[Sonic Defender]

  The pre-fazor'd LCD2s use a different material for their diaphragm than the post-fazor'd ones.  It was subjectively a better diaphragm material, but Audeze decided to change to have more consistent production and less driver failers.  
 
The fazors also add a sound of their own that's probably impossible to create with EQ, because it deals with how the sound is passed through the magnets, and EQ only balances different frequencies.

I'm glad they used a more reliable material. I actually waited all this time to try Audeze as I was shocked at how many driver failures I kept reading about. The LCD 3 sounded like an absolute crap-shoot at best, and for that kind of money, in my opinion driver failures should be extremely rare.

 

[Sonic Defender]

  Well you looked at the target curve, which is what it said: a target curve. The real curve is the grey one. Then when you look at it, the LCD2.2 is nearly flat top to bottom, especially if you know that high frequency measurement isn't precise anyway.

I agree, high frequencies often look quite different on measurement graphs than they sound like. I have the new Onkyo A800, and for certain it is detailed and not treble shy, but it still feels smooth and over all balanced in the treble, but measures make it look worse than it is for sure.

 

[desik]

 
They both have a smooth linear midrange recess but on the pre-Fazor it's wider, starting at a lower frequency. So the pre-F has lower output from 1-4 kHz. The difference doesn't look like much in a graph, but it's quite noticeable, being right at the ear's most sensitive frequencies. Also the pre-F has a bit less output in the top octave (10kHz on up).
If you wanted a simple parametric EQ to make the LCD-2F sound more like the LCD-2, I'd suggest something like this:
mids: center at 2 kHz, -3db, Q=0.67 or 3dB / octave
highs: center at 14 kHz, -3db, Q=1.4 or 6db / octave
It won't be perfect because the sonic differences are more than just frequency response. But it might get you in the rough ballpark.
The LCD-2F doesn't have noticeably different bass response from the LCD-2. But being less rolled off in the mids and treble, there's more midrange & treble energy which makes bass seem slightly reduced subjectively even if it's at the same level.

Cool, will try that!

 

[desik]

  Well you looked at the target curve, which is what it said: a target curve. The real curve is the grey one. Then when you look at it, the LCD2.2 is nearly flat top to bottom, especially if you know that high frequency measurement isn't precise anyway.

Didn't even know what a target curve is. Now I see the gray curve has a bigger difference. Thanks guys, you've been very helpful!

 

[marcan]

No, the LCD2 are not at all recessed in the mids, there's even a peak at 2k. You just have to look at the right curve. 

 

[MRC001]

  Well you looked at the target curve, which is what it said: a target curve.

 
Yep. Keep in mind there is no single canonical reference target curve. Target curves are based on HRTFs which vary from person to person and are notoriously difficult to measure so consistency is impossible. That means there is no "perfect" frequency response for a headphone. That said, different HRTFs have much in common, so the target ideal is not completely arbitrary... yet it's possible that company A and company B can both claim "perfect" frequency response even when their headphones measure differently. Each could perfectly follow a different HRTF curve.
 
So just because one FR curve looks flatter doesn't necessarily mean that headphone is more neutral. A headphone that looks flatter with one HRTF (perhaps the one Tyll uses) might have peaks or troughs with a different HRTF. That said, relative differences are apparent with any HRTF, so comparing the 2 curves and compensating should yield reasonable results. That's what I based the above 2 filters on.

 

[MRC001]

  No, the LCD2 are not at all recessed in the mids, there's even a peak at 2k. You just have to look at the right curve. 

 
That may or may not be true, depending on the HRTF you use. My read of InnerFidelity's FR graphs says:
The LCD-2F is neutral up to 2 kHz, with a smooth linear dip from 2 - 9 Khz.
The LCD-2 is neutral up to 1 kHz, with a smooth linear dip from 1 - 9 kHz.
 
Are you reading the graphs differently? My understanding is Tyll's grey curves are raw, uncorrected for HRTF. The red and blue curves are HRTF corrected, which indicates the frequency response you actually "hear".
 
If you want to really see the midrange dip, compare the LCD-2F to the LCD-X, which has near--perfect flat FR.
 
