[burgunder]

Quote:

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. 
 
 
 

 
I only have a pair off modded Fostex T50rp(which I guess are not as resolving as the LCD-3) but I have been testing various amps lately and I have come to the conclusion that the orthos don't change much with different amping, which I find great!

 

[preproman]

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.

 
 
I don't quite understand this.  "Not me"  - Others in this thread seem to be able to get as much - if not more out of the LCD-2.2 when compared to the HD800 regardless of amp/dac used.   A price can't be put on personal enjoyment and preference.  
 
I may be off here though..

 

[MorbidToaster]

Quote:

 
 
I don't quite understand this.  "Not me"  - Others in this thread seem to be able to get as much - if not more out of the LCD-2.2 when compared to the HD800 regardless of amp/dac used.   A price can't be put on personal enjoyment and preference.  
 
I may be off here though..

If you're talking relative enjoyment that's one thing (and totally subjective) but you'll never convince me the LCD 2 yields more improvement than the HD800 does when paired with top tier source and amplification.
 
'Enjoyment' was never what I was talking about.

 

[preproman]

Quote:

If you're talking relative enjoyment that's one thing (and totally subjective) but you'll never convince me the LCD 2 yields more improvement than the HD800 does when paired with top tier source and amplification.
 
'Enjoyment' was never what I was talking about.

 
So if not subjective.  What's your objective point of reference that the HD800 yields more improvement over the LCD-2.2?

 

[BRAC]

Quote:

 
So if not subjective.  What's your objective point of reference that the HD800 yields more improvement over the LCD-2.2?

+1. Exactly!
 
People talk about it like it's absolute undeniable fact, sorry, but in my experience that was simply not the case.

 

[MorbidToaster]

I'd say MH's post on the last page about the HD800s wonky curve sums it up pretty nicely.
 
Edit: So basically one of the HD800s imperfections is the reason. I'd also say it's easier to perceive change in the HD800 due to it's higher overall detail. I guess some may call that subjective but I'm not sure anyone could claim the LCD 2 is more detailed than the HD800.
Quote:

+1. Exactly!
 
People talk about it like it's absolute undeniable fact, sorry, but in my experience that was simply not the case.

 

[BRAC]

Quote:

I'd say MH's post on the last page about the HD800s wonky curve sums it up pretty nicely.
 
Edit: So basically one of the HD800s imperfections is the reason. I'd also say it's easier to perceive change in the HD800 due to it's higher overall detail. I guess some may call that subjective but I'm not sure anyone could claim the LCD 2 is more detailed than the HD800.

Here is my take - based on my own personal experience with these 2 great headphones. And, it wasn't too difficult to come to these conclusions since I was comparing them both on the same rig at the same time.
 
Yes, the HD800 did have significantly more detail than the LCD2.2 on my HA160/Bifrost rig, but with the Soloist/M51 that gap closed considerably. However, I would have still given a slight edge in detail to the HD800 after the upgrades. My point in this discussion has always been about the ability of the LCD2 to scale up, and that it's not as cut and dry as some would have you believe. To automatically assume that the HD800 will always scale higher with upgrades is nothing more than an opinion or an assumption. Could this outcome change with different components? Maybe, I don't know. If the HD800 is as picky as people say, then sure... 
 
That said, I will throw this out there as food for thought.....In my rig, my LCD3 has all the detail of the HD800, but then easily outclasses it in every other category, except for maybe soundstaging. That's my opinion. YMMV. 

 

[MorbidToaster]

I've owned both in world class rigs at the same time (LF, LG [Amps] PWD2 + PWT, 851C [Sources]) and the HD800 has yielded more significant differences as I went up the chain than the LCD 2.2 did. This part is subjective, but the reason why (objectively) makes sense.
 
Again, not saying the LCD 2.2 doesn't scale up, but I feel it hits the diminishing returns wall much sooner than the HD800 when it comes to perceived improvement in sound. 
 
As for the LCD 3...Definitely not my cup of tea. My ears got over the 'wonder' of orthos quickly after getting the HD800. They're just not for me anymore I guess. I think the HE500 is the only ortho I'd consider owning again right now.
 
Quote:

Here is my take - based on my own personal experience with these 2 great headphones. And, it wasn't too difficult to come to these conclusions since I was comparing them both on the same rig at the same time.
 
Yes, the HD800 did have significantly more detail than the LCD2.2 on my HA160/Bifrost rig, but with the Soloist/M51 that gap closed considerably. However, I would have still given a slight edge in detail to the HD800 after the upgrades. My point in this discussion has always been about the ability of the LCD2 to scale up, and that it's not as cut and dry as some would have you believe. To automatically assume that the HD800 will always scale higher with upgrades is nothing more than an opinion or an assumption. Could this outcome change with different components? Maybe, I don't know. If the HD800 is as picky as people say, then sure... 
 
That said, I will throw this out there as food for thought.....In my rig, my LCD3 has all the detail of the HD800, but then easily outclasses it in every other category, except for maybe soundstaging. That's my opinion. YMMV. 

 

[preproman]

Quote:

...In my rig, my LCD3 has all the detail of the HD800, but then easily outclasses it in every other category, except for maybe soundstaging. That's my opinion. YMMV. 

 
 
I agree with this.  But also the HD800 has an edge in "instrument separation" (air and space around the instrument) as well.  IMO

 

[BRAC]

Quote:

 
 
I agree with this.  But also the HD800 has an edge in "instrument separation" (air and space around the instrument) as well.  IMO

I agree.
 
More of an "in general" statement. I would consider "instrument separation" as part of soundstaging anyway.

 

[Girls Generation]

Instrument separation as in accuracy in placement and imaging, would probably be a separate entity than sound staging imo.
Quote:

I agree.
 
More of an "in general" statement. I would consider "instrument separation" as part of soundstaging anyway.

 

[BRAC]

Quote:

Instrument separation as in accuracy in placement and imaging, would probably be a separate entity than sound staging imo.

Picky much? Like I said, "in general".
 
Geeeez.....Tough crowd!

 

[preproman]

Quote:

Instrument separation as in accuracy in placement and imaging, would probably be a separate entity than sound staging imo.

 
Quote:

Picky much? Like I said, "in general".
 
Geeeez.....Tough crowd! 

 
 
O yeah buddy - tough crowd indeed.  I agree with GG.  Left / Right opposed to 3D or stereo placement would be considered sound stage.  Being able to pick out what instrument is what easily would be instrument separation.
 
Of course IMO..
 
Just picking with you

 

[BRAC]

Quote:

 
 
 
O yeah buddy - tough crowd indeed.  I agree with GG.  Left / Right opposed to 3D or stereo placement would be considered sound stage.  Being able to pick out what instrument is what easily would be instrument separation.
 
Of course IMO..
 
Just picking with you

Yes.....tough considering that I was agreeing with you.

 

[oqvist]

Quote:

Instrument separation as in accuracy in placement and imaging, would probably be a separate entity than sound staging imo.

If that isn´t soundstage then what is soundstage. there is nothing left? Soundstaging for me is a combination of those terms.