[MarioD]

 
Your definition of "too bright" or 'better treble' may be different yet equally valid. These things are subjective.

 
I wouldn't necessarily agree. "Too bright" relates to tonal balance. "Better treble" relates to the quality of reproduction. A trained "ear" can identify, let's call it, a "sound picture" with better definition.
 
People with less experience in critical listening, however, are really easy to trick. A few years ago, before I delved into the headphone realm, I asked 2 friends who came around to tell me which setting of my DAC sounded better. They both concluded the brighter setting sounded with more clarity, but what I had really done was just EQ the tonal balance just a tad. Haven't touched the DAC at all.

 

[MRC001]

  All transistors sound similar within their designed parameters, granted.
...
Things get even more complicated with tubes. ... What is the right sound?
 
With regards to LCD-2F - to my ears it is a bit muffled on top, which makes it a really nice headphone for bright recordings when paired to mid-fi systems. However, the sound isn't clean. And it's not just the treble. There's not enough air, separation of instruments and depth of the picture. The bigger brothers are significantly better in every respect. And with that said, LCD-2F is still better than the 95% of the headphones out there in the market.

In my opinion, accuracy and tubes do not go together. That tubilicious sound can be wonderful but it is euphonic. Tubes can't match solid state when it comes to neutrality and accuracy.
We disagree on the LCD-2F. I don't find it muffled on top at all. All the detail is there, it just doesn't jump out and grab you. The big brothers do have a slightly different sound in the treble, and if I hear them side-by-side I understand how some people can prefer the big brothers. But when I compare each against the actual musical event - playing in rehearsal with a violin on one side and cello on the other, or sitting in the first row listening - the LCD-2F is closest to that sound. The big brothers - and many other good high-end headphones - are adding something that sounds like artificial "clarity" or "brightness" to the sound. This is common in high end gear and the LCD-2F was a pleasant surprise to me.
That's just my subjective impression as an amateur musician, professional engineer and well trained listener. Different people perceive differently, which is what makes these discussions interesting.

 

[sludgeogre]

  In my opinion, accuracy and tubes do not go together. That tubilicious sound can be wonderful but it is euphonic. Tubes can't match solid state when it comes to neutrality and accuracy.
We disagree on the LCD-2F. I don't find it muffled on top at all. All the detail is there, it just doesn't jump out and grab you. The big brothers do have a slightly different sound in the treble, and if I hear them side-by-side I understand how some people can prefer the big brothers. But when I compare each against the actual musical event - playing in rehearsal with a violin on one side and cello on the other, or sitting in the first row listening - the LCD-2F is closest to that sound. The big brothers - and many other good high-end headphones - are adding something that sounds like artificial "clarity" or "brightness" to the sound. This is common in high end gear and the LCD-2F was a pleasant surprise to me.
That's just my subjective impression as an amateur musician, professional engineer and well trained listener. Different people perceive differently, which is what makes these discussions interesting.

I totally agree with this. I listen mostly to metal and progressive rock and the LCD-2F gives the most honest presentation of both genres in the best possible way. Everything is there, but the tight low end is all present without the high end glossing everything over.

 

[MRC001]

  I totally agree with this. I listen mostly to metal and progressive rock and the LCD-2F gives the most honest presentation of both genres in the best possible way. Everything is there, but the tight low end is all present without the high end glossing everything over.

Here I am extolling the virtues of the LCD-2F for natural acoustic music (including unamplified voice). And you're saying it rocks with heavy metal. That's quite a range and speaks volumes about the neutrality of this headphone.
P.S. I understand and resemble your comment. I occasionally listen to rock and electronic music. Swans The Seer is one of the albums I use to test equipment. On lesser headphones and speakers it sounds overly gritty, crunchy, harsh and the detail is lost in the noise. It takes a fast, neutral, low distortion transducer to resolve it into something listenable. However, most of the reference recordings I use (and listen to) are natural acoustic music, so midrange quality is the most important aspect of the sound for me. For example, the HiFiMan HE-500 passed the Swans The Seer test, but it didn't pass the acoustic music test because of their recessed midrange.