I agree the LCD-2 doesn't SOUND like it has recessed mids. That's because it's so smooth and linear.

 

[marcan]

   
That may or may not be true, depending on the HRTF you use. My read of InnerFidelity's FR graphs says:
The LCD-2F is neutral up to 2 kHz, with a smooth linear dip from 2 - 9 Khz.
The LCD-2 is neutral up to 1 kHz, with a smooth linear dip from 1 - 9 kHz.
 
Are you reading the graphs differently? My understanding is Tyll's grey curves are raw, uncorrected for HRTF. The red and blue curves are HRTF corrected, which indicates the frequency response you actually "hear".
 
If you want to really see the midrange dip, compare the LCD-2F to the LCD-X, which has near--perfect flat FR.
 
I agree the LCD-2 doesn't SOUND like it has recessed mids. That's because it's so smooth and linear.

According to Tyll, the raw curve is the "juster" curve. The target curved was first put forward but then Tyll's admit that it wasn't the best curve.
For me the LCD2.2 doesn't have recessed mids at all. Rather a dip around 7k.
I did try the LCD-X but I prefer the LCD2.2 because it goes lower and it sounds more natural to my ears.

 

[MRC001]

  According to Tyll, the raw curve is the "juster" curve. The target curved was first put forward but then Tyll's admit that it wasn't the best curve.
For me the LCD2.2 doesn't have recessed mids at all. Rather a dip around 7k.
I did try the LCD-X but I prefer the LCD2.2 because it goes lower and it sounds more natural to my ears.

I agree the LCD-2F doesn't have recessed mids, certainly not midrange suck-out like some other headphones have. The mids on the LCD-2F are very natural and voicing of acoustic instruments is the best I've ever heard in any headphone. And the integration from bass to mids and mids to treble is excellent. But, the LCD-2F is just a touch "soft" like you're in the 5th row back rather than 1st row or on the stage. Yet despite being soft, it's incredibly fast - listen to a good recording of castanets will blow your mind. That is the magic of the LCD-2 - slightly soft yet incredibly fast without a hint of artificial brightness. This slight softness comes from a smooth, linear recess from 2k to 9k, which is evident in Tyll's graphs, yet also in the printed individual frequency response plots that Audeze measures and includes with each one. Audeze uses a different HRTF than Tyll, and Tyll's exaggerates this. But it's still there and you can see it when comparing to the LCD-X which is perfectly neutral for all practical purposes.
 
I'm not sure the LCD-2F actually goes lower than the LCD-X, but it can sound like in comparison because the X has a touch more energy in the upper mids / treble which relatively speaking makes the bass less evident. But it's still there. I use a parametric EQ +3dB @ 4500 Q=0.67 which just fills in the gap bringing the LCD-2F back to the 1st row without otherwise changing the character of its amazing sound.

 

[marcan]

 
I agree the LCD-2F doesn't have recessed mids, certainly not midrange suck-out like some other headphones have. The mids on the LCD-2F are very natural and voicing of acoustic instruments is the best I've ever heard in any headphone. And the integration from bass to mids and mids to treble is excellent. But, the LCD-2F is just a touch "soft" like you're in the 5th row back rather than 1st row or on the stage. Yet despite being soft, it's incredibly fast - listen to a good recording of castanets will blow your mind. That is the magic of the LCD-2 - slightly soft yet incredibly fast without a hint of artificial brightness. This slight softness comes from a smooth, linear recess from 2k to 9k, which is evident in Tyll's graphs, yet also in the printed individual frequency response plots that Audeze measures and includes with each one. Audeze uses a different HRTF than Tyll, and Tyll's exaggerates this. But it's still there and you can see it when comparing to the LCD-X which is perfectly neutral for all practical purposes.
 
I'm not sure the LCD-2F actually goes lower than the LCD-X, but it can sound like in comparison because the X has a touch more energy in the upper mids / treble which relatively speaking makes the bass less evident. But it's still there. I use a parametric EQ +3dB @ 4500 Q=0.67 which just fills in the gap bringing the LCD-2F back to the 1st row without otherwise changing the character of its amazing sound.

