[jibzilla]

-

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

Everyone always compares high-end headphones to speakers in the tens of thousands. I think people are afraid to admit that there are limitations with headphones that speakers overcome. With tens of thousands of dollars I would buy an acoustically perfect room and pick equipment carefully.

I think the turning point for speakers becoming better than headphones is when you get into high end dynamic, or low end planar/electrostatic speakers. In terms of presence and imaging headphones can't compare even a little bit. Mind you, it takes more money to get detail out of speakers... but with tens of thousands of dollars you can truly get whatever you want in speakers. But headphones even high end planars such as Audeze will always have limits.

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

  
(By the way, in case you're confused by the company name as it's pronounced in the video, it's supposed to be pronounced AWW-diz-zee.)

 
Not aww-DEE-zee, then?
 
Thanks. I wish it was as easy to stop myself saying "Linux" wrong!

 

[Autark]

He's trying to sum up a lot of information, in a very limited amount of time, and to justify the value of headphones that are more than 100x what most viewers have ever spent on headphones. He's saying "These 'can' sound better than an expensive audio set up," rather than "No audio system under 25k could ever possibly sound better than these headphones."
 
I bought a set of maggies and I thought I was getting away with murder for the price, until I started with the amp and the room treatment, etc. 

 

[Autark]

  If it helps, I have the XC and the 3.

 And its the XC I use in the office with a tube amp. Ummmmm..........

You say "Helps." I do not think that word means what you think if means...
 
I'll end up doing it eventually. 

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

I bought a set of maggies and I thought I was getting away with murder for the price, until I started with the amp and the room treatment, etc. 

I'm thinking of buying a used pair of MG12 or a new pair of MMG. I'm not sure how well it will work with my setup though. I'm using my Touch 5G as a DAC and preamp (equally as good, if not slightly better than my Dragonfly), Emotiva UPA-200 as power amp (200 W/channel into 4 ohms), and Energy ESW-C8 as a subwoofer.

Could you please let me know whether you think I should bother with such high end speakers on my setup? I'm concerned that my setup isn't up to par.

 

[Autark]

I'm thinking of buying a used pair of MG12 or a new pair of MMG. I'm not sure how well it will work with my setup though. I'm using my Touch 5G as a DAC and preamp (equally as good, if not slightly better than my Dragonfly), Emotiva UPA-200 as power amp (200 W/channel into 4 ohms), and Energy ESW-C8 as a subwoofer.

Could you please let me know whether you think I should bother with such high end speakers on my setup? I'm concerned that my setup isn't up to par.

The good news about loudspeakers is that you can update bit by bit. That's also the bad news, as you'll want to keep buying new things to try. 
 
Magnepan is extremely cagey about giving advice for components. The best I could milk out of them is that you want as much good, clean and stable power as you can get.  I went with the Emotiva XPA-2, only because I didn't want to wonder what they'd sound like with more power. For my wallet and where I am in audio, I think anything beyond that gets into diminishing returns. 
 
The UPA-200 should get the job done. Keep in mind that there is a relevant difference between watts/channel and watts/channel RMS. Don't worry about it until you're looking to upgrade, though.
 
The preamp situation sounds like something you need to think about for your listening experience. I picked up the UMC 200 because I need an AV receiver, and had a good opportunity to get one at a lower cost. (And the XMC 1 isn't out yet, to go balanced)
 
As far as the sub goes, you may want to consider getting the SuperMMGs with the bass panel. It's designed to complement the system, and it looks like your sub is only going 4 Hz lower. I haven't sorted out a good sub yet myself. Getting tight, fast base is the problem to beat. The bass panel will be fast, but ultimately, you may want to find something that goes deeper. 
 
Finally, your listening space is going to be the biggest factor. The speakers are big and planars want space in front and behind them as well. Look at the setup PDF on their site. Unlike headphones, your room is going to be a part of the audio presentation, so you may end up doing some treatment. The rabbit hole can go as deep as you want to venture.
 
So, should you bother? Yes, If you have the time and you're willing to learn. Or if you can pay someone else to know this stuff and do the work. 

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

Thanks for the advice. My iPod works fine as a DAC for my HE-400's, so it should do for now until I can acquire a better DAC and preamp (I'm thinking an ESS Sabre Audio GD DAC/amp combo). The subwoofer is really what I'm worried about, I don't think it's tight and textured enough to match a planar since it's ported. My room is quite small also, but I'm willing to rearrange it to compensate for the speaker back waves and such. I guess I'll just have to pull the trigger on a pair and hope it won't require too much change in my system to sound good.

Edit: Do you think I should buy some sound diffusers and hang them on the wall behind the speakers (I think I can give about five feet of distance from the wall).

 

[Autark]

I think we're already hijacking this thread. You might want to start up something in the sound science area. There are going to be people with much more experience than I have to answer that question.
 
I would not start with diffusers. If your room is small, you may not want to scatter that energy as much as absorb some of it. I'd start with the early reflections. This is a seriously big topic, though.

 

[ToddTheMetalGod]

I think we're already hijacking this thread. You might want to start up something in the sound science area. There are going to be people with much more experience than I have to answer that question.