 

[burlap]

hi all - new LCD-2.2 owner here - love them so far - I've had many cans over the years but I'd been listening to my old senn 580s (!) most lately before grabbing these...  I listen to a lot of electronic music and rock etc and was deeply curious about the bass extension and impact I've heard discussed so often, especially in contrast to the bass-shy senns. I've read 50+ pages of the thread (not the full 500ish) and searched for this particular case, so please bear with me for a sec - 
 
I'm currently driving them with a McCormack micro integrated drive from the 90s - the extension is great, I'm digging the LCDs a lot but I'm not feeling the "slam" so much... I'm also using the RCA outs from my M-audio audiophile 2496 soundcard, ASIO drivers in foobar2000... 
 
SO - has anyone heard the LCDs with the mccormack? would I get more bass performance from a better amp and/or DAC? this gear is pretty dated but decently regarded. I think the MID puts out 5w? or perhaps this is a case of heightened expectations? 
 
would love to hear some opinions before I drop some decent $ on amplification "just to see". I'm intrigued by tubes in the Lyr or the balanced mjolnir, woo audio et al. please advise! 

 

[sludgeogre]

 
I'm currently driving them with a McCormack micro integrated drive from the 90s - the extension is great, I'm digging the LCDs a lot but I'm not feeling the "slam" so much...
 
would love to hear some opinions before I drop some decent $ on amplification "just to see". I'm intrigued by tubes in the Lyr or the balanced mjolnir, woo audio et al. please advise! 

 
You probably aren't getting enough power into them. You should be getting at least 500 mW into them, but Audeze recommends 1-4 watts. I'm highly doubting that old headphone amp puts out a lot of juice. You can pick up a Schiit Magni for 100-150 bucks and it'll drive them much better. Of course, there are a loooot of other, better options. Just depends on how much you want to spend. I love anything in the Schiit line. You can't go wrong with any of them, except for the Vali, with the LCD-2. Anything Woo as well.

 

[Lohb]

  hi all - new LCD-2.2 owner here - love them so far - I've had many cans over the years but I'd been listening to my old senn 580s (!) most lately before grabbing these...  I listen to a lot of electronic music and rock etc and was deeply curious about the bass extension and impact I've heard discussed so often, especially in contrast to the bass-shy senns. I've read 50+ pages of the thread (not the full 500ish) and searched for this particular case, so please bear with me for a sec - 
 
I'm currently driving them with a McCormack micro integrated drive from the 90s - the extension is great, I'm digging the LCDs a lot but I'm not feeling the "slam" so much... I'm also using the RCA outs from my M-audio audiophile 2496 soundcard, ASIO drivers in foobar2000... 
 
SO - has anyone heard the LCDs with the mccormack? would I get more bass performance from a better amp and/or DAC? this gear is pretty dated but decently regarded. I think the MID puts out 5w? or perhaps this is a case of heightened expectations? 
 
would love to hear some opinions before I drop some decent $ on amplification "just to see". I'm intrigued by tubes in the Lyr or the balanced mjolnir, woo audio et al. please advise! 

Are they a 'slam can' or 'bottomless bass can' is the question ?!

 

[Amish]

The LCD2 R2: Best bang for the buck period. Brilliant.

 

[MarioD]

  In my opinion, accuracy and tubes do not go together. That tubilicious sound can be wonderful but it is euphonic. Tubes can't match solid state when it comes to neutrality and accuracy.
We disagree on the LCD-2F. I don't find it muffled on top at all. All the detail is there, it just doesn't jump out and grab you. The big brothers do have a slightly different sound in the treble, and if I hear them side-by-side I understand how some people can prefer the big brothers. But when I compare each against the actual musical event - playing in rehearsal with a violin on one side and cello on the other, or sitting in the first row listening - the LCD-2F is closest to that sound. The big brothers - and many other good high-end headphones - are adding something that sounds like artificial "clarity" or "brightness" to the sound. This is common in high end gear and the LCD-2F was a pleasant surprise to me.
That's just my subjective impression as an amateur musician, professional engineer and well trained listener. Different people perceive differently, which is what makes these discussions interesting.

 
You make some very interesting points, but I can't agree with most of them. I don't want to ignite a flame war, neither we can resolve these arguments we make in a reasonable way, so if you wish just take my input for what it's worth. The statement that transistors sound more natural and accurate is, well, not true. Someone else can make the same statement about transistors, but it won't be completely true either. It all comes down to implementation. To me tubes come with more benefits than shortcomings compared to transistors. I won't delve into this further, as it will turn into a never-ending discussion Unfortunately great tube amps are rare and most commercially sold tube amps aren't great.
 
