[canuckaudioguy]

I'm intrigued to read these comments about the LCD-2F vs. the LCD-2.2, in that the latter is superior to the former. To each their own, I guess, but I have certainly not found the same.
 
I've been enjoying the LCD-2Fs immensely since receiving them back from Audeze after having the drivers replaced to get them Fazor'd. I loved my LCD-2s before, they were very enjoyable, but in my mind they had some drawbacks and that was mostly in the top end and in detail retrieval. The Fazor added a sense of space and clarity that was not present before - this opened the midrange up and allowed the mids to breathe better, which made an already natural sounding midrange even more compelling because it's not being clouded by the somewhat lack of top end and detail retrieval that the LCD-2.2 had. Soundstaging and especially imaging improved quite substantially - there is much more of a holographic effect with the headphones as compared to before. I felt like the soundstage was two dimensional and somewhat muddled before, but now it is pinpoint with space and a much more three dimensional quality to it. I have detected very little to no change in the bass. I do not feel like there is less extension or that the bass has dropped off in any way, although the new graph would support a bit of a deviation at the very bottom (which on 95% of music, you will not hear).
 
Perhaps the combination of gear I have, or the music I listen to, is what has allowed this improvement over the LCD-2.2 to the LCD-2F, but I am absolutely affirmative that it was an improvement and not a downgrade. The reason I wanted to add this is to give another opinion about the LCD-2.2 vs. LCD-2F. It is not always going to be the case that the LCD-2.2 will be superior. Certainly taste will be a factor, but there are some objective differences in the sound that I feel do make the LCD-2F a better headphone than the LCD-2.2.

 

[Lohb]

 
  Al I know is that after I replaced the stock leash the sound of my lcd2s improved very noticeably. After I upgraded the cable to the cable pro reverie all of my lcd2s shortcomings were ameliorated.
The stock leash really holds the lcd2 headphone back and not  by just a little amount.  With a cable upgrade the lcd2 really reveals its performance capabilities it sounds enormously better with a cable upgrade.

Then it must be a question of QUANTITY, as well as QUALITY because there is a bit of original factory soldered OFC cable between the mini-XLR and the planar. What I mean by quantity is your ratio of quality cable must be overcoming the limits you felt the stock cable had. If I buy decent cabling, I always make sure it goes right to the planar end-to-end same cable material. On the scale of SQ changes, from copper to different grades of copper its about the subtlest change, if any change at all. Money better spent upstream in the audio chain first IMO.

 

[WilCox]

if you have wood connectors then I believe that is a Rev1 not a Rev 2.

 
There are early release Rev 2 which have the angled wood connector housing same as the later Rev 1.

 

[Sound Eq]

I don't think that's the case at all.
 
EL-8 is positioned under LCD-2 w/ fazors, which I think is worse than non-fazor. Something about the new fazored models sounds a bit off to me. Not organic, not natural. Granted, there's more clarity, which is much needed with the LCD-2, but that clarity comes at the cost of a weird and confused soundstage, not as accurate/pin-point accurate as the non-fazor models.
 
----
 
Anyway, agreed HE-560 is far more comfortable than LCD-2. If that's an important factor, I think HE-560 is a no-brainer choice over LCD-2.

 


how much better do u thin the 560 is better than the lcd2, which has a warmer sound, and more bass

 

[Sound Eq]

   
Well, I'm officially jumping into this thread now, seeing as I've had the LCD-2 for a while.
 
I think modded HE-560 > LCD-3 w/ fazor, and by extension, that means LCD-2 w/ fazor as well. I don't know what's with fazor, but they make the treble a bit too confused sounding. Dry, tizzy, and somewhat muddy...? It may also be the new diaphragm material that they use with the new fazor model. Now... I know this goes against the majority of opinions here, but... that's my experience.
 
So if you're still on the fence, I'd say... just mod that HE-560 already.

 
Or you can also get an LCD-2 non-fazor and mod it. It's truly glorious after some mods.

what u mean by modding the lcd2

 

[linglingjr]

  Though I would invade this thread for an opinion. I am think of upgrading from my M100s (with XL pads) to a set of headphones. Currently, I only amp my headphones via Fiio E12 but my logic is that I would rather buy higher end headphones and build the DAC and amp behind them! Would the LCD 2.2 be a good upgrade for me, using the E12 amp for starters? I love the bass representation of the M100s and from what I have read the LCD 2.2's also have a rather nice bass extension which will have me begging for more!

