[MacedonianHero]

Interesting article from Playback on the LCD-2s:
 
http://www.avguide.com/review/audeze-lcd-2-planar-magnetic-headphones-playback-47
 
 

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Very sensible post.
 
In my experience most well made dynamic headphones sound more alike (as in all sound good) than different when driven from a top-end amp with a high-end source. Sure, there are slight differences in how each phones present music, but they all sound good. I can't believe people are buying two or even three pairs of essentially the same phones so they can critically listen for those nuances. Fundamentally, headphones, no matter how well they're made or how hi-end, have a huge handicap in music making comparing to speakers. Does anyone remember when was the last they listened to any pair of headphones and felt a chill down their spine cuz the music sound so real they are in disbelieve? Enough said.

Yes, happens quite often.  Does anyone remember the last time they heard live un-amplified acoustic instruments and felt a chill down their spine from the beauty and emotion of the music and passion conveyed by the musicians?
 
 

 

[chesebert]

I guess I am more jaded with headphones. I don't get this feeling with headphones anymore, no matter how high-end. I need to get my "surreal fix" with decent spks.
 
Quote:

Yes, happens quite often.  Does anyone remember the last time they heard live un-amplified acoustic instruments and felt a chill down their spine from the beauty and emotion of the music and passion conveyed by the musicians?
 
 

 
 

 

[jax]

Quote:

 

WA, have you considered the possibility that your brain could be psycho-acoustically adjusting to the sound of the rev.2?
 
I have found that break-in with headphones is usually do to that as much as to the headphone itself physically changing.

You said "I have found..." How did you manage to do that?  How exactly do you distinguish the truth of what precisely is happening?   Brain scans?  Microscopic examinations of the drivers before and after?   What has drawn you to the conclusion that it is one or the other or both at play?   As to your questioning WA - how would he know either way? 
 
There's a universe of infinite variables at play in making any such impressions, regardless of who you are.  We are all entirely unique as our fingerprints and perceive the world, through our senses and our mind in ways that are just as unique.  The best we can hope for here is simply for someone reporting what they hear and take it FWIW - someone else's impressions.  You will never know exactly why they are what they are.  I really believe it goes without saying that there are all kinds of things at play.  You may discover, when you experience the same thing someone else has shared impressions of, that you experience it in similar ways, or very much different.  Any thread here will demonstrate just that.  
 
I happen to have experienced many aspects of the r.2 quite similar ways as WA has taken the time and effort to share here in pretty extensive detail.  I find far more in common with his own findings than with any departures from what he's reported.  The one place I would not post with quite as much confidence, mostly because I think that aural memory is a loaded subject, is in comparing the two versions. I'd suggest that my impressions be taken with a bag of salt in that regard. I would certainly be happy to modify them when I have a chance to listen side-by-side, which I do not at the moment. That's just my personal choice.  Generally the comments here seem to reflect what I do believe I remember of my rev. 1:  The rev.2 is  faster and more revealing and with greater clarity, while giving the mids a bit less fullness and tonal texture/weight than I remember.  Soundstaging is markedly improved and I am far more aware of a spacial representation whereas with the rev.1 it seemed more closed in and less clear separation.  I recall the lows being more pronounced with the r1, or rather they called attention to themselves more.  The r.2 seems to be offering up more definition in the lows without calling attention to them.  Certainly the r.2 seems to also bring some life and sparkle to the highs, whereas they seemed more recessed with the r.1.  Seems like a clear win for the r.2, but, somehow I felt the r.1 was the more musical, and the more engaging of the two.  I think it had mostly to do with the midrange emphasis which seemed to be more forward and to have more tonal weight.  Not unlike what one might ascribe to a tube component and a classic sense of warmth - it is a very pleasing, albeit colored, version of presentation.  If it came down to a simple way to describe the difference I'd say the r.1 errs to the more musical/colored/warm/pleasing, while the r.2 errs towards the more neutral/revealing/spacial/analytical.  Again, this is from memory so your bag of salt is required here.  I'd completely concur with others who've noticed burn-in, or a change over time in the early phases of ownership.  Is it in my head, or did the drivers actually change with some constant vibrations for many hours?  Damned if I know.  All I can tell you is what I perceive. 
 
 
 

 

[wower]

 
Quote:

Interesting article from Playback on the LCD-2s:
 
http://www.avguide.com/review/audeze-lcd-2-planar-magnetic-headphones-playback-47
 
 

Thanks for the link!

 

[Argo Duck]

Thanks! That's the best (on p.2) description I have read yet of what I hear with mine (rev 1). To the point and without ambiguous language
Quote:

Interesting article from Playback on the LCD-2s:
 
http://www.avguide.com/review/audeze-lcd-2-planar-magnetic-headphones-playback-47
 
 

 

 

[tme110]

I do like the LCD-2 for movies but it's also the one thing I like listening to my hd650's with better.  Though you'd still need an amp and I also agree the LCD-2 would be overkill.  For something non-amped maybe the M50?  But if you get something like the 650 that may start your interest in headphones. (yes, clearly the LCD well help you start your HP interest too but at $1000 you might as well start with something more 'normal')
 
Quote:

That was the main reason of writing here: it is worth buying this one for most of the time watching to movies.  
If you do not recommend it, why might this be and what do you think an alternative would be?
 
Thx.
 

 

 

[Alghazanth]

Quote:

 Does anyone remember when was the last they listened to any pair of headphones and felt a chill down their spine cuz the music sound so real they are in disbelieve? Enough said.