When we refer to accuracy, I think you and I are referring to different things, and I should have picked a different word (English isn't my native language). To me accuracy of a system is its ability to extract the finest detail out of a recording (resolution/definition), and not tonal balance. Tonal balance titled towards the treble indeed creates the artificial sense of more detail and spatial dimension. I think when we talk about naturalness and accuracy, we have to look at the audio chain as a whole - from the transport down to the transducers. The beauty of being a DIY-er for so many years is that I can adjust the sound signature and tonal balance of my system to a great extent. I would bet the origin of your dissatisfaction with the X and 3F is in your audio chain.
 
When I say LCD-2F is muffled on top, that's indeed my preference and probably due to the components and design of my audio chain. (Though i'm sure it sounds muffled in general, but i won't delve into this . However, the resolution of the 2F is not even close to the X and 3F. There's an audible distortion across the whole frequency range compared ot the "bigger brothers", it's especially easy to spot it in the treble. The 3F on the other hand sounds much cleaner and transparent, despite the fact it has a very similar, but even darker signature. Test it yourself even with the X, for example - EQ the FR to tilt it towards the bottom end or any way you like. The X will always sound cleaner and more transparent and as a result it will have a better spatial projection of sounds and there's nothing artificial about that.
 
I think I get your overall point though and I share the same sentiment - every time I visit an audio show I find many systems overly bright and harsh, and these range from tens of thousands of dollars to over a hundred.
 
Despite all I said so far, listen to an audio system that you truly enjoy, and ignore what some annoying audiophile DIY're says on some forum

 

[MarioD]

  hi all - new LCD-2.2 owner here - love them so far - I've had many cans over the years but I'd been listening to my old senn 580s (!) most lately before grabbing these...  I listen to a lot of electronic music and rock etc and was deeply curious about the bass extension and impact I've heard discussed so often, especially in contrast to the bass-shy senns. I've read 50+ pages of the thread (not the full 500ish) and searched for this particular case, so please bear with me for a sec - 
 
I'm currently driving them with a McCormack micro integrated drive from the 90s - the extension is great, I'm digging the LCDs a lot but I'm not feeling the "slam" so much... I'm also using the RCA outs from my M-audio audiophile 2496 soundcard, ASIO drivers in foobar2000... 
 
SO - has anyone heard the LCDs with the mccormack? would I get more bass performance from a better amp and/or DAC? this gear is pretty dated but decently regarded. I think the MID puts out 5w? or perhaps this is a case of heightened expectations? 
 
would love to hear some opinions before I drop some decent $ on amplification "just to see". I'm intrigued by tubes in the Lyr or the balanced mjolnir, woo audio et al. please advise! 

 
In my experience I never managed to extract "bass slam" out of the LCD-2F. It's entertaining to drive them with a 25W 1.2 kilovolt GM-70... still no bass slam like the LCD-X or dynamic phones.

 

[roflcopter159]

  hi all - new LCD-2.2 owner here - love them so far - I've had many cans over the years but I'd been listening to my old senn 580s (!) most lately before grabbing these...  I listen to a lot of electronic music and rock etc and was deeply curious about the bass extension and impact I've heard discussed so often, especially in contrast to the bass-shy senns. I've read 50+ pages of the thread (not the full 500ish) and searched for this particular case, so please bear with me for a sec - 
 
I'm currently driving them with a McCormack micro integrated drive from the 90s - the extension is great, I'm digging the LCDs a lot but I'm not feeling the "slam" so much... I'm also using the RCA outs from my M-audio audiophile 2496 soundcard, ASIO drivers in foobar2000... 
 
SO - has anyone heard the LCDs with the mccormack? would I get more bass performance from a better amp and/or DAC? this gear is pretty dated but decently regarded. I think the MID puts out 5w? or perhaps this is a case of heightened expectations? 
 
would love to hear some opinions before I drop some decent $ on amplification "just to see". I'm intrigued by tubes in the Lyr or the balanced mjolnir, woo audio et al. please advise! 

 
 

   
In my experience I never managed to extract "bass slam" out of the LCD-2F. It's entertaining to drive them with a 25W 1.2 kilovolt GM-70... still no bass slam like the LCD-X or dynamic phones.

 
 
I agree. I haven't ever gotten much of a slam out of mine either (exception being music with absurd amounts of bass), but the extension and detail that the 2F gives is fantastic and definitely makes up for it. I get much more of a slam from my Mad Dogs, but I'll always turn to the 2F for anything acoustic or anything that reaches for the deep frequencies.

 

[MRC001]

   
You make some very interesting points, but I can't agree with most of them.
...
When we refer to accuracy, I think you and I are referring to different things, and I should have picked a different word (English isn't my native language). To me accuracy of a system is its ability to extract the finest detail out of a recording (resolution/definition), and not tonal balance.
...
When I say LCD-2F is muffled on top, that's indeed my preference and probably due to the components and design of my audio chain. ... There's an audible distortion across the whole frequency range compared ot the "bigger brothers", it's especially easy to spot it in the treble.
 
I think I get your overall point though and I share the same sentiment - every time I visit an audio show I find many systems overly bright and harsh, and these range from tens of thousands of dollars to over a hundred.
 
Despite all I said so far, listen to an audio system that you truly enjoy, and ignore what some annoying audiophile DIY're says on some forum

It's OK to disagree - in fact it's encouraged - that's what makes the discussion interesting.

To me, accuracy is a combination of several factors including but not limited to detail, tonal balance, tonal purity/distortion, spatial cues/imaging, etc. Each system is an engineering compromise, strong in some areas weaker in others. So the ultimate accuracy test is fidelity. But fidelity means fidelity to something. For me, that something is the sound of actual live musicians playing acoustic instruments in front of you. That is the absolute reference and I gauge accuracy based on overall how close to that does the system sound to me.
Yours or anyone else's definition of accuracy can be different and equally valid.
The summary of my point: the objective measurements of these headphones (2F, 3F, X) are very similar; the 2F, 3F or X can be slightly better or worse in some measurements, no single one of them is clearly superior to the others in every measurement. In an objective sense, it's provably false that the 2F has audible distortion compared to the 3F - if if did it would show up in measurements, but it doesn't. What is true is that you perceive a difference in the sound that you describe as "distortion" or "muffled'. That is a perfectly valid observation, but it is subjective.
Because their objective measurements are so similar, which of these headphones is more accurate or closer to "the truth" is a matter of subjective preference. Our perceptions and preferences are different and we share them here for the benefit of everyone to help pick which he will like the most.

 

[MRC001]

   
You probably aren't getting enough power into them. You should be getting at least 500 mW into them, but Audeze recommends 1-4 watts. I'm highly doubting that old headphone amp puts out a lot of juice. You can pick up a Schiit Magni for 100-150 bucks and it'll drive them much better. Of course, there are a loooot of other, better options. Just depends on how much you want to spend. I love anything in the Schiit line. You can't go wrong with any of them, except for the Vali, with the LCD-2. Anything Woo as well.

It's true that Audeze recommends a minimum of 1W for the amp. But this is a hugely conservative and way more power than you actually need. The LCD-2F is a reasonably efficient headphone, easy to drive, and they don't need nearly that much power unless you are listening at levels that will damage your hearing.
 
The old Headroom amps using the "Max" circuit based on OPA627 op amps sound fantastic and have enough power to drive the LCD-2F, even though some of them max out around 300 mW that's enough because they are so clean and well designed. You can find them on eBay. Also Jan Meier's amps - the Jazz and and Classic - are even better in my opinion.
 
Far earlier in this thread about a year ago I posted some actual numbers on this - you can find it easily.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/495631/amp-recommendations-for-audeze-lcd-2/7230#post_10424733

 

[MarioD]

 
It's OK to disagree - in fact it's encouraged - that's what makes the discussion interesting.

To me, accuracy is a combination of several factors including but not limited to detail, tonal balance, tonal purity/distortion, spatial cues/imaging, etc. Each system is an engineering compromise, strong in some areas weaker in others. So the ultimate accuracy test is fidelity. But fidelity means fidelity to something. For me, that something is the sound of actual live musicians playing acoustic instruments in front of you. That is the absolute reference and I gauge accuracy based on overall how close to that does the system sound to me.
Yours or anyone else's definition of accuracy can be different and equally valid.
The summary of my point: the objective measurements of these headphones (2F, 3F, X) are very similar; the 2F, 3F or X can be slightly better or worse in some measurements, no single one of them is clearly superior to the others in every measurement. In an objective sense, it's provably false that the 2F has audible distortion compared to the 3F - if if did it would show up in measurements, but it doesn't. What is true is that you perceive a difference in the sound that you describe as "distortion" or "muffled'. That is a perfectly valid observation, but it is subjective.
Because their objective measurements are so similar, which of these headphones is more accurate or closer to "the truth" is a matter of subjective preference. Our perceptions and preferences are different and we share them here for the benefit of everyone to help pick which he will like the most.