 
Actually I was talking about the LCD2rev2 (non fazor). This one goes lower than the LCD-X, no brainer for me and other fellows. The LCD-X is also clearer making even a bit more thin.
Personally I prefer to be on the 5th row, the reference is often in the middle of the audience (where the sound engineer is located).
I think that the LCD doesn't need any treble emphasis because you can get all the details without it and keep all those details where they should be. Electrodynamic hp are by design slower, so a treble boost is welcome, but not with planar.
Regarding graphs, I don't see the point to add an hrtf to a dummy head measurement. The dummy is already an hrtf. So for me the "reference" is the grey curve, it's what's in what's out and this is what counts for me. I don't want to compare the frequency to a target curve decided by a group of person saying it suits their taste best; Nor comparing headphones to speakers, I prefer headphones.
 

 

[Sonic Defender]

  Yet despite being soft, it's incredibly fast - listen to a good recording of castanets will blow your mind. That is the magic of the LCD-2 - slightly soft yet incredibly fast without a hint of artificial brightness. This slight softness comes from a smooth, linear recess from 2k to 9k, which is evident in Tyll's graphs, yet also in the printed individual frequency response plots that Audeze measures and includes with each one. Audeze uses a different HRTF than Tyll, and Tyll's exaggerates this. But it's still there and you can see it when comparing to the LCD-X which is perfectly neutral for all practical purposes.
 
 

I very much agree about the slight softness while still being dynamic and fast. By the way, you no longer get individualized frequency response graphs. I just bought a 2016 LCD 2F and when I called customer support they said they no longer do that as they use a master graph as all units closely resemble it.

 

[MRC001]

Regarding graphs, I don't see the point to add an hrtf to a dummy head measurement. The dummy is already an hrtf. So for me the "reference" is the grey curve, it's what's in what's out and this is what counts for me. I don't want to compare the frequency to a target curve decided by a group of person saying it suits their taste best; Nor comparing headphones to speakers, I prefer headphones.  

That's not completely accurate. The grey line is raw - a perfectly "flat" headphone will not be flat - it will have a rise of roughly 8 dB from 2 - 8 kHz. Tyll explains here:
http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/headphone-measurements-explained-frequency-response-part-one
 
He uses the raw (grey) line not because flat means flat (it doesn't), but because he is familiar with the shape of the HRTF and would rather compensate in his mind than use the recommended compensation, because the latter over-compensates.
 
Think of it this way: your ear canal emphasizes tones from roughly 2 - 8 kHz. So if you listen to a natural wideband sound with near equal energy at all frequencies, like waves hitting the beach, when that sound hits your eardrum it's boosted roughly 8 dB from 2 - 8 kHz. That's what your brain says is "flat" psychoacoustically. Put differently: if you hold the dummy head in the open air at the beach and use it to measure this natural ocean sound you'd see the rise from 2-8 kHz. This is the dummy head's HRTF effect on the sound.
 
This is the grey line of Tyll's graphs. A "flat" sound does not measure flat.
 
Thus a headphone should measure, in absolute terms, a lift in the 2-8 kHz range in order to sound "flat" to your ears. It has to provide the lift that your HRTF would because it's bypassing your HRTF.
 
That's why all the grey curves for well designed "flat" headphones show a lift in this range. As do the LCD-2F. Yet their lift is less than the HRTF effect, so they're actually slightly down in this range, perceptually or psychoacoustically. This is consistent with Audeze's own measurements, which use a different HRTF yet show roughly similar response - the LCD-2F is slightly down in the 2-8 kHz range.
 
Everyone's head is a bit different, so every person has a different HRTF. I believe that plays a big role in why different people think different headphones are closer to the "real thing". They simply hear "the real thing" differently.

 

[rded]

Hi All,

It's my first time posting on this forum. I am not sure if it has been posted here, but has anyone seen/heard the aluminum version of the LCD 2? How does it compare to the wooden versions?

 

[Sonic Defender]

Hi All,

It's my first time posting on this forum. I am not sure if it has been posted here, but has anyone seen/heard the aluminum version of the LCD 2? How does it compare to the wooden versions?

It shouldn't sound different. The wood and aluminum being used in an open design should effect the sound very little to not at all. It is more in an enclosed chamber that the material can make a difference.

 

[rded]

Thanks!