Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › My take on LCD-2 and HD800
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My take on LCD-2 and HD800 - Page 8

post #106 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by BournePerfect View Post
So many negative opinions in this thread about the HD800, without mentioning upstream gear. Kinda similar to the K702 in that regard. These are 2 of the fussiest dynamics out there, and unfortunately dismissed frequently because of this. I for one, am very happy I recognized the HD800's technical superiority, and tried and tried again ($$$ ha) until I got the rest of my gear up to snuff.

-Daniel

 

FWIW, I have a relatively negative opinion of the HD800 too, and I'll add that I actually bought it twice (after selling my first pair) and used it on a variety of amps including the HeadAmp GS-X, Luxman P-1u, and a B22, on my own Plinius CD-101 CDP. Plus other amps I heard at meets, like the EC Zana Deux notably, which still didn't make me like it, even out of an analog tape reel system. Nothing I've heard the HD800 out of so far has made me change my opinion.

post #107 of 148
This is a weird aside, but how do planar magnetic headphones (I have the HE-500) compare to planar magnetic speakers?
post #108 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BournePerfect View Post
So many negative opinions in this thread about the HD800, without mentioning upstream gear. Kinda similar to the K702 in that regard. These are 2 of the fussiest dynamics out there, and unfortunately dismissed frequently because of this. I for one, am very happy I recognized the HD800's technical superiority, and tried and tried again ($$$ ha) until I got the rest of my gear up to snuff.

-Daniel

 

FWIW, I have a relatively negative opinion of the HD800 too, and I'll add that I actually bought it twice (after selling my first pair) and used it on a variety of amps including the HeadAmp GS-X, Luxman P-1u, and a B22, on my own Plinius CD-101 CDP. Plus other amps I heard at meets, like the EC Zana Deux notably, which still didn't make me like it, even out of an analog tape reel system. Nothing I've heard the HD800 out of so far has made me change my opinion.

 

So the HD800 is not for you. That's cool. You gave it a fair shake. I doubt staunch HD800 defenders would begrudge your stance.

 

This type of post is a rarity though. Divulging the extent of your experience and the ancillary components employed? That's not how it's done around these parts sir!

post #109 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxvla View Post


I think it is rolled off, he doesn't, yet his own measurements don't agree.

Not to step in on any debates or anything, but I have to agree; Tyll does seem to biased towards dark headphones. After seeing him like the HE-500's over the HE-5LE and HE-6, and buying the UE 6000's on his high praise, only to return them due to their excessive darkness, I've learned to take his comments with a reasonable grain of salt. Maybe he can acutely hear treble at lower volumes much better than I can, but I can still definitely hear higher frequencies reasonably well, and it really bothers me they're missing/lacking. I don't mind treble roll-off when music is just playing in the background and I'm not really paying attention to it, but if I'm actually trying to get into the music and listen critically, it just drives me nuts, cause I end up straining myself trying to make out what's going on up there. I seem to be in the minority with this opinion though, so Tyll's opinions are probably the most useful this way anyway.

post #110 of 148
Thread Starter 
Yes, I certainly don't want to diminish Tyll's opinions. I was simply pointing out that measurements show there is less energy in the treble. Whether that equates to dark or not is up to the individual user, but would tend to be dark for most users with the amount of drop indicated.
post #111 of 148

I always say this: everything is relative. Some are more sensitive to treble, some are more used to brighter treble. There shouldn't be any arguments about whether something is dark or not because there is no universal reference point and everyone's hearing is different. 

post #112 of 148

Good review Max...but looking at your past setup, I'm surprised you sold off your 007's...too dark and bassy perhaps?

post #113 of 148
Thread Starter 
Had a sharpness to the treble that felt artificial and shared the somewhat poor center imaging common (as I've found) to planar headphones. Certainly had been the best I've owned at the time, but recognized what was missing and moved on pretty quickly.
post #114 of 148
Thanks for your comments Asr, but I'd suspect a lot of people who would have heard the Senns on those same amps as you did would have vastly different impressions than you. Like olor1n said, they just aren't for you.

On another note, EC amps main strengths, imo, lie in the subtle nuances and microdynamics that are hard to recognize without prolonged experience with the amp(s), and definitely not with short term and/or meet impressions to say the least. It seems like most Headfiers who have been 'underwhelmed' by the ZDSE in particular, all had very limited time with it, let alone lived with it for a while in an extremely revealing rig. And LOL at any meet impressions also. My .02.

-Daniel
post #115 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by BournePerfect View Post

Thanks for your comments Asr, but I'd suspect a lot of people who would have heard the Senns on those same amps as you did would have vastly different impressions than you. Like olor1n said, they just aren't for you.

On another note, EC amps main strengths, imo, lie in the subtle nuances and microdynamics that are hard to recognize without prolonged experience with the amp(s), and definitely not with short term and/or meet impressions to say the least. It seems like most Headfiers who have been 'underwhelmed' by the ZDSE in particular, all had very limited time with it, let alone lived with it for a while in an extremely revealing rig. And LOL at any meet impressions also. My .02.

-Daniel

 

 

+1 on that... biggrin.gif

post #116 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by BournePerfect View Post

And LOL at any meet impressions also. My .02.

 

I'd agree that meet impressions do not give the whole story, but I believe that they can be valuable and are generally accurate in the larger sense.  For example, if I don't like the way a headphone sounds at a meet, I can be confident that I wouldn't like it in my own home either.  But as far as hearing subtle differences and nuances (between amps or sources, for example, or cables, if you believe in such a thing), meet conditions are certainly not ideal.

