[Beagle]

Quote:

You continue to philosophize away boys while I patiently wait for the comparative reviews to come in.

Better still, wait for the excitement to wear off. It's gonna happen, I guarantee it. It has never not happened.

 

[emelius]

Quote:

I think it's unfair to say that the HD800 is the most uncolored can around, since both the HD800 and LCD-2 measure rather flat below 1K. When it comes to brightness, as I recall from a previous listen, the HD800 sounded brighter. Maybe I need to go listen again.

 
I didn't say that they were the most uncolored around...I implied that they weren't very colored (which could be taken as a compliment)...if you feel that the HD800 sound brighter, you're in disagreement with the person in line before me...

 

[TigzStudio]

Quote:

Better still, wait for the excitement to wear off. It's gonna happen, I guarantee it. It has never not happened.

Of course!  It will happen when LCD-3 comes out.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Let me begin by saying that I have enjoyed reading your posts both in this and the other Audeze LCD-2 thread. You argue persuasively and with conviction for the merits of the LCD-2. This headphone has obviously been an audio revelation for you.
 
However, whether you intend to or not, your posts do read as if you know best and I think the first statement quoted above is an example of this in response to a recording engineer, who uses the HD800 as a reference headphone to monitor the recording of classical instruments.
 
With regard to your second statement, how many would you regard as "many"?
appear to argue from a position of knowing best and I think make I think that your first comment quoted above is presumptuous.  It suggests that 
 

Judge,
Thanks for the kind words.  I usually do know what's best,

 and when I don't, I'm quick to say so.  I'm usually not spouting empty words.  I try and qualify my posts as to whether or not they're fact or my opinion.  What you see is what you get.  My opinions are just that...my opinions, and I will say so, but when I share facts that have been professionally vetted, then you can choose to take them or take issue with them.  It's your choice.  Throughout these threads I've also shared various articles that corroborate what I'm saying and provide additional background for your edification.  The example you cited above is not empty speculation, it is based upon all the scientific evidence we have to date on this subject of how we hear.  I may not explain myself well at times, but I will not steer you wrong.  What I share is based upon experience of over 40 years in audio engineering in recording, headphone design, speaker design, sound reinforcement, distribution, and architectural sound design, along with many corroborative studies of others.  
 
In the example you cite, I didn't tell the other recording engineer he was wrong in any way, I explained scientifically how he reached the conclusion he did, and encouraged him to give the LCD-2s a listen if he had the chance.  What's wrong with that?  I didn't even say the LCD-2s were better than the HD-800s.  If you understand what I said, I actually allowed for the possibility that the 800s are better for him than the LCD-2s!  Does this make sense?  I'm always happy to explain something in more detail.  Sometimes I suppose I assume all of you guys are familiar with the things I'm talking about.   If I'm unclear about something, please just ask, and I'll do my best to do a better job of explaining something.
 
I certainly don't have all the answers, and I learn new things every day, but what I do know I freely share with all my fellow citizens of head-fi.  If ever I'm wrong about something, please don't hesitate to bring it to my attention.
 
WRT your last question?  "Many" is as many as become aware of these new cans.  I'm not at liberty to discuss this in any detail at the moment.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Yes, somewhat. I'm of the belief that the best headphones get different aspects of reality correct, or we notice that. Like my RS-1 gets tonality of violins and woodwinds, HD800 for vocals, K501 for space, PS1000/K701 dynamics, Ultrasone PRO 2500 bass foundation etc. I have not heard a headphone (or any piece of audio gear) get it all sounding real. Perhaps you are trying to say that the LCD-2 gets the closest yet to accomplishing this feat.

Beagle, this is a very astute statement, and the nature of what our individual head related transfer functions are all about.  
 
For me personally, yes, the LCD-2 comes closer than any other can I've heard overall, but this may not be so for many others.  Technically, the prowess of the LCD-2 is born out by objective measurements, so, based upon the voicing of the can, it should be more capable of putting you in the mix, than any other can whose measurements I've seen to date.  So, there are subjective and objective attributes of the can that make it the best in class for me.
 

 

[The Monkey]

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Everyone's subjective experience is the most real, true or objective to them. The hard part is proving it. This thread has taken a decidedly metaphysical turn. Let's strip the sophistry back to the two competing premises from where it all began: 
 
The HD800 is better than the LCD-2 / The LCD-2 is better than the HD800.
 