 
Yep, disagreement is what makes this discussion interesting, but I have the feeling this will be a discussion to no end I'm not going to argue, as you put it well - we all hear differently. I'd suggest conducting a little experiment for yourself though. If you ever get a chance, listen to someone playing an acoustic guitar in the recording studio cabin. Then put a microphone exactly where your head was in XYZ and record it. Listen to the raw material without corrections and tell me then if LCD-2F or LCD-X sounds more natural to your ears; in terms of, as you put it, "detail, tonal balance, tonal purity/distortion..." (and yet the sound will still depend on the mic and pre-headphone equipment).. Then, for the fun of it, try the same experiment in a less acoustically damped environment to see how the headphones deal with the reproduction of both the recorded reverberations and primary sound source => IMO a good test for spatial projection. Here we shouldn't bring the HD800 into the discussion, as it utilizes an open capsule design (rather semi-open between the driver and the pads) to further enhance the imaging/spatial projection that has nothing to do with it's driver capabilities (and it's a very capable dynamic driver, despite the fact the magnet system is neodymium-based).
 
If you ever speak to speaker driver designers, one thing they will tell you is there's no perfect driver. However, some are better than others. I'm really not going to venture into the realm of objective measurements of drivers. I'm scared there may be far too many very knowledgable engineers here who would bash me from here to eternity, if I even scratch the surface.
 
I believe if you invest the time and money into improvement of your audio chain, I think you will recognize the difference between the 2F and X. The X is capable of a much better detail retrieval and spatial projection. And to my ears it is very close to natural sounding, but we already agreed, I believe, perception is affected by both the audio chain and subjective listening experiences, so this is a moot point.
 
If you ever decide to take this path of thorough audiophilia sickness though, one advice from me. If your wife threatens you to stop or she'll divorce you, because she just found out you had secretly blown the savings for your new family house and you're contemplating if your kid reeeeaally needs to go to college, I suggest you to listen to her and stop, because she means it
 

 
Regards,
Mario

 

[MRC001]

  ... I'd suggest conducting a little experiment for yourself though. If you ever get a chance, listen to someone playing an acoustic guitar in the recording studio cabin. Then put a microphone exactly where your head was in XYZ and record it. Listen to the raw material without corrections and tell me then if LCD-2F or LCD-X sounds more natural to your ears; in terms of, as you put it, "detail, tonal balance, tonal purity/distortion..." (and yet the sound will still depend on the mic and pre-headphone equipment).. Then, for the fun of it, try the same experiment in a less acoustically damped environment to see how the headphones deal with the reproduction of both the recorded reverberations and primary sound source => IMO a good test for spatial projection.
...
I believe if you invest the time and money into improvement of your audio chain, I think you will recognize the difference between the 2F and X.
... If you ever decide to take this path of thorough audiophilia sickness though
...

 
Regards,
Mario

I'm sure you didn't intend so, but this sounds a bit condescending.
I'm already well on my journey through audiophilia sickness; it started over 20 years ago. I play in a small ensemble and attend local concerts regularly, so I know well what the real thing sounds like. And I've made high quality recordings of natural acoustic music in various rooms (I use a balanced pair of Rode NT1-As) so I know what the live mic feed sounds like in different rooms, at different distance and mic configurations.
And there is no need to improve my audio chain. I certainly can recognize the difference between these headphones - I simply prefer the 2F over the others. I'm fortunate to have no budget limitations so price is not a factor. It sounds like you have a hard time understanding that - you seem to think my preference for the 2F must be due to lack of knowledge or insufficient equipment. Yet it's simply due to preference. I don't disparage the X, 3F or other headphones; they are fine headphones and I understand why some people prefer them to the 2F. Yet I know what the real thing sounds like and the 2F sounds closest to that to me. You prefer the X or 3F. I describe why, you describe why and we all learn something and have fun.