[marcan]

  The LCD2 I had was a rev2 and its bass was very deep, but also super controlled.  It was freaky just how controlled it was, because many songs would appear bass-light due to the lack of distortion.  Other rev2s might be different though, I've never trusted Audeze's QC.

+1 except that I compared several rev2 with my friends and the sound is consistent between them.
Indeed the low distortion and linearity of the bass is surprising.
I would add that you need a very good dac/amp to get the bottom right.

 

[marcan]

 
On both my LCD-2, the 2014 Fazor and the 2016, I can easily hear the lowest harp strings which have a 25 Hz fundamental. And pipe organ down to 20 Hz. It's perfectly crisp, clear and natural sounding. Some headphones & speakers produce bass that low, but it's usually bloated or soft, nowhere near the grip & control that the LCD-2 has.
 
The LCD-X has the same bass quality as the 2016 LCD-2, which is slightly tighter and cleaner than the 2014 LCD-2 Fazor. But the 2014 is no slouch, better than any other headphone I've heard. When it comes to bass response, orthos wipe the floor with any conventional driver.

According to my experience the iterations following the rev2 doesn't go as low. I tried several ones including the last iteration.

 

[MRC001]

  According to my experience the iterations following the rev2 doesn't go as low. I tried several ones including the last iteration.

The Fazor has more energy in the upper mids & treble than the 2.2. It's not boosted, but less attenuated. Subjectively, more mid/treble energy can make it sound like there's less bass. Yet Fazor bass response as measured remains flat to subsonic.

 

[SP Wild]

Those look really Nice! I bet they sound fantastic! 

They do. Those ribbons give me treble precision like the LCDs... Though the speaker itself is a v shaped sound signature.

The LCDs are tonally more like my KH120 monitors.

Although my LCD slam them both in outright precision of sound. It's the outright speed from top to bottom of the LCD2 planar.

The Fluid ribbon tweeters are top notch. Better than the KH120... But the woofer is not even close to the resolution of the tweeter. U can hear the discontuity at the crossover... Ribbon sound... woofer sound.

The KH120 woofer is much better than the fluids. I cannot perceive a discontuity at the crossover from the tweeter to woofer.

The KH120 is mych superior to the Fluids technically. But those ribbons make the Fluids oh so musical.

Will run a high pass to the fluids in the hope if squeezing more lower midrange resolution out of them.

 

[WayTooCrazy]

They do. Those ribbons give me treble precision like the LCDs... Though the speaker itself is a v shaped sound signature.

The LCDs are tonally more like my KH120 monitors.

Although my LCD slam them both in outright precision of sound. It's the outright speed from top to bottom of the LCD2 planar.

The Fluid ribbon tweeters are top notch. Better than the KH120... But the woofer is not even close to the resolution of the tweeter. U can hear the discontuity at the crossover... Ribbon sound... woofer sound.

The KH120 woofer is much better than the fluids. I cannot perceive a discontuity at the crossover from the tweeter to woofer.

The KH120 is mych superior to the Fluids technically. But those ribbons make the Fluids oh so musical.

Will run a high pass to the fluids in the hope if squeezing more lower midrange resolution out of them.

Maybe if you could bypass the internal x-over and use a MicroDSP? I'd like to try one, one of these days...but for now my Active X-over does wonders for my AudioEngine speakers.

 

[marcan]

  The Fazor has more energy in the upper mids & treble than the 2.2. It's not boosted, but less attenuated. Subjectively, more mid/treble energy can make it sound like there's less bass. Yet Fazor bass response as measured remains flat to subsonic.

Nope.
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2Rev2.pdf
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2sn5423021Fazer.pdf

 

[MRC001]

Both graphs show bass flat to subsonic.

 

[TMRaven]

There are graphs of the LCD line that show bass roll-off.  For instance:
 
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD3Rev2sn2613375circa2012.pdf
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD3Fazorsn2715432.pdf
 
 
I think they all perform admirably with bass extension and distortion, but the fazor graph is probably more representative of the actual bass the headphones produce when worn by the average person, because there isn't a perfect seal.