You continue to philosophize away boys while I patiently wait for the comparative reviews to come in.

Let's throw a wee bit of objectivity into the mix, shall we? 

 

Above, you see a FR & phase rotation plot for the Senn HD-800 which is extremely, extremely good!
 

Above, the FR & phase plot for the LCD-2, which is arguably, better through the midband and bass.
 

Above, Sq. wave response for HD-800, again, remarkably good.
 

Sq. wave for LCD-2, again, arguably, a bit better, less ringing & better pressure gradient.
 

Above THD & impedance plots for HD-800, really really outstanding, slightly better than LCD-2 in HF THD.
 

Above, THD & impedance plot for LCD-2, very close to HD-800, but more consistent, and of course, no reactive impedance. 
 
By the numbers, these headphones are very close in capability, so the difference will distill down to mostly subjective issues and individual HRTF match.

 

[TheJudge]

Quote:

Judge,
Thanks for the kind words.  I usually do know what's best,

 and when I don't, I'm quick to say so.  I'm usually not spouting empty words.  I try and qualify my posts as to whether or not they're fact or my opinion.  What you see is what you get.  My opinions are just that...my opinions, and I will say so, but when I share facts that have been professionally vetted, then you can choose to take them or take issue with them.  It's your choice.  Throughout these threads I've also shared various articles that corroborate what I'm saying and provide additional background for your edification.  The example you cited above is not empty speculation, it is based upon all the scientific evidence we have to date on this subject of how we hear.  I may not explain myself well at times, but I will not steer you wrong.  What I share is based upon experience of over 40 years in audio engineering in recording, headphone design, speaker design, sound reinforcement, distribution, and architectural sound design, along with many corroborative studies of others.  
 
In the example you cite, I didn't tell the other recording engineer he was wrong in any way, I explained scientifically how he reached the conclusion he did, and encouraged him to give the LCD-2s a listen if he had the chance.  What's wrong with that?  I didn't even say the LCD-2s were better than the HD-800s.  If you understand what I said, I actually allowed for the possibility that the 800s are better for him than the LCD-2s!  Does this make sense?  I'm always happy to explain something in more detail.  Sometimes I suppose I assume all of you guys are familiar with the things I'm talking about.   If I'm unclear about something, please just ask, and I'll do my best to do a better job of explaining something.
 
I certainly don't have all the answers, and I learn new things every day, but what I do know I freely share with all my fellow citizens of head-fi.  If ever I'm wrong about something, please don't hesitate to bring it to my attention.
 
WRT your last question?  "Many" is as many as become aware of these new cans.  I'm not at liberty to discuss this in any detail at the moment.

 

It's too late now but the post to which, you are responding was "detained" by the moderators and taken off for questioning. I assumed that it had been lost and I drafted another post to replace it, but then decided against posting it.
 
Be that as it may, I respect your knowledgeable opinion and you express yourself with great clarity. I didn't suggest that you accused the person of being wrong. It's more to do with you appearing right. It's a subtle difference but detectable to me as I read your posts. They are most informative but I find that they have an oracle like tone. 
 
You suggested that the reason he thought the HD800 sounded like real life was because he had either acclimated to its sound signature, or it was due to HRTF. 
That appeared mildly condescending to me and I think it's because you believe that the LCD-2 sounds more like real life than the HD800 does. 
 
Now we know that this is your opinion based on your subjective listening experience and you refer to "objective" measurements, which you believe support the correctness of your view. But as we also know, none of this can objectively prove that the LCD-2 sounds any more like real life than the person whom you replied to can prove that the HD800 does. 

 

[SP Wild]

That's pretty much the only time I've seen a 30hz square wave actually look like some kinda square.  I wonder if the flat impedance line will translate to nimbleness in all frequency ranges, ie. Transient response of the entire frequency response of the LCD-2 vary little as opposed to other popular dynamic phones.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

It's too late now but the post to which, you are responding was "detained" by the moderators and taken off for questioning. I assumed that it had been lost and I drafted another post to replace it, but then decided against posting it.
 
Be that as it may, I respect your knowledgeable opinion and you express yourself with great clarity. I didn't suggest that you accused the person of being wrong. It's more to do with you appearing right. It's a subtle difference but detectable to me as I read your posts. They are most informative but I find that they have an oracle like tone. 
 
