Thanks for the write-up. Yet again your description has convinced me the LCD-2C is almost the twin of the latest LCD-2F, down to its only real ‘flaw’ - the slight upper mid shoutiness. I’m quite sure the two use identical drivers, with the only difference being the use of fazors, which possibly diffuses the shoutiness slightly on the 2C and elevates the bass a touch. I also appreciate the slight treble extension over the pre-fazor 2, which adds a touch of sparkle to the overall warm-of-neutral voicing. I’m currently testing out a friend’s HD600, and to me the latest 2F (and therefore 2C) is a natural upgrade to the classic Senn, doing just about everything bigger and better with a bigger and more involving soundstage, bar the touch of upper mid wobble.Pre-fazor LCD-2.2 "unicorn" vs LCD-2C
I'm pretty familiar with the entire LCD lineup as I've owned or extensively home demoed every LCD except the pre-fazor LCD-3 (and some other minor updates like the 2016 LCD-XC's). For my A/B testing, I used the same cable for both headphones (Norne Solv-X) and tested on 2 different rigs (Cavalli Liquid Gold/Yggdrasil and a Audio-GD Master 11). I used 30 or so different lossless tracks of a wide range of genre's.
Overall this was a pretty easy (and enjoyable) comparison. It's been several years since I've heard an LCD-2, which was the first high end headphones I ever purchased. I owned an early LCD-2F and a pre-fazor LCD-2.2 at the same time and ended up preferring the LCD-2F. However, I was pretty new to headphones and didn't have the knowledge (and ears) that I do today. Plus I didn't have anywhere near the quality gear to properly drive either of them. That can make a big difference.
Cutting straight to the chase, the 2C is technically better than the 2.2 in almost every facet. Better bass (quality/impact), wider soundstage, better imaging/instrument separation, easier to drive, more extended treble, and the drivers are faster (they have a thinner diaphragm). BUT, they're missing that midrange magic that the pre-fazor 2.2's are known for. I find that the 2.2's more closed in soundstage helps create a bigger, lusher presentation that really envelopes you in the music. They also seem to have a more overall cohesive, natural sound compared to the 2C's.
The bottom line is, the LCD-2C and the pre-fazor LCD-2.2 are 2nd cousins at best. Yes, they do share some similar traits and looks, but for the most part they're two different sounding beasts. There's a lot to like about these headphones and I quite enjoy both for different reasons. That being said, my personal preference goes to the 2.2's. Overall I found myself enjoying them more on a track-to-track basis, and many times listened to the test tracks longer than intended. I'm also listening to them as I'm writing this. In the end though, it'll probablybe a toss up to the listener's preference.
I do think the 2C is a very solid performer in today's market, especially for the initial intro pricing. In the next few weeks I'm going to be doing a $500-800 planar review round-up (2C, Sundara, Aeon Flow Open, AR-H1 and possibly a few others) and I'll have a more in-depth review of them. One thing I will mention is that I did notice some slight shoutiness in the upper-midrange of the 2C's. I didn't find it that bad, but noticed it nevertheless.
Again this is all going on extensive descriptions and chart comparisons, since the 2C is not available in my country and I’m more than happy with my 2016 aluminum 2F to buy essentially the same headphone in a slightly different shell.
Last edited: