[cedstrom]

Thinking about buying a LCD-2 abroad, is the included travel bag safe for airport transport? As extra hand lugage.

 

[bavinck]

Thinking about buying a LCD-2 abroad, is the included travel bag safe for airport transport? As extra hand lugage.

Yes. It's a well padded pelican.

 

[DavidA]

After hearing a 2016 Fazor, a 2014 Fazor, 2.2 and a pre-Fazor LCD-3 the basic sound signature of the LCD-2 line has changed quite a bit.
 
I agree that the highs on both Fazors versions are more forward which I think gives the impression of being clear but they seem a bit artificial and uneven to me and the two others (one owns the 2016 LCD-2F, the other the 2.2 and pre-fazor LCD-3) who got together and had a listen.  Other headphones that we listened to were Ether C, HD-800/S, T1 g1&g2, HE-560 and a modded HD-650.  Another area that we all felt that was changed for the worse was the mids of the 2016 fazor, its a bit grainy and sometimes shouty compared to all of the others, even the owner of the 2016 fazor was surprised with this.  The genre of music that one listens to will also influence the sound that one perceives, we listened to mostly classical and jazz, which tend to favor headphones that do mids and highs well along with having a good sound stage.
 
On the other hand we all liked the bass of the 2016 fazor over all the other lcd-2 versions but the LCD-3 was still a favorite among us being a bit better in terms of extension, slam and details.  This is just a subjective impression from a small group so YMMV.
 
FWIW the DAC/amps used were MHA-100 and AudioGD Master 11

 

[MRC001]

  I've just done the comparison between LCD 2.2F, LCD X and LCD 3. The LCD X is more forward in the mids, so the treble is a little bit covered. Same with LCD 3, the mids are very fat, maybe this is the "magic thing" called out here, but they covers the treble too much and sounds a little bit boring for me.--> Claire Martin tries to eat my head, or my head is in the guitar of Nils Lofgrens "Keith don't go" - interesting but too much!
 
So the LCD 2 was the most neutral for me. The difference in bass is very very small, barely noticeable.

  After hearing a 2016 Fazor, a 2014 Fazor, 2.2 and a pre-Fazor LCD-3 the basic sound signature of the LCD-2 line has changed quite a bit.
 
I agree that the highs on both Fazors versions are more forward which I think gives the impression of being clear but they seem a bit artificial and uneven to me and the two others (one owns the 2016 LCD-2F, the other the 2.2 and pre-fazor LCD-3) who got together and had a listen.  Other headphones that we listened to were Ether C, HD-800/S, T1 g1&g2, HE-560 and a modded HD-650.  Another area that we all felt that was changed for the worse was the mids of the 2016 fazor, its a bit grainy and sometimes shouty compared to all of the others, even the owner of the 2016 fazor was surprised with this.  The genre of music that one listens to will also influence the sound that one perceives, we listened to mostly classical and jazz, which tend to favor headphones that do mids and highs well along with having a good sound stage.
 
On the other hand we all liked the bass of the 2016 fazor over all the other lcd-2 versions but the LCD-3 was still a favorite among us being a bit better in terms of extension, slam and details.  This is just a subjective impression from a small group so YMMV.

I've done several hours of listening so far, comparing my 2014 LCD-2 Fazor to a 2016 LCD-X I just ordered. The results surprised me. The music is high quality recordings of natural acoustic music, mostly baroque, classical with some ancient/medieval/folk music, mostly instrumental with some voice. Played through my disc player via toslink to Oppo HA-1 using balanced outputs. My digital level matcher and EQ is a Behringer DEQ 24-96.
 
Comparison 1: straight up, no EQ, but level matched (LCD-X is about 5 dB louder than LCD-2F at the same volume setting).

1. X has more upper mid & treble - no dip from 2.5 to 9 kHz like the LCD-2
2. X has less bass - but just as deep
3. X has better bass clarity
4. X has more linear treble
5. X isn't warm like the LCD-2
6. Overall, LCD-X wins, no question.

 
Comparison 2: same but with digital parametric EQ: +3 dB @ 4.5 kHz, Q=0.67 applied to the LCD-2, but not to the LCD-X. Also level matched. This is the EQ I always use when listening to my LCD-2. It restores the LCD-2 dip from 2 - 9 kHz but is subtle enough to not change the LCD-2 character.
 

1. they sound almost the same
2. X emphasizes the overtones, but still has the core sound
3. LCD-2 favors the core sound, but still has the overtones
4. X is slightly more clear, yet less realistic voicing on some recordings
5. X has a tad more ultra-high HF (above 10 kHz) which is not perceived as "treble" but more as a sense of space and faster transient response.
6. The LCD-2F is very fast but not bright... the LCD-X is just a hair faster, and brighter.
7. All else equal, faster is better. But not when it is brighter, and the LCD-X is brighter so it's a tradeoff.
8. LCD-2 more realistic voicing on most recordings, yet slightly less clear
9. LCD-2 is slightly warmer than X - not better, just slightly different
10. Overall, I rate them equal - which sounds better depends on the recording

 
In summary, the biggest difference between the 2014 LCD-2F and the 2016 LCD-X is simply the level of the upper mids and treble. The LCD-2F has a slight dip, the LCD-X does not. If you correct this dip in the LCD-2 they sound much more similar and the differences are in the extreme treble / HF response.
 
I haven't listened to electronic or rock music yet. That's next. If I had to choose right now, I'd return the LCD-X and keep my old LCD-2F - but only because I can EQ it. If I didn't have the 24-bit digital parametric EQ I would pick the LCD-X, no question.

 

[silversurfer616]

A few weeks back I got my updated driver(s) back after one of them stopped working.
So, this is the newest version and my fourth pair of LCD2s....and certainly the easiest to drive but it sound like an improved HD600 with just a bit more bass.
The sound signature now is not what made Audeze what it is(was).
Thick and lush,meaty and slightly on the dark side?
Not anymore and for me a total disappointment.
I agree with others here that in order to make the drivers more reliable, the original Audeze house sound has left the building.

 

[Brooko]

[Mod Comment]
 
We've had a number of flagged posts in this thread over the last 24 hours, and a number have been removed.  So I'm making this a blanket warning.  If you can't post without making personal attacks - don't post.  And it is OK to have a different opinion to everyone else, just remember there is no right or wrong (just opinions).  Please respect other's rights to disagree.
 
If the current "attitude" continues from some specific posters, your access will be removed from the thread

 

[tp147]

Originally Posted by MRC001 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
...
 
In summary, the biggest difference between the 2014 LCD-2F and the 2016 LCD-X is simply the level of the upper mids and treble. The LCD-2F has a slight dip, the LCD-X does not. If you correct this dip in the LCD-2 they sound much more similar and the differences are in the extreme treble / HF response.
 
I haven't listened to electronic or rock music yet. That's next. If I had to choose right now, I'd return the LCD-X and keep my old LCD-2F - but only because I can EQ it. If I didn't have the 24-bit digital parametric EQ I would pick the LCD-X, no question.

 
I agree,
 
I allmost hear modern electronic music like Blues Rock, Acid Jazz, some smooth Jazz, Funk & Soul, only a little classic.
The last comparison I did with supreme recorded Hi-Res FLACs from my Linn Akurate -> RCA into OPPA HA-1 (Linn DAC is better than OPPO)
If you listen to e.g. higher mids of a electronic Blues guitar they don't fit to the Cymbals of the drum set with the LCD-X in my opinion, there is a better match with LCD 2.2F ...
... these were the small things let me decide to the LCD 2.2 as the best balanced LCD, regardless some details here and other magic there...
 
On the other hand I like the music that I like, not the music my speakers or cans like. If I have my favorite music only as a bad recording or mp3 my Hifi-gear has to reproduce the music in a good way.
All the Audeze and also the OPPO did this. The Stax and some other dynamic cans reproduced the bad recording or compression artifacts in my ears, not the music.
 
I also have to mention that my speakers setup is an active driven FAST-System (Fullrange Assisted), so I'm used to hear my music in a fast and high dynamic way with an unbelievable realistic stage a head phone cannot provide. So one requirement to my cans was a more relaxed and laid back reproduction for extensive listening sessions...
 
cheers
 
Thorsten

 

[MRC001]

... I also have to mention that my speakers setup is an active driven FAST-System (Fullrange Assisted), so I'm used to hear my music in a fast and high dynamic way with an unbelievable realistic stage a head phone cannot provide.
Thorsten

My speakers setup is Magnepan 3.6/R in a tuned acoustic room. It's a big, fast, neutral sound with very realistic voicing of acoustic instruments. I've had them for over 15 years and love the sound. That's the sound I'm looking for my my headphones. The LCD-X and LCD-2F (with EQ) are each very close to this sound, approaching it from opposite directions.

 

[MRC001]

Originally Posted by DavidA /img/forum/go_quote.gif
...Other headphones that we listened to were Ether C, HD-800/S, T1 g1&g2, HE-560 and a modded HD-650. Another area that we all felt that was changed for the worse was the mids of the 2016 fazor, its a bit grainy and sometimes shouty compared to all of the others, even the owner of the 2016 fazor was surprised with this.

