[pp312]

Quote:

 
Then again, I have weird shaped head, where my chin/jaw is quite tiny - but the top of my head is quite big.

 
 
And how are things on Alpha Centauri these days?

 

[dagothur]

Quote:

I could go into further detail on sound quality but as of right now my main beef with the HE-500 is comfort: I just don't find those earpads big enough, and the edges of my ears are getting pinched. The clamping is also rather extreme, though that may lessen (the LCD is much kinder, but I seem to recall that that clamped rather harder initially). To live with these I'd have to do something about comfort or sound quality would be irrelevant.
 

I always thought the only over ear headphone more uncomfortable than the LCD-2 would be the Muramasa VIII from Final Audio Design.  Today I have seen a new light.

 

[satanigatan]

Hah.

Derp moment for sure. 
Quote:

 
 
And how are things on Alpha Centauri these days?

 

[Kojaku]

 
This stand...literally MADE for the LCD-2.
 
Kojaku

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

 
This stand...literally MADE for the LCD-2.
 
Kojaku

 
Isn't it made of Zebrano wood? Then I'd say it's literally made for the LCD-3s. 

 

[Kojaku]

Nope. It's walnut. Sexy and dark
 
Kojaku

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Nope. It's walnut. Sexy and dark
 
Kojaku

Perfect then for the LCD-2s. 

 

[LugBug1]

Quote:

First up, just to answer everyone at once, yes, I have rushed to judgement, and in fact my opinion has somewhat ameliorated since then, but I deliberately didn't alter the original post (being in OZ my posts appear during the night for USA)  because I wanted an honest first opinion to stand and because I thought it would stimulate discussion, as it has. Good.
 
The HE-500s are used, so I don't know what hours they have on them They're the newer type with silver lead and leather pads, so may not be too old, but I doubt they need burning in. I wouldn't mind hearing the HE-500 with velour pads, but it may be a futile exercise for reasons I'll get to...
 
Dagothur, my "No, it won't" was to myself, not meant as a general statement that the HE-500 would not do for everyone. I should explain that I listen to orchestral/symphonic music exclusively, so things like transient response, detail and even bass slam are not as important to me as they might be to someone into more modern forms. My priority is evenness of response, orchestral timbre and generally low listener fatigue (which I must say is a feature of both phones here).
 
Rezolver, I'm not sure how you came up with your 16 hours, 2 minutes, but you give me too much credit. I certainly didn't listen to them for that long.

 
Anyway, now that I've sufficiently stirred the pot, let's get down to tin tacks. After further listening, as I say, my opinion has somewhat softened. I can now see the HE-500 having considerable appeal to modern music folk. They can even make orchestral music sound more exciting than the LCD-2 on occasion, and without too much cost. There's an odd nasally colouration that intrudes at times, and I was once or twice aware of a sort of nullity, a flat area in the upper midrange that robs some instruments (castanet, say) of bite and definition, but this was rare and probably helped with lack of listener fatigue on poor material. One oddity: I find the LCD has a wider and broader soundstage. This was one area where I was expecting the HE-500 to excell, but I found it to have a sort of pinched quality that kept the sounstage from expanding. My ears maybe?
 
I could go into further detail on sound quality but as of right now my main beef with the HE-500 is comfort: I just don't find those earpads big enough, and the edges of my ears are getting pinched. The clamping is also rather extreme, though that may lessen (the LCD is much kinder, but I seem to recall that that clamped rather harder initially). To live with these I'd have to do something about comfort or sound quality would be irrelevant.
 
So to sum up, I'm going to provisionally apologise to all HE-500 fans for overly hasty judgement. I'll tuck my ears in and continue listening because I want to get a handle on these cans and give them a fair go. It's rare in any phone to have this much excitement and definition combined with such low listener fatigue, so they deserve credit for that at the very least. I do wish someone could come up with an ortho that wasn't quite so damn heavy though. God, my neck... 

Nice impressions again pp. I think you'll find the two areas that I've bolded are linked

  The Hifimans don't have a much bigger soundstage but for me it is defo wider, this is why I prefer them for certain musicl. I'd describe the LCD2's soundstage as round and slightly in front of your head. The HE500's is more pillar box, but has more depth.
 
Its always good to give first impressions and then elaborate as time goes on, it gives others an idea of what to expect etc. Sometimes phones take a long time to please people. I got the LCD2's after the HE500's and was at first dissapointed with them. Now they are my faves. But it was a long process to fully decide that they were more for me.
 
Cheers and keep us posted

 

[pp312]

Thanks, LugBug1. In fact I've already ordered the velour pads from Hifiman. I'll of course report my impressions.

 

[preproman]

The velour pads are a must have - I agree.   I still find the LCD-2.2s to be colored and tilted towards the bass region compared to the HE-500s.  As a result the HE-500s excels in instrument separation compared to the LCD-2.2s IMO.  The highs are more clear and crisp on the HE-500s as well.  However, the LCD-2.2s are still the most seductive headphone I've heard.

 

[rezolver]

Spoiler: Originally%20Posted%20by%20pp312

Quote:

First up, just to answer everyone at once, yes, I have rushed to judgement, and in fact my opinion has somewhat ameliorated since then, but I deliberately didn't alter the original post (being in OZ my posts appear during the night for USA)  because I wanted an honest first opinion to stand and because I thought it would stimulate discussion, as it has. Good.
 
