[DivineCurrent]

After a few days with the LCD-1, unfortunately I'm not blown away. I was excited at first because I thought it would be similar to the HD600 in presentation. However, I just can't get on board with the upper-mids and treble. Things sound kind of shouty, and this is coming from a long time HD600 user. I'm loosing that organic tone the Sennheisers have always given me. I will say bass is very tight and impactful, a definite improvement as to be expected from a planar. Using oratory1990's EQ settings brings the tonality much closer to the 600, but still not as natural sounding to my ears.

Maybe my expectations were too high, but I still prefer the 600 and 650 to the LCD-1.

 

[MRC001]

That EQ settings page is very well done. Enough info there to use as-is with any EQ software or device, or apply your own. Often, EQing a headphone with full correction is too much. Especially with boosts, which can increase distortion or exacerbate spectral decay issues. The cure can be worse than the disease. I find that EQing about half the correction is often better, using the most gentle slope (numerically smallest Q) possible, and only correct the biggest areas ignoring the small stuff. You get an audible improvement closer to neutrality without changing the character of the sound or creating new problems.

 

[MRC001]

For example with the LCD-1 I might try:
+6 dB @ 100, Q = 0.7, shelf (about the same as Oratory 1990's curve)
+3 dB @ 2000, Q = 1.2, peak
-3 dB @ 3000, Q = 1.5, peak
+3 dB @ 6000, Q = 1.7, peak
Before EQ, apply an overall gain reduction of -6 dB to prevent the +6 bass EQ from clipping. If -6 dB is too much gain reduction for a given setup, a smaller gain reduction of -4 dB should be sufficient for most music. It could clip with full scale signals below 100 Hz, but it would be safe for most music since frequencies below 100 Hz are rarely as high as -2 dB since there has to be room for energy in the higher frequencies.

PS: or even simpler, keep the first (bass shelf) but replace the last 3 with a single one:
-4 dB @ 3400, Q = 0.9
This will reduce the LCD-1 peak to more closely follow the Harman HRTF curve, smoothly and consistently slightly below it. It's not perfect, but it's a simpler, gentler EQ that is more transparent, less likely to introduce its own coloration.

 

[KMann]

After a few days with the LCD-1, unfortunately I'm not blown away. I was excited at first because I thought it would be similar to the HD600 in presentation. However, I just can't get on board with the upper-mids and treble. Things sound kind of shouty, and this is coming from a long time HD600 user. I'm loosing that organic tone the Sennheisers have always given me. I will say bass is very tight and impactful, a definite improvement as to be expected from a planar. Using oratory1990's EQ settings brings the tonality much closer to the 600, but still not as natural sounding to my ears.

Maybe my expectations were too high, but I still prefer the 600 and 650 to the LCD-1.

For example with the LCD-1 I might try:
+6 dB @ 100, Q = 0.7, shelf (about the same as Oratory 1990's curve)
+3 dB @ 2000, Q = 1.2, peak
-3 dB @ 3000, Q = 1.5, peak
+3 dB @ 6000, Q = 1.7, peak
Before EQ, apply an overall gain reduction of -6 dB to prevent the +6 bass EQ from clipping. If -6 dB is too much gain reduction for a given setup, a smaller gain reduction of -4 dB should be sufficient for most music. It could clip with full scale signals below 100 Hz, but it would be safe for most music since frequencies below 100 Hz are rarely as high as -2 dB since there has to be room for energy in the higher frequencies.

PS: or even simpler, keep the first (bass shelf) but replace the last 3 with a single one:
-4 dB @ 3460, Q = 0.9
This will reduce the LCD-1 peak to more closely follow the Harman HRTF curve, smoothly and consistently slightly below it. It's not perfect, but it's a simpler, gentler EQ that is more transparent, less likely to introduce its own coloration.

It is risky to apply EQ above 1kHz based on measurements alone. If one uses a different measurement rig the results will be completely different above 1kHz. Harman curve may be valid for the setup Harman researches used, but trying to apply that universally may not yield expected results. Even on the same setup, pinna interaction also matters quite a bit. Our experience has been that if the ear pad size changes or if the driver changes, results are quite unpredictable.


As an example, here is a comparison of measurement we made on GRAS KEMAR of HD6XX and LCD-1. Based on the below measurements HD6XX/650 closely match LCD-1 in the mids till 5kHz. Also note that Oratory uses a ear/cheek simulator while we use the KEMAR dummy head. The pinna sizes are the same but stiffness is different.

