[BRAC]

Quote:

I was also under the impression that the LCD2 does not scale as much and reaches a limit as I and many others have observed.

How much does one have to spend to reach the limit?

 

[negura]

Quote:

I think you mean less sensitive than the HD800, but more sensitive than the HD600??? HD800 is completely utter crap with low end gear from my prolonged experience, and even so with hifi gear that doesn't pair well. I was also under the impression that the LCD2 does not scale as much and reaches a limit as I and many others have observed.

 
I am not sure what the HD800 have to do here... If people are trying to say the HD800s sound bad on budget gear I respect that. But irregardless whether they scale less or more or sound crap or better with various gear, this should be about the LCD-2s...
 
What I've previously said and will say again is that coming gradually from budget yet very good value downstream to a performant one, the sound quality improvement is instantly noticeable with the LCD-2s. Even someone like my girlfriend who isn't an audiophile, has not made one mistake during A/B comparing something like Soloist/V200 with lower end gear. To my surprise in 9/10 she was actually able to tell V200 and Soloist correctly apart with the LCD-2s, but that's something else.
 
 

How much does one have to spend to reach the limit?

 
That's a really good question, my buck stopped at V200/Soloist, but I am sure others have gone even higher up. Where it seems to get more blurry is that it's not always a rule that something expensive will have the expected return in performance, as well as some less expensive devices will grant a big bang for the buck.

 

[dfarina]

Quote:

 
I am not sure what the HD800 have to do here... If people are trying to say the HD800s sound bad on budget gear I respect that. But irregardless whether they scale less or more or sound crap or better with various gear, this should be about the LCD-2s...
 
What I've previously said and will say again is that coming gradually from budget yet very good value downstream to a performant one, the sound quality improvement is instantly noticeable with the LCD-2s. Even someone like my girlfriend who isn't an audiophile, has not made one mistake during A/B comparing something like Soloist/V200 with lower end gear. To my surprise in 9/10 she was actually able to tell V200 and Soloist correctly apart with the LCD-2s, but that's something else.
 
 

 
 

I have to ask,which do you prefer,the Soloist or V200 with the LCD2

 

[Argo Duck]

The lcd2 has a flat impedance curve, I.e. it's a purely resistive load. Whereas, as I understand it, dynamic headphones tend to have complex impedance curves. That is, they present weird loads to their amps. Hence the question of synergy and better/worse amps for a given hp (scaling) becomes a large one with dynamics.

Now since dynamic phones have been dominant, most of the amp know-how has presumably grown to support these loads. Being a different beast, the same rules don't apply with the LCD phones. Meaning the marvelous (and expensive) amp that does wonders for a difficult dynamic may do little or nothing - compared to some cheaper amp - for the LCD.

This may well lead to the 'finding' LCD phones "don't scale". This might be a mistake. As different rules apply, different amps are needed (e.g. higher current such as violectric gear). The usual (approximate) price-performance relationship fails.

Which I guess Is why speaker amps, old integrated amps and newer stuff like the lyr and mjolnir have been successful.

I just wouldn't be sure we have necessarily seen the orthodynamic amp technology fully mature yet. The counter view is these really are (with the notable exception of the he-6) easy to drive and provided there's enough current capability (with most amps this means 'power') just about anything will do!

IDK. Just putting it out there...

 

[BRAC]

negura, I think it's a fair question and could be beneficial to many LCD2 newcomers. I have seen that very claim posted on this forum countless times and by many different Head Fi'ers. Like you, I stopped at the Soloist, along with my M51, and hadn't yet reached said ceiling, at least not that I was aware of anyway.
 
At the very least, this info could have saved me some money in upgrades...

 

 

[Girls Generation]

If I had to put a finger on it, LCD2's scalability would stop at the $1000-1500 mark both amp and DAC.
 
Anyone with a budget spending a lot on the amp should consider balancing their budget out with a DAC for best price/performance since in the end, the extra $ towards a better amp won't yield a huge difference.

 

[KingStyles]

The lcd2 do tend to scale well as you go up in dacs/amps. The difference is they sound decent with lower end dacs/amps meaning there is a smaller gap between good and great seeming like they dont scale as well.

 

[BRAC]

Quote:

If I had to put a finger on it, LCD2's scalability would stop at the $1000-1500 mark both amp and DAC.
 
Anyone with a budget spending a lot on the amp should consider balancing their budget out with a DAC for best price/performance since in the end, the extra $ towards a better amp won't yield a huge difference.