 

[marcan]

Well for me the graphs and the expérience I had with the rev2 and the last Fazor don't tell the same story.
Did you try a rev2 and a fazor side by side?

 

[zerolight]

 
Ah, I'm only over in Fife. In that case you know the deal with hols as well as I do!
 
Good luck, will keep my fingers crossed for you 

 
Hey Jello. Thanks again for the code - AMP are refunding me that extra 5% so hopefully I'll have my new LCD2s by the end of the week. Excited. I've not heard them, only the LCD3. 

 

[jellofund]

   
Hey Jello. Thanks again for the code - AMP are refunding me that extra 5% so hopefully I'll have my new LCD2s by the end of the week. Excited. I've not heard them, only the LCD3. 

​That's great news!! Thanks for taking the time to let me know and I really hope you enjoy the LCD2 when they arrive 

 

[MRC001]

  Well for me the graphs and the expérience I had with the rev2 and the last Fazor don't tell the same story.

Subjective impressions don't always show up in graphs. But these FR curves do show the Fazor having more treble energy, with less attenuated upper mids, which can explain why subjectively, the bass sounds relatively weaker. That subjective impression isn't wrong. Even though both have ruler flat bass response, the bass is relatively weaker on the Fazor because having more mid/treble energy, the bass makes up a slightly smaller % of the overall sound.
Also, the Fazor has better (cleaner, faster) impulse response, which can have the same effect of directing the ear away from the bass toward the highs.

 

[marcan]

  Subjective impressions don't always show up in graphs. But these FR curves do show the Fazor having more treble energy, with less attenuated upper mids, which can explain why subjectively, the bass sounds relatively weaker. That subjective impression isn't wrong. Even though both have ruler flat bass response, the bass is relatively weaker on the Fazor because having more mid/treble energy, the bass makes up a slightly smaller % of the overall sound.
Also, the Fazor has better (cleaner, faster) impulse response, which can have the same effect of directing the ear away from the bass toward the highs.

I hear you but I didn't talk about bass but about the low end. This has been confirmed by me and three other audio engineers that know the psycho acoustic pitfalls . Moreover the graphs confirmed this.even if you can try to interpret it differently.
So how do you back your statement?

 

[MRC001]

  I hear you but I didn't talk about bass but about the low end. This has been confirmed by me and three other audio engineers that know the psycho acoustic pitfalls . Moreover the graphs confirmed this.even if you can try to interpret it differently.
So how do you back your statement?

The graphs back my statement. Both FR curves show the same FR below 3 kHz. By "the same" I mean the slight differences they show below 3k are within measurement error and inaudible. If you remove a headphone from the measurement head, then put it back on and measure it again, you'll get a few dB of variation.
 
I never disputed your point that the bass sounds different. I only said it measures the same. That doesn't mean it sounds the same. These 2 headphones do measure differently at higher frequencies and this can make them sound different in the bass.

 

[marcan]

 
The graphs back my statement. Both FR curves show the same FR below 3 kHz. By "the same" I mean the slight differences they show below 3k are within measurement error and inaudible. If you remove a headphone from the measurement head, then put it back on and measure it again, you'll get a few dB of variation.
 
I never disputed your point that the bass sounds different. I only said it measures the same. That doesn't mean it sounds the same. These 2 headphones do measure differently at higher frequencies and this can make them sound different in the bass.

For me the graphs show a slight roll-off from 70hz on the fazor graph where rev2 is nearly flat. Tyll made 5 measurements on each channel with slightly different positions. So I don't think this difference is due to errors or position. Moreover it is confirmed by listening. And finally if high frequencies can modify the bass perception it isn't really the case with the sub which will rather impact the level  perception by triggering more profoundly the natural compression of the hear.