 

[MRC001]

Sure, and you can remove the headphone from the head, reinstall it, and it will measure slightly differently. This is yet another reason to keep the EQ as simple and gentle as possible. Only correct the largest deviations, and don't correct them fully. The goal of EQ should be to gently take it closer to neutral, not twist it into a pretzel to micro-fit every deviation.

For example, the EQ I use with the LCD-2 Fazor (2016 drivers) is +3.5 dB @ 4000 Hz, Q=0.67. That's all - nothing else. It partially offsets the 4k dip, restoring a bit of detail and more neutral timbre of acoustic instruments. But it's very gentle so it doesn't introduce its own coloration and doesn't change the character of the sound.

 

[KMann]

Sure, and you can remove the headphone from the head, reinstall it, and it will measure slightly differently. This is yet another reason to keep the EQ as simple and gentle as possible. Only correct the largest deviations, and don't correct them fully. The goal of EQ should be to gently take it closer to neutral, not twist it into a pretzel to micro-fit every deviation.

If one wishes to change the tonality of the headphone to match their preference, even if it were a standard target such as Harman, even if there are large deviations, there is no substitute for listening, especially for frequencies above 1-2kHz. Doing it based on measurements/graphs will yield suboptimal results or it may sound worse than where one starts.

Of course there are exceptions to the above. If one is very familiar with the measurement rig and knows what the neutral response looks like for a headphone and the earpad is mostly the same, then one can use the measurements to get a good idea of how they will measure relative to one other.

There have been numerous occasions where we see a peak in measurments but do not hear them or we see a dip in a measurments while the waterfall plot shows different.

 

[MRC001]

That's certainly true. I believe a significant contributing factor to this is the large amount of individual variation in HRTF.
PS I believe in doing it from measurements as a first draft to get an EQ that is at least in the right ballpark as a starting point. But you've got to listen to it and adjust from there.

 

[FullBright1]

I would indeed buy the lcd-2 Classic if i didnt have doubts about the headphone weight and neck problems Mainly because when i wear it, i most of the time, i am playing guitar and I Will look very often look down at the guitar and pedalboard
But thanks

In that case you need these.
This is the Koss KSC75.
They cost $15 USD on Amazon.
They are miraculous.
As a matter of fact, when you hear them, you will wonder what is going on with $2500 Headphones, when these sound so amazing.
Also, the LCD1s are light. Also sound very good.
They work best with a very pristine amp.
Something like the Mojo will make these run their best...Anything that is clean clean clean.

-

The warm midbassy sound is a popular tuning. .

If you really prefer the "midbassy" tuning, then cEntrance just released their Closed Cerene DB headphones, with you in mind.
Very inexpensive, Leather pads, nice sound. A bit of extra warmth, but plenty of mids and T.

After a few days with the LCD-1, unfortunately I'm not blown away. I was excited at first because I thought it would be similar to the HD600 in presentation. However, I just can't get on board with the upper-mids and treble. Things sound kind of shouty, and this is coming from a long time HD600 user. I'm loosing that organic tone the Sennheisers have always given me.

Planars can't sound like Dynamic speakers. They can't deliver that organic analog type of tone.
Planars are sharp, focused, quick, often too detailed, vs, honest neutrality.
Your Senns are a Classic for over 2 Decades. They are a Legend.
Every Audiophile has owned them, and most still do.

[merged]

 

[Lost Cosmonaut]

After a few days with the LCD-1, unfortunately I'm not blown away. I was excited at first because I thought it would be similar to the HD600 in presentation. However, I just can't get on board with the upper-mids and treble. Things sound kind of shouty, and this is coming from a long time HD600 user. I'm loosing that organic tone the Sennheisers have always given me. I will say bass is very tight and impactful, a definite improvement as to be expected from a planar. Using oratory1990's EQ settings brings the tonality much closer to the 600, but still not as natural sounding to my ears.

Maybe my expectations were too high, but I still prefer the 600 and 650 to the LCD-1.

What I found especially unappealing about the LCD-1 was not just the metallic sound--Oluv described it as 'razors'-- but the exceptionally small soundstage, which I think must be stressed by reviewers. To me, it was like listening to music that was recorded inside of a garbage compacter. I couldn't look past it.

I'm exaggerating, of course, but to give a better idea--and this might ruffle some feathers--but the soundstage of the m50x is less claustrophobic by comparison--if my memory serves me right.

Is this just the nature of studio monitor headphones? Is that what the LCD-1 is supposed to be?