Interesting... I will say that my DAC upgrade yielded the bigger increase in performance. Then again, my new DAC was four times the cost of the one it replaced. My amp upgrade was less than double, so there is that...
Quote:

The lcd2 do tend to scale well as you go up in dacs/amps. The difference is they sound decent with lower end dacs/amps meaning there is a smaller gap between good and great seeming like they dont scale as well.

That sounds feasible... But, in my case I thought the increase in performance was quite substantial. Of coarse, others may not agree with me.

 

[MorbidToaster]

Honestly the best I heard the LCD 2 was at 3k+. It's not that they don't scale up with better gear, it's that they don't scale as much as the HD800. 
 
Basically, it's not about a complete stop at scaling, it's about hitting the wall of diminishing returns faster than the HD800. 

 

[Girls Generation]

This is what I'm trying to imply, though I hadn't worded my thoughts correctly.  Thanks for summarizing that nicely.
Quote:

Honestly the best I heard the LCD 2 was at 3k+. It's not that they don't scale up with better gear, it's that they don't scale as much as the HD800. 
 
Basically, it's not about a complete stop at scaling, it's about hitting the wall of diminishing returns faster than the HD800. 

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

The lcd2 has a flat impedance curve, I.e. it's a purely resistive load. Whereas, as I understand it, dynamic headphones tend to have complex impedance curves. That is, they present weird loads to their amps. Hence the question of synergy and better/worse amps for a given hp (scaling) becomes a large one with dynamics.

Now since dynamic phones have been dominant, most of the amp know-how has presumably grown to support these loads. Being a different beast, the same rules don't apply with the LCD phones. Meaning the marvelous (and expensive) amp that does wonders for a difficult dynamic may do little or nothing - compared to some cheaper amp - for the LCD.

This may well lead to the 'finding' LCD phones "don't scale". This might be a mistake. As different rules apply, different amps are needed (e.g. higher current such as violectric gear). The usual (approximate) price-performance relationship fails.

Which I guess Is why speaker amps, old integrated amps and newer stuff like the lyr and mjolnir have been successful.

I just wouldn't be sure we have necessarily seen the orthodynamic amp technology fully mature yet. The counter view is these really are (with the notable exception of the he-6) easy to drive and provided there's enough current capability (with most amps this means 'power') just about anything will do!

IDK. Just putting it out there...

Very interesting points here.
 
Kudos

 

[negura]

Quote:

I have to ask,which do you prefer,the Soloist or V200 with the LCD2

 
I have found them on par and if I had unlimited funds, I would have kept them both. Btw. I've already posted my impressions in the previous pages and/or in the other big thread about the LCD-2s.  Technically the Soloist is probably a bit better and the V200 compensates in euphony/musicality. However my decision was mainly driven by the fact the the Soloist is part of my Burson Conductor so that was an easy choice.
 
As I've previously said, I find the DAC at least as important as the AMP and it's worthwhile budgeting accordingly.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Honestly the best I heard the LCD 2 was at 3k+. It's not that they don't scale up with better gear, it's that they don't scale as much as the HD800. 
 
Basically, it's not about a complete stop at scaling, it's about hitting the wall of diminishing returns faster than the HD800. 

Having transducers that are so hard to drive can also be inferred as a "poorer" design no? 

Orthos by nature have a flat impedance vs. frequency response (HE-6s are the same as the LCD-2/3s in this regard), so should we penalize them for that, when that's their nature? I think I can make an argument that designing a headphone transducer that sounds great without an UBER expensive amp that can handle the "swings" of the HD800s is a good thing? I realize that this is a taboo around here, but I've been thinking about it recently. 
 
 

FWIW, I love my HD800s and find that they are harder to get right from an amping perspective than my LCD-3s (which in turn are a bit harder to get right compared to the LCD-2s). But I think its more of a ring-dynamic transducer vs. ortho driver thing. Both properly powered are truly excellent (with my preference being for the LCD-3).

 

[MorbidToaster]

Not really penalizing them, just stating an observation. They're all good headphones, but your money goes further with the HD800s when you start to consider 'summit-fi' spending.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Not really penalizing them, just stating an observation. They're all good headphones, but your money goes further with the HD800s when you start to consider 'summit-fi' spending.

 
Just some musings I've been having. Nothing really directed at you, but something you mentioned kinda got me thinking.