[Lohb]

There are very small dongle-sized custom tailored line-level hardware EQ units that go between DAC and amp that can be had from the more DIY oriented/modder audio hardware forums.
 
Can spin any can towards flat-line monitor FR or Harmon Kardon curve without artifacts getting in signal like digital EQ can cause.

 

[MRC001]

Implemented properly, analog EQ is not technically superior to digital. Either can avoid audible side effects if implemented properly and gentle slopes are used. Digital EQ done properly at 24 bit with noise shaped dither can be more transparent. Of course, either can be done poorly.

 

[Lohb]

Implemented properly, analog EQ is not technically superior to digital. Either can avoid audible side effects if implemented properly and gentle slopes are used. Digital EQ done properly at 24 bit with noise shaped dither can be more transparent. Of course, either can be done poorly.

any specific AU/VST parametric plug-in you use with LCD-2 ?

 

[MRC001]

Same one I posted earlier in this thread: +3 dB @ 4600 Q=0.67 or 3 dB / octave. Or +2 for something more subtle. It corrects some of the LCD-2 FR dip, restoring some treble detail but is gentle enough not to change the character of the sound.

With the 2016 I find this unnecessary. It's a touch brighter and more neutral out of the box.

 

[marcan]

Any eq will always impart the sound in some way.  Linear digital eq will keep the phase consistency but will add post and pre ringing, the latter being the more unnatural because it creates noise before the transient winch is impossible in real life. Maximum phase don't have pre ringing but has post ringing and will impart the phase consistency.
Analog eq can't be linear. Some are appreciate because they add a pleasant distortion.
Anyway I try to avoid eq, It creates too much artifacts and gives all the tracks the same sound.

 

[MRC001]

  Any eq will always impart the sound in some way.  Linear digital eq will keep the phase consistency but will add post and pre ringing, the latter being the more unnatural because it creates noise before the transient winch is impossible in real life. Maximum phase don't have pre ringing but has post ringing and will impart the phase consistency.
Analog eq can't be linear. Some are appreciate because they add a pleasant distortion.
Anyway I try to avoid eq, It creates too much artifacts and gives all the tracks the same sound.

There is some truth to that, especially with EQ having steep/narrow slopes (high Q). But the degree of this is often overstated. Parametric EQ using gradual slopes, applied properly in digital domain doesn't create any audible artifacts.
 
To illustrate this, earlier in this thread I posted an EQ challenge: A/B testing some audio clips I created using EQ with its reverse EQ.

 

[drwlf]

@heavyharmonies Let's hope you get a pair which suits your ears!
I'll be more than interested in your thoughts about the treble though, if you found the 400i "veiled" in that regard.

 

[uhhmike]

I thought the 400i was veiled too. Ended up selling. Very comfortable though

 

[drwlf]

I thought the 400i was veiled too. Ended up selling. Very comfortable though

I can't imagine we're talking about the same thing. How would you explain it?

 

[uhhmike]

I thought the he400i was a notch too dark/warm for my taste. It sounded lacking in liveliness sort of. I only had it briefly but couldn't really like it. I sold months ago.

 

[drwlf]

I thought the he400i was a notch too dark/warm for my taste. It sounded lacking in liveliness sort of. I only had it briefly but couldn't really like it. I sold months ago.

How differently do we hear stuff, and I guess it depends on your reference points as well.
Probably never heard the 400i described as veiled, or dark before.
Shure there might be some issues related to the transparency, congestion, but at its price point, and compared to other cans. I'd err the 400i on the side of brighter, thinner and mid-forward than neutral. Due to the treble energy/transients/impulse response, I wouldn't even call them particularly warm!
Oh well, better to leave the impressions on the appropriate threads.

 

[uhhmike]

Maybe it's in comparison to my main can at the time which was the ether open 1.1 which to me was bright and bad rough treble. I kind of liked the 400i just not enough to keep.

 

[WayTooCrazy]

I had the 400i and thought they were nice. I preferred the EL-8O (2016) to them by a bit, and the LCD-2F to those by a decent margin as well. I guess, I enjoy the Audeze sound.

 

[Jesse Oh]

Yeah 400i are anything but veiled to me. Definitely not overly warm. They are solid headphones but i find my lcd2.2's more luscious sounding which is why i use them more often.

 

[Lohb]

HFM stuff just look plasticky, no craftmanship pride.
HE-400 were my entry into the planar sound, but LCD-2 killed them especially on....everything.