[purrin]

Quote:

No at all, no offense taken whatsoever. 

 

 

 OK, that means I'm going to have to start giving you a harder time! 

 

[kwkarth]

LOL!  

 

[rhythmdevils]

Discussion is the only interesting thing about head-fi. Its great when it can be fierce but not personal.

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

 
Quote:

After owning the LCD-2 for three weeks and then also hearing them on different setups at the meet, I can confidently say that they do not quite do it for me as much as I had thought. They are indeed excellent headphones, and I appreciate what they do well, but I think this forum may possibly be over exaggerating their sound quality. I may very well get criticized for these statements but I just wanted to let people know my point of view in case it helps those unacquainted with the headphones.
 
It's quite interesting how much this FOTM mentality, with the fact that there are about 5-6 people on this forum that repeatedly post on the 4-5 threads about these cans can really do to convince people these may be the be all end all of headphones.
 
It is difficult for me to say that the LCD-2s performed on par with the Stax Omegas or O2s, or even the 507 on FrankCooter's setup. Not only that but the HD800 and maybe the T1 and HE6 as well seemed to do be more to my liking than the LCD-2s. There is something about the cans being a little congested or lacking in the high end that makes the music sound veiled. I do think they are in the same playing field in terms of detail and resolution, but I hope that people aren't misleading everyone that these cans do indeed hold a higher status than the others.
 
I've seen some statements on here from some members that insist as fact that the LCD-2 are a step above the HD800 or other aforementioned cans. However, this is not necessarily the case- especially to my ears. Not here to bash the LCD-2, as they still are an excellent pair of headphones and I would own them as well if I had the money, but just warning others not to take the opinions of those that post every other post on this thread as the only opinions on the playing field. Much of the time, members of this forum, and of course including myself, can become a little stubborn with their stance on a particular headphone's status and it can skew the true opinions too!

I think your point about the LCD-2 has surfaced many times in the LCD-2 threads. Coming directly from the LCD-1 that someone wrote about as being able to reproduce bat sonar, I found the LCD-2 to sound a bit closed-in, lacking in air, being a bit rolled-off in the high end. I was underwhelmed, except for the excellent nuanced and textured bass. Now, after some tweaks to my setup, and extensive listening to the LCD-2 over some months, it's all different. It now sounds airy and open, despite that I often use the LCD-1 as well. Strangely, none of my friends who have just put them on for a short listen have mentioned it sounding closed-in to them. Maybe it really does sound different with my current gear.
 
 
(The LCD-1is much lighter, has a less fragile plastic headset, and has velour pads that I sometimes prefer. So it's easier to just pick it up and use for me, since I have to put everything that's fragile away high up out of reach of an one-year-old.)
 
Speaking of details, I have tweaked numerous vintage orthodymanics, and I have noticed that when getting them more "full-range" then it sometimes sounds like detail goes missing. But in fact, it's just that since more of the recording can be heard, some details no longer sticks out. Of course, there could be more detailed headphones out there than the LCD series. I have avoided listening to even more expensive cans.
 
If one wants brighter cans, there are numerous alternatives. But the full bodied sound, without excessive brightness, that the LCD-2 presents, there are few competitors to that.

 

[donthuang]

I doesn't know LCD2 if its really over-damping


But i know Hifiman's HE5 is much heavy damping, and makes its hard to calculate correct Q factor.
http://sonove.angry.jp/HiFiMAN_HE_5.html

p.s. According here , there some ref of dynamics
http://fuchinove.ninja-mania.jp/

HD650：

FS 83.4837 Hz
QTS 0.3823
ZMIN 318.1676 Ohm
ZMAX 530.0244 Ohm

HD800：

FS 97.9738 Hz
QTS 0.1951
ZMIN 340.5256 Ohm
ZMAX 772.3651 Ohm


p.p.s

Headroom's HE5le measure



The interesting HF jagged




impulse response.

