[paradoxper]

Quote:

 
It's not the LCD-2 that has a shelved down treble, it's the HD 800 that has an elevated treble. Going from the HD 800 to the LCD-2 and vice versa takes time to get used to. 

My rev 2 is a bit special though as it has more than 1000h burn-in and uses LCD-3 pads which improves sound by providing a better seal. 

I don't think you need to discredit RustA's findings. He just said the LCD-2's don't offer all the information, they're just not as resolving.
The same goes for the HD800 compared to an SR-009, for example. And no amount of EQ really changes the fact that the LCD-2's
have that hard limit, in regards to detail retrieval.
 
Also, trying to throw out the 'fact' that the Audez'es use a superior technology is pretty laughable, IMO.
 
The HD800 is just a tricky headphone to get right. It can sound bright, boring and lifeless on some rigs, while sounding
musical, engaging and just pretty out of bounds on other's. The LCD's sound fairly consistent with most rigs.
Meaning, they just don't scale or play with synergy as much as the HD800's.
 
I think it's silly to try and disregard the HD800's technical superiority, now preference is something altogether different.

 

[knights]

Quote:

 
It doesn't have less details. It's just that the HD 800 emphasizes detail by pushing the treble up. If you have not heard what STAX can do, then you don't know what real detail retrieval is. The LCD-2 can distinguish nuances and textures in the music better than the HD 800 can, because it uses a superior technology that provides better audio resolution. 
 
The HD 800 is a really disgustingly overrated headphone in my opinion. It only sounds good when you color its sound signature to something completely different. 

i have heard Stax… We have our local group here with a monthly basis meet; we already have the most flagship here; bar the LCD3 and HE6 but i do have extensive listening session with both when i was in SG… 
 
 

 
 
Now, even the good old 600 sounds more open than LCD2… Openness and transparency is often associated… But talking about 600, it fails with midbass and the thinness of highs compared to a more textured LCD2… Transients, Soundstage and Details is what makes "transparency" transparent. If you know what i mean…  Like i said, LCD2 is no slouch, its just that; like most planars it comes in dif flavor compared to Dynamics… But talking about transparency, there are better out there… And yes, 800 doesnt just pushes the highs to manifest transparency, its just a part of the whole picture...

 

[Lan647]

Quote:

I don't think you need to discredit RustA's findings. He just said the LCD-2's don't offer all the information, they're just not as resolving.
The same goes for the HD800 compared to an SR-009, for example. And no amount of EQ really changes the fact that the LCD-2's
have that hard limit, in regards to detail retrieval.
 
Also, trying to throw out the 'fact' that the Audez'es use a superior technology is pretty laughable, IMO.
 
The HD800 is just a tricky headphone to get right. It can sound bright, boring and lifeless on some rigs, while sounding
musical, engaging and just pretty out of bounds on other's. The LCD's sound fairly consistent with most rigs.
Meaning, they just don't scale or play with synergy as much as the HD800's.
 
I think it's silly to try and disregard the HD800's technical superiority, now preference is something altogether different.

 
I strongly disagree, I don't find the HD 800 technically superior at all. Even if I thought they were more detailed (they do SOUND more detailed, but again that's just the treble, not true detail) the bass and overall sound isn't on par with a planar. 

 

[commtrd]

Wonder how the Mjolnir / Gungnir would work with the HD800?

 

[migasson]

Ok, isn't there a "HD800 v LCD-2 bitch fight" thread somewhere on HeadFi? ... Once again you're pitching mostly opinions at each other. No one has a "wrong" opinion.. Remember that....

 

[preproman]

Quote:

 
I strongly disagree, I don't find the HD 800 technically superior at all. Even if I thought they were more detailed (they do SOUND more detailed, but again that's just the treble, not true detail) the bass and overall sound isn't on par with a planar. 

 
What???

 
IMO the HD800 has better detail not only in the upper registries ie.. upper mids and highs / treble, but also retrieves more detail in the lower registries lower mids and bass as well.
 
They are the most detailed dynamic headphone I've heard.  Not saying I've heard them all.  However, the LCD-3s are also better at retrieving detail overall when compared to the LCD-2s - again - IMO..

 

[PinkLed]

My solution. Get them all! What should I buy next after the LCD 2, HD800 or T1?

 

[preproman]

Quote:

My solution. Get them all! What should I buy next after the LCD 2, HD800 or T1?

 
 
Sell the LCD-2 and buy the LCD-3 

 

[paradoxper]

Quote:

 
 
Sell the LCD-2 and buy the LCD-3 

Such an LCD-2 hater. 

 

[barid]

My solution. Get them all! What should I buy next after the LCD 2, HD800 or T1?

Get em all at once. Get used to them. Then realize u cant get rid of any of them

 

[PinkLed]

Quote:

[size=13.333333015441895px]

 
 
Sell the LCD-2 and buy the LCD-3 

[/size]
[size=13.333333015441895px] Such an LCD-2 hater. 

[/size]

 
[size=12.800000190734863px]  [/size]
[size=12.800000190734863px] I've been told before that If I like the depth and punchy bass response of the LCD 2 then the T1 and HD800 are not for me. LCD 3 it is then. I guess planar wins for some people every time. [/size]
[size=12.800000190734863px]  [/size]
 

Quote:

My solution. Get them all! What should I buy next after the LCD 2, HD800 or T1?
 

Get em all at once. Get used to them. Then realize u cant get rid of any of them

On second thought....Well hey at least all that extra weight on my head will offset the emptiness of my wallet. 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Would all this imply then that HD800 could be arguably considered superior to LCD3? If that is the general consensus then obviously it would make sense to acquire the HD800 over LCD3?

Not at all. I love the HD800s, but I feel the LCD-3s are the better headphones for the music I mostly listen to (rock, metal, jazz). But with say classical or acoustic, the HD800s are tough to beat.

 

[knights]

Quote:

Not at all. I love the HD800s, but I feel the LCD-3s are the better headphones for the music I mostly listen to (rock, metal, jazz). But with say classical or acoustic, the HD800s are tough to beat.

LCD3 can do Pop better than 800 too…  
 
Agree on your findings about 800, the level of Layering paired with expansive soundstage is what makes it stand-out from the rest… LCD2 is more coherent and engaging, while LCD3 comfortably sits at the middle… They have their strength and weaknesses; it boils down to our own preference. 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

LCD3 can do Pop better than 800 too…  
 
Agree on your findings about 800, the level of Layering paired with expansive soundstage is what makes it stand-out from the rest… LCD2 is more coherent and engaging, while LCD3 comfortably sits at the middle… They have their strength and weaknesses; it boils down to our own preference. 

I find the LCD-3s more engaging and transparent than the LCD-2s. Not 2x like the price would suggest, but enough to sell the LCD-2s after a few days after the LCD-3s arrived. The HD800s are fantastic headphones and work well with classical and acoustic (and even prog rock). But I agree, pop is better on the LCD-3s.

 

[Dubstep Girl]

Quote:

Get em all at once. Get used to them. Then realize u cant get rid of any of them

 
+1
 
i have all 3 and i can't get rid of them.