[mithrandir38]

I haven't heard the original version, but LCD-2F I have doesn't sound like people describe the non-fazored version, i.e. "warm", "bass heavy" and somewhat "slow" and "wooly". It's very natural and neutral sounding to me, with a well-bodied low-end, lush mids and hint of sweetness in highs. Sounds like a refined, "bigger" HD650 to me.

I wouldn't care about bass rolloff on FR graphs as it's in the region which is absolutely not audible, but could help remove some unwanted resonances (so might be intentional).

mine shelves down at 50 hz about 5 db. Definitely audible at 50, but doesn't ruin the experience.

 

[madwolfa]

mine shelves down at 50 hz about 5 db. Definitely audible at 50, but doesn't ruin the experience.

 
Mine rolls off 8 dB below 30 Hz.

 

[madwolfa]

Right now, I have both Rev. 2 (2012) and Fazor edition, and I have to beg to disagree on your impressions. The difference in bass articulation, body and mass is substantial, and it's definitley audible, and felt.

 
Possibly, I can't compare... I guess it just became more accurate, for what it's worth.

 

[diamondears]

Possibly, I can't compare... I guess it just became more accurate, for what it's worth.

As I've said before, I think Audeze sacrificed the sub-bass and bass articulation that Audeze became known for for more treble and imaging. Come to think of it, if Audeze retained that sub-bass and bass articulation and body/fullness together with the improved treble and imaging, well there would be no reason to get their higher models! The LCD-2 would have been an end game HP for Audeze users.

So I think they know what they're doing, and I think they're gonna put together the best characteristics of non-fazor editions with the best of the fazor editions in a new TOTL model. Maybe that's the Audeze "Z" they're talking about. Or the EL-8. I don't really know. Just guessing. Just made it up.

 

[Stillhart]

So is the difference really enough that I should be looking for one or the other? Sometimes it's very hard for me to tell on head fi when we're talking about very minute differences or not.

Is this the difference between two amperex tubes or the difference between the Hd650 and Hd700?

 

[Lorspeaker]

the LCD2.2 i hv came with silver toxic cable...sounds clear n lively on the treble..n great punchy bass.
took it out yesterday for a spin...and i tot the soundstage was massive. ( on my setup )
No complaints on this can for me.

 

[abcd]

I'm looking to buy a new amp for my LCD-2s. I really like Schiit stuff and, although I know the Lyr is great for the LCD-2s, I really don't want to spend $450 on an amp or close to that. I'm looking at the Valhalla or Asgard. I know the Valhalla isn't really a planar-magnetic friendly amp, or the asgard for example. I'm wondering if there is any alternative that is better for around the same price?

 

[OkawaiiO]

Um im using asgard 2 its perfectly fine... i have heard it with other. I have had the lyr for a bit yes it sounds "better" but u can tell its colouring the sound. Also I had Mojlnir? using balanced I can't tell any difference compared to asgard 2 so... i just sold that.I personally think Asgard sounds great, all up to u.

 

[Lorspeaker]

buy an old LYR in the resale mkt then....

 

[madwolfa]

  I'm looking to buy a new amp for my LCD-2s. I really like Schiit stuff and, although I know the Lyr is great for the LCD-2s, I really don't want to spend $450 on an amp or close to that. I'm looking at the Valhalla or Asgard. I know the Valhalla isn't really a planar-magnetic friendly amp, or the asgard for example. I'm wondering if there is any alternative that is better for around the same price?

 
Asgard 2 is awesome with my LCD-2F. Valhalla is definitely suboptimal.

 

[Stillhart]

I haven't heard the LCD-2 yet, but I got a Project Ember for my HE-4, which is supposed to be on par with the Lyr as far as power for driving orthos.  The other one that's in the same league is the HiFiMan EF-5.  
 
The Ember sound amazing with my HD650 and Q701.  Not a fan of the tube sound with the HE-4.  I'm not sure if I'll like the tube sound with the LCD-2 or not...