 

[Mrkiammi]

The HD's that you are talking about offer more detail. This is related to them both having, A.) HD600 more Treble, and B.) HD650, having a more forward midrange.
Neither of these Senn's have a soft treble response, so, in both cases, the perception of detail is more pronounced as compared to the LCD1's.

So the HD600 or Hd650 instead of the lcd-1? I am used to AKG 271mii i am familair with koss portal pro, for the price they are fine and I have own koss for many years. But I am looking for headphones with nice detail, image, nice open sound. I think i like a darker sound. I need some headphones for give me very accurate guitar, acoustic and Electric, drums sound, i listen to a lot of genre, but love the classic rock (jimi hendrix, pink floyd,Dire Straits, and so on) , blues genre, and Even metal.Vocals to be present and clear. To put it short, i want the music i play on guitar or hear to give me the chills or smile on My face. (the last part would be My guitar playing haha). I actually ordered the lcd a week ago or more, but the bad disapointed reviews
Makes me considered to cancel the order should i?

 

[MRC001]

... Planars can't sound like Dynamic speakers. They can't deliver that organic analog type of tone. Planars are sharp, focused, quick, often too detailed, vs, honest neutrality.
Your Senns are a Classic for over 2 Decades. They are a Legend.
Every Audiophile has owned them, and most still do.

I agree about the Senns; the HD580 were my first good pair of headphones I bought in 1999. 20 years and several replacement pads and cables later I still own them.
You are over-generalizing about planars. A planar isn't necessarily sharper or more detailed than a dynamic. It might be, or it might not be, depends on how it's engineered. The planar sound you describe is typical of HiFiMan but not the Audeze LCD series.

 

[HipHopScribe]

I have to say that I personally find the LCD-1s smooth. I certainly don't hear any "razors." They're not "dark" sounding but they don't sound overly bright and sharp like some headphones I've heard (some Beyers come to mind). People do hear things differently though, so there's no replacement for testing a pair of headphones personally before making purchasing decisions, if it's at all possible (I realize it's often not feasible)

 

[Mrkiammi]

I have to say that I personally find the LCD-1s smooth. I certainly don't hear any "razors." They're not "dark" sounding but they don't sound overly bright and sharp like some headphones I've heard (some Beyers come to mind). People do hear things differently though, so there's no replacement for testing a pair of headphones personally before making purchasing decisions, if it's at all possible (I realize it's often not feasible)

what do you think personally of the soundstage and bass, the lcd-2 classic is prob. the Best bass i have heard yet (besides the lcd-x)

 

[HipHopScribe]

what do you think personally of the soundstage and bass, the lcd-2 is prob. the Best bass i have heard yet (besides the lcd-x)

Soundstage is fairly narrow for an open headphone, similar to the HD600 series. I can't compare directly to the LCD-2, don't have a lot of experience with them, but the bass extends deep but doesn't have huge impact, it's not boosted

 

[FullBright1]

Makes me considered to cancel the order should i?

Reviews are just reviews.
Charts and graphs are just lines on a paper.
The truth is in your ears.
So, i can't really advise you regarding the order..
It's possible you'll love the LCD1s.... but its possible you wont.
They have a solid build quality, they are plastic, and they have their own voice.
There certainly provide enough detail and accuracy to allow you to enjoy using them with your Guitar.
Im also a Guitar player, so, i certainly understand your need to hear your sound, mostly uncolored.

I The planar sound you describe is typical of HiFiMan but not the Audeze LCD series.

Is there really an Audeze "series" sound?
For example, does the EL8 "series", sound anything like the Sine?
That's a NOPE.
Does the LCD1 sound anything like the LCDX = Nope.
Maybe what you mean is that the original Audeze sound, is a warm thick deep tone, which is certainly nothing like Fang's idea of the best Headphone sound....
However, a Planar Speaker, is a different animal then a Dynamic speaker. and......Audeze tends to put a lot of distance between the Planar and your ear hole.
This allows most of their headphones to perhaps have that Audeze sound you are speaking about, = large cups and big pads.
The Sine, is a typical Planar sound, its sharp, quick, very revealing.
The recent Neumann is a non-typical Planar sound.
THe Verum 1, offers a Dynamic Speaker approach to tone, using a Planar.
One of my favs is Fang's HEv2, which tries to be a more neutral Fang Planar sound, but it still has a LOT of Presence.
Planar's have that... they have a lot of Presence....

[merged]