googleli
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2008
- Posts
- 2,300
- Likes
- 59
It's not that it's a bad word, or that people are thinking that you are using it as derogatory. It's that folks are suggesting that it is an entirely inaccurate descriptor for the sound of the LCD-2's, neither rev. 1 or rev. 2. The shoe doesn't fit. The cream's turned to butter. This is a dead parrot! I'd agree, it is not a good descriptor at all and it the fact that you're using it over and over again makes me wonder whether we're listening to the same headphones (and I've had both versions). Creamy implies to me something thick, rich, and heavy - the LCD-2's are none of these.
I'd also disagree that the LCD-2's are not transparent. The actually excel in that way to my ears, the rev. 2 a bit more than the rev.1.
It's like a car wreck and a soap opera all in one. And it just keeps on going...you kind of can't take you're eyes off it.
As far as the Rev 1 is concerned, the mid and mid bass are relatively rich, full, but not heavy, compared with the dynamic flagships. This made the Rev 1 so enjoyable. IMO the Rev 2 lost this touch to a certain extent. And by saying "not transparent" it is just in comparison with the the 009. The gap is quite wide but overall it is still quite transparent I'd say. These things are all in relative terms and merely stating agree or disagree without any reference point gets us nowhere. And again, I am not the only one who used this word to describe the LCD2, and I am not even the one who started using it to describe the mid range.