If you're anything like a bass head, I think you'll be a little disappointed with the LCD-2s, especially with an E12.  Going from M100s all the way to audezes is quite a jump.  I'd recommend you try HD650s first and then start upgrading your components (aka get something better than the E12) before working your way up to the LCD-2s.  
 
It's much more satisfying that way imo.

 

[Bill-P]

  I'm intrigued to read these comments about the LCD-2F vs. the LCD-2.2, in that the latter is superior to the former. To each their own, I guess, but I have certainly not found the same.
 
I've been enjoying the LCD-2Fs immensely since receiving them back from Audeze after having the drivers replaced to get them Fazor'd. I loved my LCD-2s before, they were very enjoyable, but in my mind they had some drawbacks and that was mostly in the top end and in detail retrieval. The Fazor added a sense of space and clarity that was not present before - this opened the midrange up and allowed the mids to breathe better, which made an already natural sounding midrange even more compelling because it's not being clouded by the somewhat lack of top end and detail retrieval that the LCD-2.2 had. Soundstaging and especially imaging improved quite substantially - there is much more of a holographic effect with the headphones as compared to before. I felt like the soundstage was two dimensional and somewhat muddled before, but now it is pinpoint with space and a much more three dimensional quality to it. I have detected very little to no change in the bass. I do not feel like there is less extension or that the bass has dropped off in any way, although the new graph would support a bit of a deviation at the very bottom (which on 95% of music, you will not hear).
 
Perhaps the combination of gear I have, or the music I listen to, is what has allowed this improvement over the LCD-2.2 to the LCD-2F, but I am absolutely affirmative that it was an improvement and not a downgrade. The reason I wanted to add this is to give another opinion about the LCD-2.2 vs. LCD-2F. It is not always going to be the case that the LCD-2.2 will be superior. Certainly taste will be a factor, but there are some objective differences in the sound that I feel do make the LCD-2F a better headphone than the LCD-2.2.

 
Note that the LCD-2 without fazors can be modded, since there is room for that. The fazor model cannot be modded since the fazors take up a good amount of space already.
 
Also a modded LCD-2 would have more top end as well, while retaining the same bass linearity. I already posted measurements of my modded LCD-2 a page or so ago. This levels the playing field significantly, so it's not just a matter of combination or gears. I personally think the non-fazor models are just better, as they're a better fit for someone who'd prefer more linearity for bass, and also when there is room for adjustment.
 
Beyond that, I honestly don't feel the soundstage of the fazored model is bigger. It's more diffused, so it may give the impression that it "surrounds" the listener (much like the HD800, though the HD800 does this better), but it does this at the expense of sharpness, or precision of imaging. And by that, I mean... the non-fazor model may sound not as sharp, but it's cleaner and clearer, and instruments stand out more by themselves, whereas the fazored model to me sounded more diffused, so instruments in the same locations may blend together. I've also noticed this on the LCD-3, so it's not just a problem with the LCD-2. Another community that I frequent has also voiced some agreement with my assessment that the fazored models sound a bit less "precise" that way. One popular explanation there is that Audeze has changed the material for the diaphragm from the old non-fazor model to something with more consistency for the new fazored models after those LCD-3 failures. That's also why LCD-3 failures are replaced with fazored drivers even if the headphone originally came with non-fazored drivers.
 
In the grand scheme of things, I guess the stock tuning of the fazored models may sound better to a certain degree to some, but I personally think the tradeoffs are not worth it, and I'd rather spend the time to tune the non-fazor models a bit more, and then they'd surpass the fazored models quite easily.
 

how much better do u thin the 560 is better than the lcd2, which has a warmer sound, and more bass

 
Depends on which LCD-2 we are talking about. I think HE-560 is better than the LCD-2 with fazors by a good margin... at everything. It's also harder to drive (more current needed) so you'll have to pay more attention to amplification than with the LCD-2, which is relatively easy to drive in comparison.
 