The HE-500s are used, so I don't know what hours they have on them They're the newer type with silver lead and leather pads, so may not be too old, but I doubt they need burning in. I wouldn't mind hearing the HE-500 with velour pads, but it may be a futile exercise for reasons I'll get to...
 
Dagothur, my "No, it won't" was to myself, not meant as a general statement that the HE-500 would not do for everyone. I should explain that I listen to orchestral/symphonic music exclusively, so things like transient response, detail and even bass slam are not as important to me as they might be to someone into more modern forms. My priority is evenness of response, orchestral timbre and generally low listener fatigue (which I must say is a feature of both phones here).
 
Rezolver, I'm not sure how you came up with your 16 hours, 2 minutes, but you give me too much credit. I certainly didn't listen to them for that long.

 
Anyway, now that I've sufficiently stirred the pot, let's get down to tin tacks. After further listening, as I say, my opinion has somewhat softened. I can now see the HE-500 having considerable appeal to modern music folk. They can even make orchestral music sound more exciting than the LCD-2 on occasion, and without too much cost. There's an odd nasally colouration that intrudes at times, and I was once or twice aware of a sort of nullity, a flat area in the upper midrange that robs some instruments (castanet, say) of bite and definition, but this was rare and probably helped with lack of listener fatigue on poor material. One oddity: I find the LCD has a wider and broader soundstage. This was one area where I was expecting the HE-500 to excell, but I found it to have a sort of pinched quality that kept the sounstage from expanding. My ears maybe?
 
I could go into further detail on sound quality but as of right now my main beef with the HE-500 is comfort: I just don't find those earpads big enough, and the edges of my ears are getting pinched. The clamping is also rather extreme, though that may lessen (the LCD is much kinder, but I seem to recall that that clamped rather harder initially). To live with these I'd have to do something about comfort or sound quality would be irrelevant.
 
So to sum up, I'm going to provisionally apologise to all HE-500 fans for overly hasty judgement. I'll tuck my ears in and continue listening because I want to get a handle on these cans and give them a fair go. It's rare in any phone to have this much excitement and definition combined with such low listener fatigue, so they deserve credit for that at the very least. I do wish someone could come up with an ortho that wasn't quite so damn heavy though. God, my neck... 

 

 
 
 
The first time I listened to the HE-500s I did not want to take them off of my head, at least... not until my neck started to become sore after 6h of listening. 

 Coming from light headphones like the Grado's (RS/SR line) and D7000's, the added weight on Planar cans is VERY apparent.
 
I've had the LCD2v2's on borrow for quite some time now and simply love them for vocal work and live recordings. Trying to put a finger "on-it" has been difficult for me to do, I don't know how they do it, they just do it so damn well. *drool* hahha.
 
I recently acquired a pair of K501's and find their 'Presentation' to be a mix of HE-500s space and LCD2's intimacy.  The instruments have a lot of space to play in with good seperation, while vocals are nice and up close.
This only means one thing, Fang and Audeze must combine their efforts and make the ULTIMATE headphone
 
Enjoy your HiFi's. And if you leave the realm of classical music for... say... Pop or Electronic, you will be very pleased.
 
Toodles.
 
PS. What gear are you listening to these on?

 

[rezolver]

preproman, I'd agree with your statements on all accounts. 

If I may add to your comment.  The highs, although more 'forward', tend to be less fatiguing because they are clear and crisp. Violins sound heavenly and have that added top end without shredding my ears.
 
Have you been able to pinpoint the "Seductiveness" of the LCD2's? I've tried with no avail. Its as though Audeze sprinkled cocaine on the drivers.
Quote:

The velour pads are a must have - I agree.   I still find the LCD-2.2s to be colored and tilted towards the bass region compared to the HE-500s.  As a result the HE-500s excels in instrument separation compared to the LCD-2.2s IMO.  The highs are more clear and crisp on the HE-500s as well.  However, the LCD-2.2s are still the most seductive headphone I've heard.

 

[preproman]

Quote:

 Its as though Audeze sprinkled cocaine on the drivers.

 
 
Oh god - I hope not.  But that will explain it though.  

   
 
Is this true - Used K501s for:
 
http://www.amazon.com/AKG-K501-Hi-Fi-Headphones/dp/B0000D8BM7/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1351346864&sr=8-2&keywords=AKG+K501

 

[LugBug1]

Quote:

preproman, I'd agree with your statements on all accounts. 

If I may add to your comment.  The highs, although more 'forward', tend to be less fatiguing because they are clear and crisp. Violins sound heavenly and have that added top end without shredding my ears.
 
Have you been able to pinpoint the "Seductiveness" of the LCD2's? I've tried with no avail. Its as though Audeze sprinkled cocaine on the drivers.

 that would certainly explain why they are so addictive!
 
I'd say its the none fatiguing presentation more than anything. But also its not boring either... Its very detailed, but nothing pokes at you. Even sharp electronic sounds are never intrusive. So you can turn it up and sit back without panicking that you can't reach the volume control if something nasty happens in the music

 
Also, the sound is like dark chocolate, coated in thick black syrup, wrapped up in velvet, with pure gold embroidery intricately sewn into the seams ...  (must be the cocaine..)

 

[preproman]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^