Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Ordered new Audeze LCD 2s, expected 2.2s got 2.3s!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ordered new Audeze LCD 2s, expected 2.2s got 2.3s!!!

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 

Ordered some LCD 2s directly from Audeze and received them this week.  Listened for 4-5 hrs using an Audioengine DAC (only DAC I have at the momemt) and a Schiit Lyr with stock tubes and then Bugle Boys.  I didn't get the amazing well controlled deep bass that everyone has been raving about so figured I needed to try another amp or needed to burn them in.  Switched to a Yamaha RX-V1070 bypassing all tone controls using same DAC, actually got better highs out of them but bass was unchanged.  


Requested a sound profile for my set and bass roll off is pretty much what I expected to see,  Audeze said that starting in 2014 they revised the LCD v2.2 to a v2.3.  They are supposed to have less distortion, they are more efficient, and they are all made within .5 DB so all v2.3s should have this sound signature.  Something about revisions and fazor plate technology.  Now I'm torn on returning them or keeping them.  I don't care about the dip at 20khz because I seriously doubt many people can hear 20khz but the roll off on the low end is unacceptable IMO.   I've never read reviews complaining about distortion so puzzled why they would give something up on the low end despite all of the great reviews. 




Edited by 2thfixr - 5/21/14 at 1:52pm
post #2 of 10
Thread Starter 

Just thought I'd add, they still sound amazing.  I've been doing A-B comparisons with my Sennheiser HD650s and Beyerdynamic DT990s.  Just wondering if I'm making the right move keeping these "improved" cans or maybe pick up a set of pre-owned v2.2s... thoroughly confused. 

post #3 of 10

Funny you mention this, as I went through the exact same thing recently. Ordered the LCD-2's expecting miraculous bass, ended up getting the fazor version and was somewhat disappointed. I also have the HE-500's and was able to compare the two directly, and the Hifiman definitely went deeper and hit harder. That was not what I was expecting...


So I decided to return the fazor LCD-2's and get a pair of Rev. 2 second hand. Unfortunately I had to return my fazor pair before the Rev. 2 arrived, and I was not able to do a side by side comparison. So this is going off memory...


- The Rev. 2 have a warmer sound signature than the fazors. The bass does go deeper and hits harder on the Rev. 2. However, I wouldn't call it a night and day difference. 

- Surprisingly, the Rev. 2 have a slightly wider soundstage than the fazors.

- The imaging / instrument separation of the fazors is the best I have ever heard and clearly better than the Rev. 2.

- The fazors were much more comfortable. My Rev. 2 headband is not as comfortable and the pads feel stiffer than the fazors. I'm not sure if this is do to my Rev. 2 being used, or an actual difference between the models.


All in all I am pleased with my Rev. 2 and plan on keeping them. I would recommend that you decide what is more important to you... Bass vs imaging / instrument separation. That is the key differences between the two in my experience.


Hope that helps!

post #4 of 10

Interesting graph...looks to me that it's rolling off faster than my chart (fazor model as well). I suspect the "best" version really depends on the music you listen to, and your source. I've found the bass impact and quality to be highly dependent on the amp, which isn't really a surprise. Running a tube amp, I personally do not want more warmth, and the bass can be tuned bit with tube selection. Given the superior imaging, I think the current version is the best for me. With my current setup, the bass is stunning. However, it sounds comparatively thin, loose and untextured on my cheap Maverick Audio solid state (despite having plenty of volume headroom). Properly fed, the imaging is exceptional and has become one of my favorite (and unexpected) aspects of the LCD-2F. Best of luck sorting things out!


Here's my graph for reference:


post #5 of 10
Thread Starter 

We're probably splitting hairs but yours look better.  Mine starts rolling off between 50-60hz while yours is pretty flat up to 30-40hz.  30hz and below is rare according to the Audeze engineer but IMO 40-60hz is well within the meat of the sub-bass freqs.   I can't deny that my LCDs sound outstanding but given that our graphs are identical otherwise, I think I could do better with a replacement.  At nearly $1100 all in, I'm already breathing rarified air and I WANT the copious amounts of sub-bass that amount of money buys!  The interesting thing is that I was told Audeze tolerances are within 5db so a 5hz extension with a replacement set due to production variance is unlikely.  Your sound graph is telling me otherwise! 

Edited by 2thfixr - 5/21/14 at 10:50pm
post #6 of 10
Thread Starter 

Update:  After a long talk with Audeze I've shipped my LCDs back and a new set is inbound. 

post #7 of 10

To me LCD2.x's were kind of mid-fi headphone with very congested mid. Sound stage is horrible on these headphones.

I will spend little more money and get TH900 if you are really into the bass.

post #8 of 10

Funny. I actually find them better than my HD600's in terms of sound stage with my current amp setup; plenty of air, excellent separation, layering and very precise imaging. Bass quality is highly dependent on the amp as well. On my cheapo solid state (Maverick Audio D1), they take on the quality's you describe, despite having a ton of volume headroom. 

post #9 of 10
To the OP,how did things work out with the 2nd set of LCD-2's Auduze sent you?
post #10 of 10

Looks like mine roll off exactly below 30 Hz, which is perfectly fine IMO - there's nothing useful in there anyway.


I love the bass on mine.


Wonder if OP got the replacement? 


New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Ordered new Audeze LCD 2s, expected 2.2s got 2.3s!!!