You suggested that the reason he thought the HD800 sounded like real life was because he had either acclimated to its sound signature, or it was due to HRTF. 
That appeared mildly condescending to me and I think it's because you believe that the LCD-2 sounds more like real life than the HD800 does. 
 
Now we know that this is your opinion based on your subjective listening experience and you refer to "objective" measurements, which you believe support the correctness of your view. But as we also know, none of this can objectively prove that the LCD-2 sounds any more like real life than the person whom you replied to can prove that the HD800 does. 

Wow, I still don't think I'm doing a very good job of communicating.  HRTF is not something we invent, it's something we're born with and it is as individual as a fingerprint.  I did not say what you said I said.  There was no condescension in my mind when I posted that response, I'm sorry if it came across to you that way.   How could I ever say one guy's fingerprints are "better" or "worse" than another's?
 
HRTF- Neither good nor bad, neither right nor wrong.  It is what it is. 

 

[TheJudge]

Quote:

Let's throw a wee bit of objectivity into the mix, shall we? 

 

Above, you see a FR & phase rotation plot for the Senn HD-800 which is extremely, extremely good!
 

Above, the FR & phase plot for the LCD-2, which is arguably, better through the midband and bass.
 

Above, Sq. wave response for HD-800, again, remarkably good.
 

Sq. wave for LCD-2, again, arguably, a bit better, less ringing & better pressure gradient.
 

Above THD & impedance plots for HD-800, really really outstanding, slightly better than LCD-2 in HF THD.
 

Above, THD & impedance plot for LCD-2, very close to HD-800, but more consistent, and of course, no reactive impedance. 
 
By the numbers, these headphones are very close in capability, so the difference will distill down to mostly subjective issues and individual HRTF match.

Your last point accords with my own view. And are these measurements beyond dispute? Can they be repeated without variance on the same measuring equipment, and will they match up to the measurements taken of these phones on other measuring equipment located in other places? Don't we find differences in these measurements as a consequence of such variables? Is it also possible that each headphone made within each series will have slight variations in frequency response? What does this really prove in terms of a headphone's capability to reproduce sound that is "true to life"?    

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

That's pretty much the only time I've seen a 30hz square wave actually look like some kinda square.  I wonder if the flat impedance line will translate to nimbleness in all frequency ranges, ie. Transient response of the entire frequency response of the LCD-2 vary little as opposed to other popular dynamic phones.

You are very right.  The square wave response plots from other headphones don't look nearly as good as these two.  The HD-800 performance is a remarkable achievement for a dynamic driver.  The LCD-2's performance is almost more to be expected given the driver type.  WRT driver impedance vs. frequency, the effect it has on your amp depends entirely upon the amplifier design, amount of negative feedback employed, damping factor, etc.  No reactance is better than some because it removes that factor from the equation entirely.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Your last point accords with my own view. And are these measurements beyond dispute? Can they be repeated without variance on the same measuring equipment, and will they match up to the measurements taken of these phones on other measuring equipment located in other places? Don't we find differences in these measurements as a consequence of such variables? Is it also possible that each headphone made within each series will have slight variations in frequency response? What does this really prove in terms of a headphone's capability to reproduce sound that is "true to life"?    

Yes, the measurements are repeatable, and in fact, were repeated a number of times to verify results.
 
I guess one can "debate" anything one wants to debate.
 
I suspect the HD-800s, like the LCD-2s are made with great care and precision with constant parameter and performance validation taking place at all critical steps during manufacture.  Variations from unit to unit, if any, should be too minute to be audible.
 
As we discussed before, once all the objective performance criteria are accounted for, the differences between one headphone and another, and their ability to reproduce a "real life experience" come down how closely the designer's HRTF happens to match your own, which as I said before, is neither good, nor bad, neither right nor wrong.
 
Just to clinch the nail, if a given headphones objective performance is up to snuff, then the rest is up to you.  There are very, very, very few headphones on the planet whose objective performance measures as good as the two we're discussing in this thread.

 

[Jian]

I've just signed up for the lcd2 preorder, hopefully I'll be able to listen to them before the summer goes. I'm a more T1 kinda guy then 800s, but still interested to see how these top competitors in this era (well compare to the headphone history, could a decade be called "era") dance.

 

[wakeride74]

I've been debating between the HD800 and T1... thought I was sold on the HD800 given what I love about the k702 and what it does better that I don't like about the K702. Now I find this... thanks alot.