 

[K3cT]

Quote:

 

Five systems with quality time (quieter) on three. Because some of rigs belonged to vendors, PM me if you want the bloody details. But trust me, the PWD/Peak was not the limiting factor here. The LCD-2s actually had very good synergy with my setup - much much better than the super majority of the other setups.
 
I do want to re-iterate that I'm purposefully emphasizing the negatives and just being nit-picky. But I think you have to when comparing high quality phones such as the HD800 to LCD2. If it would make people feel better I can start crapping more on the HD800s. 

 I do have to say that I was pleasantly surprised this time around with the HD800s on epoc's rig.
 
But as epoc mentioned above, because of the FOTM mentality, the LCD-2s were a big letdown.

Well, no need to get defensive. I'm curious about those other five systems, let's continue this in PM shall we? 

 

[Skylab]

 
Quote:

After owning the LCD-2 for three weeks and then also hearing them on different setups at the meet, I can confidently say that they do not quite do it for me as much as I had thought. They are indeed excellent headphones, and I appreciate what they do well, but I think this forum may possibly be over exaggerating their sound quality. I may very well get criticized for these statements but I just wanted to let people know my point of view in case it helps those unacquainted with the headphones.
 
It's quite interesting how much this FOTM mentality, with the fact that there are about 5-6 people on this forum that repeatedly post on the 4-5 threads about these cans can really do to convince people these may be the be all end all of headphones.
 
It is difficult for me to say that the LCD-2s performed on par with the Stax Omegas or O2s, or even the 507 on FrankCooter's setup. Not only that but the HD800 and maybe the T1 and HE6 as well seemed to do be more to my liking than the LCD-2s. There is something about the cans being a little congested or lacking in the high end that makes the music sound veiled. I do think they are in the same playing field in terms of detail and resolution, but I hope that people aren't misleading everyone that these cans do indeed hold a higher status than the others.
 
I've seen some statements on here from some members that insist as fact that the LCD-2 are a step above the HD800 or other aforementioned cans. However, this is not necessarily the case- especially to my ears. Not here to bash the LCD-2, as they still are an excellent pair of headphones and I would own them as well if I had the money, but just warning others not to take the opinions of those that post every other post on this thread as the only opinions on the playing field. Much of the time, members of this forum, and of course including myself, can become a little stubborn with their stance on a particular headphone's status and it can skew the true opinions too!

 
I bolded two sections of your post above, which I think are important.  SOME people, me included, think the LCD-2 sound better than the other current TOTL headphones.  That is merely our opinion, and nothing more.  It's just as reasonable for people who like the LCD-2 to "make statements that the LCD-2 are a step above the HD800", or any other headphone, because this is simply a matter of opinion, as it is for people to voice their dissension.
 
Timing and perspective are funny.  The HD800 were once the headphone that it was verboten to criticize, and when I leveled one small criticism against them in my review, I was vilified by many. Over time, however, the natural order of things has occurred.  Some people love the HD800; others do not.  This will continue to be the case with the LCD-2 as well.  Not everyone is going to like them.  This is just how it is. It's important that people who do not like the LCD-2 speak up, and it's just as important that people who do like them continue to say why.  Only through a dialog such as this will people considering purchasing them get to see the view from both sides of the fence. 
 
The LCD-2 does have some areas in which it MEASURES really, really well, versus other cans, but there again, that doesn't matter a lick if you don't like how they SOUND.  For me personally, I love them just as much as I did when I got them 8 months or so ago - maybe even more.  But I know from my almost 6 years here that this almost guarantees that a significant number of people won't like them, because many people like a headphone with a lot more treble energy than I do.  This is all just a matter of taste.

 

[dallan]

What is amazing to me is how we taylor our systems and how much that effects the signature.  The HP's are still the same animal but with it's more annoying attributes addressed. I found this with the HD800s today when i put back on the stock cables.  I was getting tired of the heavy recable i had and decided to lighten it up.  Lasted under ten minutes and it was like fingers on a chalkboard.  So i get some of the comments on the 800's.
 