 

That being said, I agree pretty completely with Maxvla's review, based on both meet impressions, and listening impressions at home.  I've owned both the HD800 and LCD2 Rev 1, and I vastly preferred the former.  The LCD2 just lacked air and space in a serious way -- nothing subtle about it.  Whenever I tried to express that opinion back when the LCD2 was the new FOTM, I was always told I wasn't amping them properly.  Meet impressions at RMAF confirmed this wasn't the case, though -- I heard the LCD2 Rev 1, Rev 2, and the LCD3 on some of the most highly-recommended amplification for those headphones, and to my ears the same obvious spatial reproduction problems still persisted.  I don't necessarily think the spatial problems are specific to planar drivers, though -- the SR-009 sounded just fine to me in that regard.

 

On the other hand, I very much like the HD800, though I don't believe it to be perfect.  The treble is somewhat elevated, and I think the sharpness of the imaging is sacrificed somewhat for the exceptionally large and slightly diffuse soundstage.  But overall, I find the tonal and spatial presentation of this headphone to be very good, dynamics and detail are great, and comfort is unsurpassed.  The HD800 is my pick for the best dynamic or orthodynamic headphone on the market right now.  It just sounds natural to my ears.

 

On another note, am I the only person who doesn't find the HD800 to be finicky about amplification?  I've tried the HD800 at home on an Asgard, Valhalla, Lyr, WA2, Sonett, and GS-1 -- they all certainly sounded different, but the core HD800 sound was still there.  I think the headphone sounded good on all of those amps.  In meet listening, I've also heard the HD800 on other highly-regarded amps like the ZDSE, Mjolnir, and BHA-1 -- these amps may offer subtle, definitive improvements, but I didn't hear anything dramatic.  I really don't think it takes a zillion-dollar amp to make the HD800 sound great.

 

Conversely, I find the LCD headphones seriously lacking no matter what you plug them into -- there's no magic bullet for amplification.  All IMHO, etc.

post #117 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophonax View Post

 

I'd agree that meet impressions do not give the whole story, but I believe that they can be valuable and are generally accurate in the larger sense.  For example, if I don't like the way a headphone sounds at a meet, I can be confident that I wouldn't like it in my own home either.  But as far as hearing subtle differences and nuances (between amps or sources, for example, or cables, if you believe in such a thing), meet conditions are certainly not ideal.

 

That being said, I agree pretty completely with Maxvla's review, based on both meet impressions, and listening impressions at home.  I've owned both the HD800 and LCD2 Rev 1, and I vastly preferred the former.  The LCD2 just lacked air and space in a serious way -- nothing subtle about it.  Whenever I tried to express that opinion back when the LCD2 was the new FOTM, I was always told I wasn't amping them properly.  Meet impressions at RMAF confirmed this wasn't the case, though -- I heard the LCD2 Rev 1, Rev 2, and the LCD3 on some of the most highly-recommended amplification for those headphones, and to my ears the same obvious spatial reproduction problems still persisted.  I don't necessarily think the spatial problems are specific to planar drivers, though -- the SR-009 sounded just fine to me in that regard.

 

On the other hand, I very much like the HD800, though I don't believe it to be perfect.  The treble is somewhat elevated, and I think the sharpness of the imaging is sacrificed somewhat for the exceptionally large and slightly diffuse soundstage.  But overall, I find the tonal and spatial presentation of this headphone to be very good, dynamics and detail are great, and comfort is unsurpassed.  The HD800 is my pick for the best dynamic or orthodynamic headphone on the market right now.  It just sounds natural to my ears.

 

On another note, am I the only person who doesn't find the HD800 to be finicky about amplification?  I've tried the HD800 at home on an Asgard, Valhalla, Lyr, WA2, Sonett, and GS-1 -- they all certainly sounded different, but the core HD800 sound was still there.  I think the headphone sounded good on all of those amps.  In meet listening, I've also heard the HD800 on other highly-regarded amps like the ZDSE, Mjolnir, and BHA-1 -- these amps may offer subtle, definitive improvements, but I didn't hear anything dramatic.  I really don't think it takes a zillion-dollar amp to make the HD800 sound great.

 

Conversely, I find the LCD headphones seriously lacking no matter what you plug them into -- there's no magic bullet for amplification.  All IMHO, etc.

The "closed-sounding" nature of Audeze headphones is by design. They have HEAVY, HEAVY damping sandwiching the drivers on both sides, also the somewhat constricting grills as well as the airtight earpads contribute to it. No amount of upstream setup tweaks or EQ could mitigate that.

 

That is to say, LCD2s or LCD3s are perfect candidates for a closed-back (re)design.

post #118 of 148

Yes, they make least amount of diff when cupping the outer part off the phones when compared to other open cans. Wonder what they would sound like as a closed design? 

post #119 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by s4s4s4 View Post

Yes, they make least amount of diff when cupping the outer part off the phones when compared to other open cans. Wonder what they would sound like as a closed design? 


Mad Dogs don't really sound that much more closed and with Alpha Pads pretty close in timbre. Wish Audeze were as comfortable though.

post #120 of 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by s4s4s4 View Post

Yes, they make least amount of diff when cupping the outer part off the phones when compared to other open cans. Wonder what they would sound like as a closed design? 

 

I heard the closed LCD-2 prototype at CanJam, and thought it sounded better than the open variant (probably just because of the lowered noise floor).  I didn't feel the soundstage was much different.  It seems like that's their next plan anyway, so it probably won't be too much longer until there's one out on the market.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › My take on LCD-2 and HD800