[Beagle]

Um, what?
You are describing exactly the opposite of what i said i hear....
did you confuse my Review with another?

If you read more carefully, next time, you'll note i said that the LCD1s, are not overly extended regarding the bass and treble, and that the mids, and the overall sound Sig of this interesting set of headphones, is a "U" shape.
Audeze has created what they feel is a natural sound, which i hear as flat freq response, that they maintain is "reference".

Think of a "U" as a graph, which is not an unreasonable analogy. Can you see the shape of the "U"? Are you sure? OK, I'll carry on. Using that original analogy (remember?),a "U" response (as a graph) would indicate all bottom and top and everything in between sucked out. If you disagree, then maybe "U" is not a good alphabet letter to describe the sonic signature you are hearing.

 

[FullBright1]

Think of a "U" as a graph, which is not an unreasonable analogy. Can you see the shape of the "U"? Are you sure? OK, .

Arguing for the sake of arguing, is not really proving your point, Beagle.

So, just as you stated that there is no such thing as a "V" shape, sonic Sig, you are also apparently unfamiliar with a "U" shape, as your description has indicated.
Lets then, inform you for the sake of future reference.
First, when describing a "V" shape, this does not mean that the mids are missing, it simply means that in the context of an overall freq balance, they are reduced. This manifests in many ways... including , "laid back mids", "recessed mids", ect.
Often this type of sound is reviewed as having more bass and treble, but the reality is, the mids are less balanced regarding the bass and treble,...

Now, to understand the essence of a "U" shape, is not to comprehend that the mids are there and the bass and treble are missing. But rather, the mids are the widest part of the sound, yet, not necessarily forward.
Audiophile headphones should have more of a "U" shape, then a "V", because Audiophile sound is foremost about the midrange.
Many audiophile headphones try to impress with treble, and many reviewers who are not really capable of reviewing on a professional level, will get all hot and excited about "treble response"....."treble detail"... But, that is not where audiophile sound is located. Audiophile sound is in the MIDRANGE, and if the mids are stellar, then you dont need to try to "fake audiophile" sound by blowing up the treble to give the impression that you are getting great detail.
If the midrange is great, then all the detail you can ever want, all the clarity you can ever hope to hear, is RIGHT THERE.

 

[FullBright1]

How can frequency response be "overly extended"?

You've heard headphones describe as "bass head" headphones.
You've heard some listeners described as "treble heads".

So, that is how, its understood.
And to be one of those is the result of becoming enamored or addicted to a sonic Signature TYPE, that is found coming out of speakers that have a more substantial bass or treble response, as compared to what would be considered a neutral or natural sound.

Another way to think of it as "etched".. This means that the treble is punched. Usually this is 8kHz annoying.
Another expressing that describes overly extended treble is this... SSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

Sometime you have "bass bleed". The Bass is extending into the midrange, and ruining it for everyone except for people who want headphones to have a bass response that is not balanced.

 

[HipHopScribe]

You've heard headphones describe as "bass head" headphones.
You've heard some listeners described as "treble heads".

So, that is how, its understood.
And to be one of those is the result of becoming enamored or addicted to a sonic Signature TYPE, that is found coming out of speakers that have a more substantial bass or treble response, as compared to what would be considered a neutral or natural sound.

Another way to think of it as "etched".. This means that the treble is punched. Usually this is 8kHz annoying.
Another expressing that describes overly extended treble is this... SSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

Sometime you have "bass bleed". The Bass is extending into the midrange, and ruining it for everyone except for people who want headphones to have a bass response that is not balanced.

I think you're describing over emphasized bass or treble, not "over-extended". The LCD-1 has well extended bass, in that it reaches deep without a steep drop-off, but it doesn't have over-emphasized bass because while the bass is extended, it's not emphasized above neutral. Treble is also well extended, in that it's present, detailed and pretty neutral, but it's not over-emphasized because it's not exaggerated

 

[iBrian]

You are all wrong with your opinions

these are the best sounding headphones with the best soundstage! Period


Maxell HP-100 Headphones, Black

 

[MRC001]

According to the FR chart posted earlier, the LCD1 rolls off the top and bottom octaves, being 10 to 12 dB down at 20 Hz, and about 6 dB down above 8k. From 60 to 6k it's within about 3dB of neutral. That's where most of the energy is in most music. And the entire curve is smooth with no sudden spikes or dips. I'd say that qualifies as neutral FR, though if it's "U" shaped it's a gentle mostly flat upside-down "U". It also has low distortion and decent CSD in the mids & treble.

By comparison, the HD600 also rolls off the bottom bass octave. But it has at least 10x more bass distortion, and if you EQ it up it sounds bloated. If you EQed the bottom bass octave of the LCD-1 up a bit, say +5 dB @ 30 Hz Q=0.67, which would still be a bit attenuated but closer to neutral, its low distortion suggests it might handle this better than the HD600 without sounding as bloated. Of course this is entirely speculation on my part; I haven't listened to the LCD-1.

Also by comparison, the similarly priced HiFiMan orthos look like they have more uneven frequency response and higher distortion than the LCD-1. But that could be a misleading effect of comparing Tyll's measurements on InnerFidelity with the LCD-1 measurements posted here.

 

[FullBright1]

I think you're describing over emphasized bass or treble, not "over-extended". The LCD-1 has well extended bass, in that it reaches deep without a steep drop-off, but it doesn't have over-emphasized bass because while the bass is extended, it's not emphasized above neutral. Treble is also well extended, in that it's present, detailed and pretty neutral, but it's not over-emphasized because it's not exaggerated

Etched, Over Extended, Over Emphasized, Bass Head Headphones. SSSSSSSSSSSSSS Treble......
All the Same thing. = Too much.
Also, there is no such thing created or ever to be created as a set of headphones that can be proven to have a "Neutral" sound.
This idea, this concept, is just a concept, as there is no sure standard that can be used as the standard.
"Neutral" as compared to WHAT ????
There is no "WHAT",
Each opinion dictates the final answer to this "What".
Words like "natural, and neutral", are the attempted work of every headphone designer's ambition, who is striving for "truth" in sound.
But its THEIR truth, and not "truth in general" as can be proven.
If you like Their Truth in sound, then you will love THEIR Headphones.
Each and every listener is going to have their own particular idea regarding what "sounds natural or neutral" found inside a set of headphones or coming from a set of floor standing speakers.
People begin to rant more or less in unison about all this when its obvious that a headphone is design flawed with bass or treble that is just too overarching and unbearable in general, or if the midrange is just punched too far forward in the sonic "mix" to be desirable.

 

[HipHopScribe]

Etched, Over Extended, Over Emphasized, Bass Head Headphones. SSSSSSSSSSSSSS Treble......
All the Same thing. = Too much.

Extended and emphasized do not mean the same thing as I understand it, that's all I'm saying. I understand what you mean now that you explained your definition, I just don't think that's the common meaning

 

[FullBright1]

Extended and emphasized do not mean the same thing as I understand it, that's all I'm saying. I understand what you mean now that you explained your definition, I just don't think that's the common meaning

All definition are welcome within in the world of subjective listening experience.
I hear what i hear.
You hear what you hear.
Life is good when we love what we hear....

 

[MRC001]

..."Neutral" as compared to WHAT ????
There is no "WHAT",
Each opinion dictates the final answer to this "What". ...

There is an objective definition of "neutral": a standard HRTF curve measured by averaging over many different individuals. It's not perfect because there is so much individual variation. But it's better than nothing. If a headphone follow this target, most people will agree that it is at least close to neutral and it won't have any glaring flaws in frequency response.

 

[PointyFox]

Again, extension isn't the same thing as emphasized. "Neutral" would be the headphone produces linearly the signal fed into them.

 

[phthora]

All definition are welcome within in the world of subjective listening experience.
I hear what i hear.
You hear what you hear.
Life is good when we love what we hear....

In this case, it isn't a matter of what you hear, but one of the specific words you've used to describe things. By using "extension" in the way you do, you are working against how the vast majority of other people understand the term. You've since clarified what you meant, and that's good, but this isn't a matter of others being pedantic, the way you phrased things initially was a bit confusing. "All definitions" of terms are not equal. We use a set of language constructed in common to communicate about very abstract qualities of sound. Without that, talking about sound would be far less precise and meaningful. It's perfectly fine and even welcome to use metaphors to expand that common language, but radically changing what is meant by an established term is just counterproductive and confusing.

 

[Art Garfunkel]

All definition are welcome within in the world of subjective listening experience.
I hear what i hear.
You hear what you hear.
Life is good when we love what we hear....

Good to hear

But I am curious as to why are you constantly in conflict (talking down actually) with others who have tastes, opinions or definitions that don't match your own? If you have your own definition of "what's what", who is to deny that to others as well?

 

[JoeBee]

Head-fiers definitely have a way with words!

Better a veil than a shrill ice pick in the ear.

 

[JoeBee]

Arguing for the sake of arguing, is not really proving your point, Beagle

Are You guys practicing on Monty Python skit?