[Synergist969]

  To Whomever has Experience and Desires to Assist:
 
    My current headphone specific system is comprised of a Bifrost A/D converter, feeding either an Asguard 2, or a Lyr amp, drive a pair of Sennheiser HD-650 Headphones.  I love the "organic", mid-orchestra hall sound qualities these cans generate, but wish to improve any and all parameters if possible.
 
    Through Head-Fi I have been following with genuine enthusiasm the evolution of the Audeze LCD-...line of headphones, and being a DEEP bass aficionado, (Pipe organ pedal notes, deep synthesizer, etc.), have been very impressed and attracted to the LCD-2.2 and LCD-3, as well as perhaps the LCD-X/LCD-XC series.  That said...
 
    HOWEVER
 
I have learned that since the inception of the Fazor technology, and its utilization in not only the LCD-X and LCD-XC series, but also that the post- 2013 LCD-2.2 and LCD-3 models also utilize this technology.  Further, those headphones utilizing Fazor technology are tuned such that they are no longer flat down to 5 hz., but instead are shelved down 2 to 3 dB. at 40 Hz. and below...
 
  So, my questions are, (since I have no easy way to audition these various headphones)...:
 
1. How audible is the difference between the old, (flat low frequency response LCD-2.2/LCD-3's), and the new Fazor equipped LCD-2.2/LCD-3 with regard to deep bass reproduction?
 
2.  If there is a marked loss in perceived deep bass, how can I acquire a Pre-Fazor/Pre-2014 LCD-2.2 or LCD-3?
 
3.  If there are meaningful differences between the 2014 Fazor tech. utilized Audeze headphones,...which one(s) might appeal most to me based on my appreciation of full deep bass, as well as my appreciation for what the Sennheiser HD-650's do with regard to the overall, organic, Mid-Hall presentation.
 
4.  If there is a better forum on which to present this inquiry, Please let me know which one(s) it might be?
 
 
I welcome all well intentioned input/assistance, and I thank you ahead of time for your responses/assistance.
 
Thank You.
 
Sincerely,
T.A. Kogstrom        

 

[KG Jag]

Yes--the Summit-Fi section of the forum is a much better venue for this discussion.  You might also benefit from various threads in the Equipment Forums and its sub-sections.

 

[Synergist969]

Dear KG Jag:
 
  Thank you for your advice...I will try The Summit-Fi forum based on your suggestion.
 
Sincerely,
T.A. Kogstrom

 

[davidsh]

The specific Audeze threads might be good places to ask.

 

[Synergist969]

Dear Davidsh:
 
  Thank you for your advice, I will try those sites specifically.
 
Sincerely,
T.A. Kogstrom

 

[jodgey4]

I've posted tons about the LCD-2.2 pre and post Fazor. I will try to dig up those for you tonight. I have tried all Audeze models except the Fazor 3 and 2.1, including many flagship models, and HD650's. The Audeze models still have the best bass of anything I've heard, but the house sound is moving in a new direction with the Fazor. For deep bass, no other can I've tried will even get you in the ballpark of any Audeze I've heard.

Bass extension is probably my number one priority in choosing a can.

 

[jodgey4]

Some context may be missing... but here ya go.
 
...

---

"Perhaps slightly less sub-bass, warmth, naturalness, intimacy, but Fazor adds incredible imaging and staging in the mids, and the treble doesn't change too much. I think the average Head-Fi user would welcome the addition of the Fazor... it makes them objectively superior, and it's still an LCD-2 ."

---

"When I looked at the FR graph of that pair, after a bit of listening, I'm hearing exactly what the graph shows. Tyll is 100% correct in that the sub bass needs to return to former pre-Fazor levels, and the upper mids-lower treble need the lift you mention. "Treble" treble can stay dark for all I care, just for long-listening-sessions' sake. I was skeptical of Tyll, as he's obviously quite opinionated in his ideas of what sounds natural and neutral/flat... But he's 100% correct."

---

"Some of you might remember me freaking out when I saw the FR plots showing recessed sub-bass in the Fazor models. I want to discuss that a little bit, now that I know these cans. I don't think these issues are amp related. My cans are out with Saoshyant right now for an audition, I've traded for his HE-400's (I'll write a review on them soon... tl;dr as related to this thread - comparing bass between these two cans is a no-go IMHO).
 
The roll-off/recession is quite noticable, and frankly, ruins the idea of the 'classic Audeze house sound' going forward unless serious changes are made. While bass is still just as tight and textured, the lack of perceived extension does two things::
1. Listening at low volumes is not engaging. You need low bass for things to have proper body, which I expect out of a top-tier can.
2. These cans are no longer the most natural can I've heard, that goes to the non-F 2.2's by a longshot, then NAD HP50's.
 