 
 


 

Actually yes, happens very often to me with the rev1. It's amazing.
 
 

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

WA, have you considered the possibility that your brain could be psycho-acoustically adjusting to the sound of the rev.2?
 
I have found that break-in with headphones is usually do to that as much as to the headphone itself physically changing.

Ok I'm going to jump in one more time since I think you're asking me a legitimate question for which I do have a very legitimate answer.  I can't tell anymore if someone is busting my chops or asking me a real question. I will assume it is real and sincere.
 
I am very adept at pyscho-acousticaly adjusting to sound.  I know when I am doing it, I know when it is happening. I know when to compensate and how to compensate. It's not a "Super Power" (I imagine people say this stuff to chide me in a humorous way but I am not sure)   It's just a developed skill I have had to obtain, kind of against my will actually. 
 
This is how it comes about.  When you sit in an edit suite to begin your day you become pyscho-acousticaly aware of the room you are going to work in.  The room you are going to mix in.  every mixing suite is different, different acoustics, different systems, different sizes.  They all all different.  You have to pick up on that instantly when you start the day of mixing.   It can take a little while if it is a mixing room you are not used to.  So the day starts.  You start playing back tracks, you become  pyscho-acousticaly adjusted to the room, to the sound system,  you get to know quickly what the room is all about especially if you have worked in it before.  Then the day goes on.  You bring in different tracks, you EQ them, you compress some things, limit other things, cut things up, mix in effects. Producers, Directors talk in your ear, hours go by and for sure now you are  pyscho-acousticaly adjusted to the situation. To your mix. To the nuances in your mix. To the balance of your mix. 
 
But then more time goes by, many more hours,  more playback occurs.  you have found the playback volume you feel comfortable with in the room you are using and you keep it there.  More hours go by,  more mixing, more cutting up of tracks editing them together, more EQ, more compression, now something begins to happen.  You begin to get tired. After 6-8 hours of this your ears start to become fatigued.   Pyscho-acousticaly your brain is changing from the fatigue.  The natural state of things now is to compensate for fatigue by changing the playback volume you have come to use in the room all day.   pyscho-acousticaly your brain needs to compensate, your ears are getting fatigued  You learn over the years to recognize this  pyscho-acoustic change and NOT to compensate.  The big mistake is when your ears become fatigued you begin to mix the content louder . Your mind is begging you to  pyscho-acousticaly compensate for the fatigue your ears are experiencing.  So you recognize this and you don't compensate because what is happening is a brain thing, a  pyscho-acoustic thing. Things sound different now but they are not any different than they were.
 
Changing how you mix levels throughout the day is a rookie mistake, you learn to recognize what is happening.   Guys who are just beginners at mixing will have programs that start out at one listening level and the volume will steadily increase through the show and then be overcompensated at the end of the show.   
 
Deal with this kind of thing in an environment like that day after day session after session under pressure for decades and you will be able to tell when your brain is  pyscho-acousticaly experiencing a change and when it is not.   I don't know any other way to legitimize my acoustic perception than to detail my working experience and how that experience has helped me develop some abilities.  I don't do it to show off or proclaim any super human power. It's just an explanation of experience that has helped and allowed me to develop an aural memory and an analytical bent towards sound reproduction.  It's not bragging it's just a torturous way I paid my mortgage for 24 years ( and fed my audiophile addiction thru the years).
 
So I hope this has explained in some part to some point of legitimacy about the subject of whether I know if real changes from burn in  are occurring.

 

[johnwmclean]

In regards to burn in, I consider myself very skeptical. So much so I thought the hell with it and listened straight up to my new rev2 straight out of the box.
I didn’t much care for the sound, grainy and closed in, I wanted my rev1’s back. The second night and clocking just on 4 hours the drivers things were just the same, another 4 hour listening session with no change, feeling disappointed at this stage. Third night 8 hours clocked on the driver, after two hours there was a switch - the driver seemed to relax and things started smoothing, bass extension improved. I was quite taken by the transformation and decided to leave the phones on over night with itunes on shuffle, at a fairly loud listening level.
I know I don’t have the same phone I had new, after 20hrs they really do transform. That’s from a die hard skeptic. BTW I never noticed this with the rev1, they sounded good from day one.

 

[wink]

They probably sounded good and got better.......... tee hee...!!!

 

[wink]

WA, great post.
 
I can go into a music store and audition a CD on their piece of musical furniture and make a judgement on how it would sound on my system.
I am either spot on or in the ballpark when I play the CD.
 
It comes, as you so eloquently put it, through years of critical listening.
 
There is also the problem most people don't recognise when disputing other peoples' posts.
This is the fact that we don't all have the same hearing abilities.
The person who can't hear the difference in different cables is like the person who can't do a cartwheel and so therefore no one else can either.....
Except you can see a gymnast do a cartwheel, you can't hear what someone else hears.

 

[johnwmclean]

Good post wink. I can still manage a fairly eloquent cartwheel.
 

 
 
 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

bass extension improved

Question: How does the bass extension improve when they measure ruler flat fresh from the factory? Is the sub-bass now above the mid-bass? That could be easily measured. Maybe ask Tyll to remeasure his LCD-2s? He's probably been using them for a while now.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Question: How does the bass extension improve when they measure ruler flat fresh from the factory? Is the sub-bass now above the mid-bass? That could be easily measured. Maybe ask Tyll to remeasure his LCD-2s? He's probably been using them for a while now.

They say the r2 is linear now down to 5Hz...doesn't really matter since most of us can't hear below 20Hz. But a lighter driver can make the response more surreal.