I would not start with diffusers. If your room is small, you may not want to scatter that energy as much as absorb some of it. I'd start with the early reflections. This is a seriously big topic, though.

Yeah good point. Sorry for thread jacking guys . I'll look around speaker forums and see what others have to say .

 

[jibzilla]

Everyone always compares high-end headphones to speakers in the tens of thousands. I think people are afraid to admit that there are limitations with headphones that speakers overcome. With tens of thousands of dollars I would buy an acoustically perfect room and pick equipment carefully.

I think the turning point for speakers becoming better than headphones is when you get into high end dynamic, or low end planar/electrostatic speakers. In terms of presence and imaging headphones can't compare even a little bit. Mind you, it takes more money to get detail out of speakers... but with tens of thousands of dollars you can truly get whatever you want in speakers. But headphones even high end planars such as Audeze will always have limits.

.

 

[rrahman]

Yeah I was just hoping Alex would not be like everyone else. I also think his 25-40x more preferable opinion is way too liberal. I will go 10-20x but that's about it and like I said before lots of different variables makes it not a good comparison to begin with even if everyone else is making the comparison.

I think your being a little hard on him. He had like 15-20 seconds to justify a beats loving mass audience to pay over a thousand for a set of headphones. Also while I agree comparing a set of headphones to speakers is awkward because of inherent differences. It's not unreasonable to have a preference for one or the other. After all they both have the same goal of accurate sound reproduction and audeze competes w/ high end speakers for a fraction of the price.

 

[darkfireblade25]

  Interesting... I don't recall seeing a designation  (e.g.  LCD-2F,  or  3F) to indicate the Fazor versions on the Audeze website.  Would be good to be able to confirm which model is which. perhaps this is indicated on the headphones themselves.  otherwise, how do you know which model you are listening to when you try them in a store ?

They don't explicitly say that (not like they say rev. 2 either), but the product description includes it now.

 

[mikemercer]

I think your being a little hard on him. He had like 15-20 seconds to justify a beats loving mass audience to pay over a thousand for a set of headphones. Also while I agree comparing a set of headphones to speakers is awkward because of inherent differences. It's not unreasonable to have a preference for one or the other. After all they both have the same goal of accurate sound reproduction and audeze competes w/ high end speakers for a fraction of the price.

WELL Said.
 
Especially since Audeze is gaining serious ground in the production/engineering and mastering community as well now - with people like Grammy-Award winning producers like Frank Filipetti and mastering legend Bob Ludwig utilizing their Audeze cans now - and speaking about how they've cancelled out their worries about room acoustic issues while on the road - comparing the Audeze experience to an in-room, high end two channel stereo system is something the middle-age demographic can understand. Well, not only them - but that's where I hailed from as well originally! - and until I heard Audeze and the Sennheiser HD800s, plus Stax 009s (thanks to Judes recommendation) I wasn't able to grasp the overall sonic experience of cans like these either to be brutally honest. But when I heard the first LCD-2 prototype at CanJam 09 I was hooked! It was like putting my stereo on my head! 
 
Even as a DJ for many years utilizing my Sennheiser HD 25-1 IIs, in-room stereo sound always beat out headphone experiences for me because I'd never heard a headphone rig that could truly transport me to another time and space like these high end headphones can. When I asked Frank Filipetti to try out Audeze (knowing him for many years, and knowing he "hated" headphones) he was reluctant to say the least. Now - lately he's been quoted saying "like my American Express card, I never travel without my Audeze LCD-X, even if they are a pain to pack"
 
I'll be interviewing Frank in Positive Feedback after Newport regarding his headphone experiences since we introduced him to the LCD-3 two years ago.
I think it'll make for interesting reading hearing from a man who's been recording and mixing as long as he has - to go from using nothing but monitors to using a combination of studio monitors and Audeze's to mix with!
 
and just having Alex on Bloomberg - and having him give a shout-out to the Head-Fi community is a big thing for all of us 

 
I'm LOST init' right now with my new LCD-2s w/ Fazor & CEntrance HiFi-M8!

 

[mikemercer]

  HI Mike,   hmm... thought Fazor was new in the LCD-XC and X.  Didn't know it was used in the LCD-2.  Is this a recent upgrade?  
also, congrats on the gear listed in your post (.. Macintosh, Cavalli, Audeze .. well done!)

Thanks brotha!
 
I reviewed the McIntosh D100 w/ @HiFiGuy528 for Audio360.org HERE if you're interested.
 
and the Cavalli Liquid Gold HERE on Head-Fi too (full review coming at Part-Time Audiophile)
Those two together plus the new LCD-2 or 3 w/ Fazor & the new Nordost Heimdall 2 headphone cable - SHEESH!!!!
 
and these aren't easy purchases to make, believe me! I had to sell a bunch of gear to make that happen, but
after hearing the LAu + D100 and Audeze together, I couldn't go back!
 
I listened to my stereo (in-room) last night for the first time in awhile - and my systems no slouch, but all I could
think was (we had company over for my wifeys birthday so...) damn I wish I could here this music on that rig!!
 
It used to be the other way around...

I even tried the new LCD-3 w/ Fazor and the lil' Geek Out 1000 and it was mind-blowingly dynamic and engaging!