So what has the Fazor done? It's created mids and treble that sound more hi-fi, with all the same level of detail, with better seperation and timing. Treble has lost its smokey flavor in exchange for something more bland and sterile. These changes should have been left for a new model. The first time I heard an acoustic bass on the non-F 2.2's... I could've died right there a happy man. The sense of realism, with all the low rumblings of acoustic reverberation in the recording, made you feel like you're in a jazz hall. The more intimate stage (and honestly still some of the best imaging I've ever heard) just fit the frequency response in such a grand way... with old school styling, no doubt this is what led them to fame.
 
So am I having buyer's remorse? I don't know. The first week I had my cans on, there was nothing super exciting about them, but they really grew on me in a way I never would've expected. Perhaps it was just the me rediscovering old music in a new hi-fi way, idk. Would I do it again differently in the future? Probably, both for sound's sake and for the extra cash savings. My only hope is that Audeze gets the Fazor working with sub-bass and the old smokey, intimate sound in the future... then I'll throw money at them blindly

.
 
Anyways, I'd like to hear your thoughts."

---

"I spent a lot of time researching cans on here before I finally went for an audition where I heard the 2's, X's, XC's, 3's, K812, T1, and TH-600. Thankfully for my wallet, the LCD-2's spoke to me the most, more than any other. Natural was the word... just a touch dark beyond 'neutral' in the treble for longer sessions, and bass and mids so well together, they acted as one cohesive voice.
 
The T1, while close to neutral besides a minor spike in measurements, just sounded sterile, though if I was needing a can for professional audio work, I'd've walked out with those, or the more enjoyable and brighter K812 (which I enjoyed so thoroughly, I've ordered Q701's to try my luck on the supposed AKG house sound, prepared to flip them worst case). This was my first experience with the TOTL cans, so any historical bias would've been lost on me. All I brought was my ears... they wanted the 2's by a long shot.
 
Coming from a drumming background as my old main hobby, I can tell you, as much as any brand tries, there is a house sound to almost any brand no matter how hard they try to get away from it. Take cymbals:: Paiste is always shimmering, Istanbul Agop dark and complex and trashy, Bosphorus buttery and warm. Now, Audeze... all cans, even the new X and XC which were supposed to be in a new direction, still had unending, tight bass, slightly lush mids, and smokey, though more present treble. With the 2 Fazor, all development since the X says these characteristics are going away. Those characteristics are what brought some serious smiles to my face.
 
And as for being a measurement artifact (perhaps the vegan pads play a role too)... every Fazor model has the dip right in a range where rumble and body come from. Artifact?... I don't think so. Is the Fazor a bold step, sure to gain them many fans as they move towards more middle ground... absolutely. And more power to everyone on that front. I'm still happy with what I've got, but they are not the 2's everyone around here probably expect.
 
And yes, it's a darn can. I'm not really that worked up about it... just at the end of the day when I put them on... it makes me wonder. WW3 could easily start here, haha."

---

"For me, tight extended bass is the #1 most overlooked part of sound. Our ears hear much lower than most people realize, and so much room/environmental feel/experience comes from these low rumblings and reverberation. I am NOT a basshead... accuracy and natural feeling are so important to me, especially as someone who gets a great deal of his enjoyment not from listening to music, but playing it.
 
I'm considering a trade and following your path... I'd need to audition the 'old' model again, just to make sure it's not me just being a loon. As I've told a few friends and fellow members, for ~$1000, you have the right to be picky!
 
BTW, I love that the Fazor is easier to drive... easier than HE-400's I think. I can use them off my phone or portable keyboard and still get killer sound."

 

[jodgey4]

Those seem to be all the comments I've made about my observations... not in any real order... remember, this is one guy's opinions... feel free to ask questions or PM me!

 

[Synergist969]

  Dear Jodgey4:
 
    Thank you so much for your frank, elaborative and insightful response! 
 
  Just as you might have predicted, that which you heard, and so very well expressed, certainly does not make me happy, however, it IS very valuable and appreciated information.
 
    Should you have ANY more thoughts/insights, please do not hesitate to voice them/contact me. 
 
   I do wonder if LCD-___ headphones utilizing the Fazor technology somewhow require that frequencies below 40Hz. be reduced below flat in order to work well/best(?), (perhaps in order to allow those deep bass frequencies to maintain that increased air/imaging etc.,)??? 
 
    THAT being said, if in fact as you seem to believe/convey, that the frequency response chosen is in order to satisfy a larger percentage of the listening/PURCHASING public...
 
    I wonder if Audeze would/will be able/willing to tailor frequency response based on user/purchaser request...?...
Perhaps it might require sufficient headphone community requests/demands to generate a new, FLAT deep bass fazor tech. headphone...now, ON THAT I TOO would spend my hard earned money!  Do you think Audeze would listen, and could produce them?
 
Again, thank you very much for your response.
 