I heard the same thing on one of my auditions with the LCD-2.  I heard them with the stock cables, then a pair of moon audio silver plated and then the Zeus copper cables.  The difference was really quite dramatic to me.  The ones I liked were way better than the stock, it seemed to transform them for me.....sorry cable nonbelievers.
 
With the work we all do we get very picky to the littlest sound and we get somewhat invested in our systems and tend to defend them in a bit more than an objective way.  
 
These are both good headphones for sure, and with the relentless tweaking that we all do with tubes and cables and computer programs or turntable needles, we get them to some pretty amazing levels.  Then someone goes to a meet and hears the final product, buys a pair but they sound different......ouch.
 
hmmm, just a Presidents day ramble after a venti americano...sorry

 

[purrin]

One thing I forgot to mention is that I listen to 'phones at low to moderate volumes. This may in part account for my own preferences.

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

I think your point about the LCD-2 has surfaced many times in the LCD-2 threads. Coming directly from the LCD-1 that someone wrote about as being able to reproduce bat sonar, I found the LCD-2 to sound a bit closed-in, lacking in air, being a bit rolled-off in the high end. I was underwhelmed, except for the excellent nuanced and textured bass. Now, after some tweaks to my setup, and extensive listening to the LCD-2 over some months, it's all different. It now sounds airy and open, despite that I often use the LCD-1 as well. Strangely, none of my friends who have just put them on for a short listen have mentioned it sounding closed-in to them. Maybe it really does sound different with my current gear.
 
-snip-
 
If one wants brighter cans, there are numerous alternatives. But the full bodied sound, without excessive brightness, that the LCD-2 presents, there are few competitors to that.

Agreed, good points. I would add that if you want the LCD-2 to sound closed-in, a/b them with the HD800. But on their own they sound open enough, it's all relative.

 

[killkli]

I just got my hand on LCD-2 today.
It's not dark at all to me. The bass really got good resolution.
I ran a little test with it via my mic(bluesnowball,) and it show that the headphone got really good bass distortion control.
The THD with 50 sine wave is quite low (about 0.1%) and this is really good since my HD600's THD in this regards is about 1%.
The THD is very consistent through out from 50Hz to 2000Hz, which is not so with my other old flagship headphones. 
(HD600's THD could varied from 1% to 0.05% depends on the frequency.)

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

One thing I forgot to mention is that I listen to 'phones at low to moderate volumes. This may in part account for my own preferences.

FWIW I listen to low to Moderate too, and Skylab listens with 80 dbA peaks which is fairly quiet / moderate.
 
I think it is just more a matter of taste, due to our ears or otherwise.
 
For all we know, those who like the LCD-2, or the HD 800 are actually hearing the same thing due to their ears.
 
If the LCD-2 are too dark to the HD 800 and the HD 800 are to bright to the LCD-2 could very well be the case we are all arguing for the same sound, but do not know it. Bass depth/ response is similar and distortion and such are very low on both headphones.
 
Just food for thought

 

[thesurfingalien]

@killkli
 
I do not mean to be critical or offensive, but are you measuring a US$ 1000 (or US$ 1400 for that matter) headset with a US$ 60 microphone, and believe that you can get any kind of realistic results from that?  Not to mention the fact the microphone you are using for this is not suitable for measuring purposes.  Please!!!!!
 
EDIT:  Stupid me... I have a HD600 myself...  Please disregard my remark about the nonexistant HD600 & apologies to Killkli!!!!!
 
regards,
Peter

 

[TopspinTEC]

HD600s are a well-known headphone?

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

@killkli
 
I do not mean to be critical or offensive, but are you measuring a US$ 1000 (or US$ 1400 for that matter) headset with a US$ 60 microphone, and believe that you can get any kind of realistic results from that?  Not to mention the fact the microphone you are using for this is not suitable for measuring purposes.  Please!!!!!
 
Also, there is no HD600...
 
regards,
Peter

Might not be the best but he is using it for both headphones at the same hz, so any errors due to the microphone would be standard and he can compare the results even if they are not the most accurate in the world.
 
There is indeed an HD 600. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Sennheiser+HD+600