 

[Lohb]

As I've said before, I think Audeze sacrificed the sub-bass and bass articulation that Audeze became known for for more treble and imaging. Come to think of it, if Audeze retained that sub-bass and bass articulation and body/fullness together with the improved treble and imaging, well there would be no reason to get their higher models! The LCD-2 would have been an end game HP for Audeze users.
 

The pre-Fazor drivers with the DIY Fazor (on T50-RP thread) appear to be almost there, apart from treble of 2.2F's (as it was a 2.1 used to test the DIY Fazor).
 
Fazor model was a 2-part process Fazor AND new design driver....so any pre-Fazor with the DIY Fazor may bring much better imaging with no negative effect to the low-end
 
I'm guessing 2.2's would retain all the 3 parts (Linear low-end/improved imaging/treble) as they are mid-way in sound and iteration between 2.1 + 2.2F :-
 
Linear low-end intact (no shelf)/improved imaging/treble. Removing the dust guard on the 2.1/2.2 ear-pads and exterior grill would create a further subtle positive change on imaging/treble....(Jerg-style mods...ear-side+exterior)
 
Add in a current domain amp as well, (Bakoon/Geek Pulse X/DIY modified to current GainClone)  and all 3 areas may get a FURTHER boost (low-end/imaging/treble). I asked one owner about his current domain amp/LCD-2 synergy and he said they just bring MORE of what is great about the Audeze cans....

 

[DeadEars]

Hello there LCD-2 owners. What IYE is the best amp for LCD-2, both non-Fazor and Fazor editions? I'm eyeing the following, any of you have experience and I mpressions on them with the LCD-2?

Bryston BHA-1
Schiit Mjolnir
Violectric 180
Violectric 280
Auralic Taurus MkII
Burson Soloist
Woo Audio WA6

Cheers.

 
 
IME (all of which was non-fazor) I favor the Violectric 280, Bryston & Taurus
* Bryston with non-fazor is a blast, lots of energy and since it tends to be bright-ish will bring out more of the top end on the LCD 2.1/2.2 I've heard.  I like this combo a lot.  My problem with Bryston is I don't like them with other cans all that much as I find the BHA1 a bit on the brash/bright side in the treble.  But it is a nice synergy with the LCD2.1 in particular.
* The Mjolner makes a great first impression, but I found it overly technicolor to me (over-saturated if that is a sonic term) after a while.  Did not sound natural to me.  But then I like tube amps
* Viloectric, I heard the 180 too long ago, but remember it as being pretty laid back and warmish.  Easy listening but not so exciting.  I've been considering the 281 myself as it has lots of flexibility and power, but for the money there are a lot of choices around that just under $2k price point.  The Taurus falls right in there along with the GSX.  And the new Ragnorak. 
* I heard the Woo WA6SE, not the 6, and I felt it was not a great match.  I liked it better with dynamic phones, like my Senn HD-600's.
* I was underwhelmed by the Lyr, but that was with stock tubes.  People whose ears I trust say it can be really great with the right tubes combined with the LCD's.
 
All of this is IME, others may (will) have different ears/different impressions.  Hope this helps...

 

[diamondears]

The pre-Fazor drivers with the DIY Fazor (on T50-RP thread) appear to be almost there, apart from treble of 2.2F's (as it was a 2.1 used to test the DIY Fazor).

Fazor model was a 2-part process Fazor AND new design driver....so any pre-Fazor with the DIY Fazor may bring much better imaging with no negative effect to the low-end

I'm guessing 2.2's would retain all the 3 parts (Linear low-end/improved imaging/treble) as they are mid-way in sound and iteration between 2.1 + 2.2F :-

Linear low-end intact (no shelf)/improved imaging/treble. Removing the dust guard on the 2.1/2.2 ear-pads and exterior grill would create a further subtle positive change on imaging/treble....(Jerg-style mods...ear-side+exterior)

Add in a current domain amp as well, (Bakoon/Geek Pulse X/DIY GainClone)  and all 3 areas may get a FURTHER boost (low-end/imaging/treble). I asked one owner about his current domain amp/LCD-2 synergy and he said they just bring MORE of what is great about the Audeze cans....