I've listened to some similar headphones. This might help you understand where I'm coming from with the LCD-2F and LCD-X. In comparison: the HE-500 had excellent bass and good treble, but big midrange suckout, so the voicing of acoustic instruments was all wrong. I can't listen to the HD-800 because its 5 kHz spike melts my skull. The HD-600 is really good, smooth and linear, but compared to the LCD-2F, it rolls off the deep bass and highest treble, and is a tad brassy in the midrange. I listened to the HD-600 for many years until I discovered the LCD-2F, which is like a smoother, more natural sounding version of the HD-600, having deeper bass and faster treble, yet without sounding bright.

 

[sludgeogre]

This always makes me want to hear a non-fazor version, as I've only ever heard my 2015 Fazor LCD-2 and I love it. I understand that people enjoyed the euphonic sound of the previous version, but that isn't my style at all. I bought Ascend Acoustics Sierra Towers with RAAL tweeters because I want extremely accurate and detailed sound without any distortion at the top end. I don't mind and actually sort of prefer slightly shelved highs as I have awful tinnitus as well, so the most accuracy I can get without my ears hurting is a big deal to me. The LCD-2 is the only headphone I've had that checks all of these boxes. Interesting how Audeze has sort of screwed with the sound of this headphone so much that it has left a bad taste in people's mouths.
 
Are there any other headphones out there that have had their character or maybe even voicing change as much as the LCD-2 has over time? I mean they even had an impedance change, that's really rare, isn't it?

 

[DavidA]

  I've listened to some similar headphones. This might help you understand where I'm coming from with the LCD-2F and LCD-X. In comparison: the HE-500 had excellent bass and good treble, but big midrange suckout, so the voicing of acoustic instruments was all wrong. I can't listen to the HD-800 because its 5 kHz spike melts my skull. The HD-600 is really good, smooth and linear, but compared to the LCD-2F, it rolls off the deep bass and highest treble, and is a tad brassy in the midrange. I listened to the HD-600 for many years until I discovered the LCD-2F, which is like a smoother, more natural sounding version of the HD-600, having deeper bass and faster treble, yet without sounding bright.

As I've posted on the HD-600 thread its the treble peak of HD-600 that gets me, the HD-800/700 and most Beyers/AKG don't bother me at all.  I think the peak for the 800 is a little higher at 6-7khz while the HD-600 is between 4-5khz IIRC.  Had the LCD-2f for a year or so before getting the HD-600 so for me it was the HD-600 sounding off compared to the LCD-2f and HD-650.

 

[MRC001]

  In summary, the biggest difference between the 2014 LCD-2F and the 2016 LCD-X is simply the level of the upper mids and treble. The LCD-2F has a slight dip, the LCD-X does not. If you correct this dip in the LCD-2 they sound much more similar and the differences are in the extreme treble / HF response.
 
I haven't listened to electronic or rock music yet. That's next. If I had to choose right now, I'd return the LCD-X and keep my old LCD-2F - but only because I can EQ it. If I didn't have the 24-bit digital parametric EQ I would pick the LCD-X, no question.

 
The LCD-X are on their way back to Audeze. The above impressions continued to stick after several hours of listening. I had a slight preference for the EQed LCD-2F over the LCD-X on acoustic music, which comprises about 80% of my listening. With non-acoustic music the LCD-2F pulled further ahead.
 
The LCD-X is a fantastic headphone - neutral, fast, clean. I could heartily recommend it for some, but it's just a touch too bright for my taste. It's a smooth brightness, not grainy, but it gives an ethereal edge to voices and natural acoustic instruments by emphasizing the highest overtones over the core frequencies. This effect is very slight so it doesn't detract from the musical enjoyment. Overall my decision tree goes like this:
 

1. If you can't EQ, the LCD-X wins, no question.
2. If you can EQ the LCD-2F (+3 dB @ 4600 Hz, Q=0.67) they become very similar.
3. If you prefer a slightly "cool" sound with more speed and clarity, the LCD-X wins.
4. If you prefer a slightly "warm" sound with more accurate midrange voicing, the LCD-2F wins.

 
 

 

[DivineCurrent]

How's the fit of the LCD-2 compared to the LCD-X? I tried the LCD-X, but it never fit correctly on my head, the pads did not even touch under my ears. Therefore I couldn't get a good seal at all. It's probably due to the clamping force not being tight enough. Anyone else have that issue? Or do I just have an abnormal oval shaped head?

 

[MRC001]

How's the fit of the LCD-2 compared to the LCD-X?

My 2014 LCD-2F fit exactly the same as the 2016 LCD-X. They are dimensionally identical, so far as I can tell. The specs say the X is a bit heavier, but the difference is so small I couldn't feel it.

 

[droopy1592]

I'm in love with LCD2.2s just got today
 
ha!