Sincerely/Peace/Namaste,
Timothy A. Kogstrom    

 

[jodgey4]

Yes... flat bass with Fazor tech is possible... the X and XC were designed with a new, thinner driver, in conjunction with the Fazor. These have incredible, deep, smokey bass. My thoughts on the implementation of the Fazor with the 2 and 3 are thus::
The new Fazor waveguide structure produces an easier to drive can (many complain about amping planars). The new measurements on impulse response and square wave response show objectively better timing results... which my ears call 'imaging'

. Third... the Fazor opens up the sound, and provides a tad bit more detail - I imagine the average audiophile absolutely loves the Fazor implementation.
The problem is here - these drivers were not designed to work with the Fazor structure, and while it's great to push technology and use it wherever possible... some systems just aren't meant to be upgraded - the old driver was perfectly tuned with itself to provide one of the most satisfying and incredible performances around. Adding Fazor certainly has some 'hot new selling points'... but this technology should be saved for drivers that can actually handle it.
 
Purchasing non-Fazor models is something I can't answer... check the classifieds here and on eBay, maybe call some dealers and ask about old stock. Nice-Cans here in Austin may have some old 2's still in.
Now... since you have questions about the Audeze line in general, allow me to provide some pithy comments as to each of the can's sounds. In my book, one's favorites could easily not match up with the pricing... I know mine didn't.
 
For me, the 2 was actually my favorite... warm, dry, smoooooth... and bass that can't be believed. These have my favorite bass... it's just so natural! Maybe the low price tricked me, too

.
 
Next favorite on my list was the X's... much quicker due to the thinner driver and optimized magnet structure - one can immediately tell they'll handle quick transients and busy music with total ease. They have a brilliant, analytical, neutral sound that has won many new fans to the Audeze club. What's best, is that they still manage to keep a smokey, crisp treble... perfectly in line with the house sound, despite being the most forward can. I'd love a pair one day!
 
The 3 was my third favorite... very close to the 2's, but quicker in the bass, and much wetter. This wetness seems to be psychological or FR induced, as this type of wetness is not the kind many closed cans exhibit due to internal resonances in lower frequencies. These have a thin driver as well (not sure if it's the same as the X/XC driver, I always forget), so they can handle a little more speed compared to the 2's. They ranked behind for me, because they were too wet and refined... I like a little dirt. The objective performance is undeniable... they're clearly Audeze's #1 with good reason. These can offered the #1 vocal experience I've ever heard though... by leagues.
 
Last was the XC, an interesting can. The upper mids seem a bit wonky to me, like there's a dip right where a female vocalist should really shine. The bass is deep and wet... but not quick like the 3's. The treble was the least interesting, though I couldn't place why... not enough sparkle or smoke or air, I suppose. These cans seems to have a very 'you love them or you hate them' kind of response. These were the only ones where I think I'd prefer another brand's can (K812 probably).
 
My ideal can would be 2 bass, 3 mids, and X treble. (pre-Fazor of course).
 
My hope is that the next generation of Audeze's will get back to the older 2's sound of warm, smooth, deeeeep bass, with increased sensitivity and imaging response. That's where Audeze should aim, IMHO. I'd love to work with them on tuning the next generation

!
 
I hope this helps, please LMK if you have any other questions! PM, need be! And remember, even 2's and 3's with the Fazor are still... Audeze's. Almost no cans can come close to the bass!

 

[jodgey4]

     I do wonder if LCD-___ headphones utilizing the Fazor technology somewhow require that frequencies below 40Hz. be reduced below flat in order to work well/best(?), (perhaps in order to allow those deep bass frequencies to maintain that increased air/imaging etc.,)???
 
    I wonder if Audeze would/will be able/willing to tailor frequency response based on user/purchaser request...?...
Perhaps it might require sufficient headphone community requests/demands to generate a new, FLAT deep bass fazor tech. headphone...now, ON THAT I TOO would spend my hard earned money!  Do you think Audeze would listen, and could produce them? 

To the first point, I think it's just due to the fact that the old drivers are a bit thicker, and aren't optimized/designed for the better magnetic wave guiding. Many argue that below 40 hz is useless, as many studios roll off this information on many instruments during recording to facilitate quicker mixing and less muddy bass interference... but this is where a lot of 'room feel' comes in. An acoustic bass in a nice hall isn't going to have a filter on it, and so keeping these frequencies accurate/level to what the ear hears I think is important for adding weight to sound. You feel it on the right recordings.
 
To the second... you make me want to see if I can take the Fazor guide out of my cans, haha. I heard Audeze stopped offering the upgrade option due to lack of interest, it was offered at $150 for a while. Having it as an option you could add on for $150 at purchase would be the best solution for everyone IMHO. That could even mean dropping down the 'standard' pricing by that amount, which would be great. $850 for 2's would bring some new people in, I'm sure of it.
 
I think given all the feedback from members like myself, and reviewers like Tyll who shares many similar views on the recessed sub-bass response and loss of warmth... changes are a comin'. What those changes are, I couldn't know. Judging by the latest model, the X... things could go many interesting directions.