But I think the non-fazor LCD-2 beats the HE-560 cleanly. Especially the rev.2 model with a bit more top end.
 

  what u mean by modding the lcd2

 
I opened it up, added more damping materials in the back of the driver on top of the stuff Audeze already put in (square piece of fuzzy felt, and then another circular piece of felt on top of that one directly behind the steel grill). Some may opt to remove the grill to get more treble and open-ness, but I choose not to, because removing the grill causes bass to drop by a good margin. Also treble can be elevated with good damping in the back, and good diffuse pattern in the front on top of the driver, much like fazor, but with diffraction and interference as the driving principle rather than with reflections like with fazors.
 
It sounds more complicated than it really is, and essentially, all I did was put more stuffs into my LCD-2. And now it sounds and measures better.

 

[1974]

 
how much better do u thin the 560 is better than the lcd2, which has a warmer sound, and more bass

 
Bill P is on a fazor bashing marathon!
 
Anyway, I don't have the 560 but I have the 500. For me the LCD-2 seem to do everything a little bit better than what I've heard from the HiFiMan range, with maybe the exception of treble which you can compensate for with a little EQing. Audeze cans definitely seem to be warmer, and while the bass quantity is around the same the LCD-2 has the slight edge on quality. You mileage may vary, see if you can try them all out.

 

[TMRaven]

Or it could be that Audeze is still having quality control issues.  The LCD2 rev 2 I auditioned at the time of having the HE-400 left me unimpressed.  I thought it was barely better than the HE-400.

 

[1974]

  Or it could be that Audeze is still having quality control issues.  The LCD2 rev 2 I auditioned at the time of having the HE-400 left me unimpressed.  I thought it was barely better than the HE-400.

 
That's a surprising statement coming from someone with a lot of experience. I generally like HiFiMan headphones but thought the 400s sounded like garbage. It's all subjective I guess.

 

[TMRaven]

Or Audeze's quality control.

 

[ShadowProject]

  If you're anything like a bass head, I think you'll be a little disappointed with the LCD-2s, especially with an E12.  Going from M100s all the way to audezes is quite a jump.  I'd recommend you try HD650s first and then start upgrading your components (aka get something better than the E12) before working your way up to the LCD-2s.  
 
It's much more satisfying that way imo.

I have thought about that same concept. I thought maybe it was a bit much a jump all at once. Thing is I really want a pair of planar headphones and the only options I have are Audeze or HifiMAN. My understanding is HiFiMAN headphones are rather lackluster unless driven well.
 
Coming back to your suggesting, what is a good intermediate headphone? Why the HD 650.
 
The LCD 2s just seem like a great headphone that I can continue to improve as my budget goes. But then again I guess that can be said for alot of high end headphones.

 

[hodgjy]

In case anyone had doubts how the LCD 2.2F can handle classical music, you should remove them.  I'm listening to Leonard Bernstein's conducting of the 1812 Overture, and it's glorious.  Excellent instrument placement, organic strings, thunderous drums, and brass that sounds like it's in the room with me.

 

[linglingjr]

 
I have thought about that same concept. I thought maybe it was a bit much a jump all at once. Thing is I really want a pair of planar headphones and the only options I have are Audeze or HifiMAN. My understanding is HiFiMAN headphones are rather lackluster unless driven well.
 
Coming back to your suggesting, what is a good intermediate headphone? Why the HD 650.
 
The LCD 2s just seem like a great headphone that I can continue to improve as my budget goes. But then again I guess that can be said for alot of high end headphones.

 A lot of people say that HD600/650s are unbeatable for the price, I agree with them.  The 650s are warmer than the HD600s but they both have a warmer than neutral sound signature.  I think it'd give you a good idea of the bass presence you'll get with audezes.  It's more quality than quantity.

 

[DavidA]

  In case anyone had doubts how the LCD 2.2F can handle classical music, you should remove them.  I'm listening to Leonard Bernstein's conducting of the 1812 Overture, and it's glorious.  Excellent instrument placement, organic strings, thunderous drums, and brass that sounds like it's in the room with me.

I agree, its great for classical, love Itzhak Perlman's Four Seasons on the LCD-2f