the DT990, such a dark days. Now were the HE-500 fits, they're just like the LCD-2 but a touch less resolving with more treble, yeah that's how they sound, also without the Audeze dark tone. Somewhat between the sound of the T1 and LCD-2 but closer to the Audeze if you understand what i mean.

 

sorry if i missed up the grammer but i'm trying to be helpful as i could and also payback for the pleasure that get from my LCD-2, i feel like i owe them a whole review.

post #203 of 491
Thread Starter 

Nice post MEDO.

 

Yeah its a tough one with dark and warm. For me, warm means bassier. It has to be.. Can you have a 'bright warmth in sound terms? I think I understand the bright/warm together thing as I used to describe my RS1's that way because they were very warm at the bottom but very bright on top (HE500's are similar but not so much in the treble). Dark, for me is no emphasized treble or peaks from mids up. So a flat response in that sense is dark because there is no added light. The LCD2's for me are dark, but once you have fully adapted to the sound, they will not sound dark anymore. They will sound very natural, but most other phones will sound bright in comparison. The 650's on the other hand aren't as dark as the LCD2's because they are capable of quite frisky treble when amped sufficiently. Even 'grainy and intrusive' depending on source etc. But their sound is more laid back as a whole, simply because they aren't as resolving and detailed. I've fed the LCD2's quite a few different source/amps (only budget to mid) and they have never yet to prove overly anything in the treble area except a quality and natural response. The LCD2 treble is not dull, its just never exaggerated... Even sax on old Jazz recordings sound sweet.

I would also say that the LCD2 treble is slightly livelier than the HE500, even though the hifimans are clearly brighter. I think it has to do with the peaks on the HE500's. They have a "zing" and nice "sparkle" but the LCD2's have a slightly harder treble as a whole and this can be better or worse depending on your preference. For instance, I think electric guitar benefits from this more, as it adds more body and grit as opposed to a smoother but 'lit up' reproduction from the HE500's. But classical and ambient music benefits more with the hifmans airyier, lighter and smoother treb.  

post #204 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugBug1 View Post

Nice post MEDO.

 

LCD2 treble is slightly livelier than the HE500

 

 

Now Lug.....

 

 

1000

post #205 of 491

I really have no idea wha dark, warm, all that stuff means. I know I gave my  he-500s to my daughter after listening to the Lcd2.2s. No regrets!

post #206 of 491
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

 

 

Now Lug.....

 

 

1000

biggrin.gif Ok.. ok..

I think I mean that the LCD2 treb has more 'edgeness' as opposed to 'smoothness'. Even though the HE500 is clearly the brighter. It's those gawd dam peaks a tell ya!

 

I think..

post #207 of 491

Yes they can peak at times.  That's the truth .

post #208 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugBug1 View Post

biggrin.gif Ok.. ok..

I think I mean that the LCD2 treb has more 'edgeness' as opposed to 'smoothness'. Even though the HE500 is clearly the brighter. It's those gawd dam peaks a tell ya!

 

I think..

 

Check out the measurements:

 

LCD2r2

 

1000

 

 

vs

 

 

HE500

 

1000

 

 

You can see that the LCD2 treble region is actually a bit more neutral and has less huge peaks and valleys unlike HE500, however at the same time it doesn't decay as cleanly as HE500's. So both trebles are not perfect (HE500s treble is more coloured, while LCD2r2 treble is a bit rougher, so to speak of course).

 

Comparing these to something like say HE6 or HD800 treble, you could clearly see how those are both very neutral (no bumps/valleys) and clean (no ringing/unclean decay), unlike these.


Edited by jerg - 1/11/13 at 1:50pm
post #209 of 491
Thread Starter 

Thanks Jerg,

Yeah its hard to put the sound in your head to the math in front of you. But those dips in the HE500 makes sense if I think of it as quite dark with holes of light shining through. Thats what the hifimans are like for me, they maintain a darkish tone but have razer like bites sometimes. That first dip would probably cause this as the mids slope off before quite a peak in the mid treb. 

post #210 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugBug1 View Post

Thanks Jerg,

Yeah its hard to put the sound in your head to the math in front of you. But those dips in the HE500 makes sense if I think of it as quite dark with holes of light shining through. Thats what the hifimans are like for me, they maintain a darkish tone but have razer like bites sometimes. That first dip would probably cause this as the mids slope off before quite a peak in the mid treb. 

I dunno, HE500's treble colouration is quite different from the rest of Hifiman cans. I mean for showing purposes, look at HE400, HE5, and HE6 trebles:

 

 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

 

They are all quite different, the common thing is that they are all more than the neutral point.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › HE500 or LCD2 or both? (please share your impressions) Mini Review and POLL (please vote)