I'm thinking...the Fazors provided better treble/imahing because it created more treble resonances bouncing off the fazors as the fazors are metals!

How do you attach the DIY fazors? I'm thinking the sub-bass and bass linearity got affected because of the screws attaching the fazors? Why does the dig fazors didn't affect the bass linearity IYO?

IME (all of which was non-fazor) I favor the Violectric 280, Bryston & Taurus
* Bryston with non-fazor is a blast, lots of energy and since it tends to be bright-ish will bring out more of the top end on the LCD 2.1/2.2 I've heard.  I like this combo a lot.  My problem with Bryston is I don't like them with other cans all that much as I find the BHA1 a bit on the brash/bright side in the treble.  But it is a nice synergy with the LCD2.1 in particular.
* The Mjolner makes a great first impression, but I found it overly technicolor to me (over-saturated if that is a sonic term) after a while.  Did not sound natural to me.  But then I like tube amps
* Viloectric, I heard the 180 too long ago, but remember it as being pretty laid back and warmish.  Easy listening but not so exciting.  I've been considering the 281 myself as it has lots of flexibility and power, but for the money there are a lot of choices around that just under $2k price point.  The Taurus falls right in there along with the GSX.  And the new Ragnorak. 
* I heard the Woo WA6SE, not the 6, and I felt it was not a great match.  I liked it better with dynamic phones, like my Senn HD-600's.
* I was underwhelmed by the Lyr, but that was with stock tubes.  People whose ears I trust say it can be really great with the right tubes combined with the LCD's.

All of this is IME, others may (will) have different ears/different impressions.  Hope this helps...

Thank you for your comments DeadEars.

Have you heard the O2 side by side vs the Bryston? How do they compare subjectively? Quite daunting claim by the O2 designer that it's on par with the Bryston.

 

[DeadEars]

I have only heard the O2 under meet conditions on LCD-2 w. fasors -- cans I do not know well at all.  Nothing side by side.  My impression at the time was "pretty good for the money, but not to my taste."  I was surprised how well the O2 drove the Audeze's.  I prefer a slightly rounder, warmer tone than that combo delivered (on that day, in those conditions, with my faulty ears).
 
Not much help, I'm afraid.  That said, I live on the tweaky edge of the DIY world.  I'm very skeptical of the O2 claim.  Unless we're back in the world of hearing tests and blind comparisons, which bear little relationship to long-term user experiences IMHO.
 
I greatly admire Nelson Pass and his continuing exploration of the topology of amplifiers.  As you probably know, Nelson is one of the good guys in audio, responsible for many top commercial designs from companies such as Threshold, Nakamichi and of course Pass Labs.  Nelson was one of the earliest proponents of balanced design, and it remains central to most of his designs.  I commend your attention to his writings and white papers at FirstWatt.com.  He also contributes regularly to forum discussions at DIYAudio.com.  Anyway, a lot of his (and my) explorations of alternative amp topologies show them to produce quite different audio profiles.  All amplifiers that spec the same do NOT sound the same.  I've built several of his designs that produce very low distortion, similar power levels, measure flat, but sound quite different from each other with music.  Small things, like the choices of supporting resistors, materials, PC board layout, wiring and coupling choices, and even chip batches can have dramatic effects on sound.  An exceptionally complex amplifier with many amplification stages and voltage stabilization/limiters will likely sound less natural than an exceptional simple design using very few -- but carefully selected -- parts.  It is an interesting hobby with a terrific amount of obfuscation going on.  But I have first-hand experience that says all amps do NOT sound the same.  However, at the high end, the differences between amps is more a matter of topology choices and linearity of active devices when used within the audio spectrum.  These differences are generally a lot more subtle than differences in transducers.
 
Said another way, it seems to me that the transducer problems and solutions account for larger differences in sound quality than those observed among a batch of high-quality amplifiers.  Microphones, Speakers and Headphones are still the biggest limitations to sound quality.  So it is certainly exciting when we get transducers like stats and planars with so much lower distortion than historically observed with dynamic designs.  Love them Audeze's!