[In1unison]

I didn't say they sound the same I said they have more similarities which are bass extension and cleanliness, 6k peak and upper mid hole. That graph is smoothed over to hell and doesn't reflect the other measurements, those graphs need to be taken by a massive grain of salt. Audeze don't even supply graphs anymore because they want their reveal plug in to "fix" the sound.

I'll say it again. HD800 tilts bright where as the LCD-2 rolls off but both do have 6k peaks and both have similar bass quality but the HD800 has more bass body. My point was the HD800 has more in common with the LCD-2 than the HD650, the HD650 is rolled off but that's the only thing they share.

"...similar bass quality but the HD800 has more bass body."

My perception of both is exactly the opposite and I find absolutely nothing similar between them in the bass region.

 

[metal571]

Here are the LCD-2F and HD800 curves from Oratory1990, superimposed.

Yep. They both have relative 6k peaks, sure, but the HD 800 is ear shatteringly bright by comparison with an entirely different "tilt" to the treble, if you will.

Sold my 800. The stage wasn't worth it compared to how it still sounded bright no matter how much EQ I threw at it. Still have the 2F.

 

[Odin412]

We all hear differently. The HD800 is so bright I find it un-listenable. But I can listen to the HD650. That alone tells me the HD800 is more different from the LCD-2F than the HD650 is. At least to me, perceptually. The Oratory1990 graphs I posted above show a thread of truth to your comparison description. But to me, personally, the difference in tonality from 2 kHz on up is so massive it swamps everything else.

Well said. I love the HD 650 but I find it almost physically painful to listen to the HD 800. It's strangle that two so very different headphones come from the same manufacturer.

 

[tameral]

Here's another frequency response chart

 

[MRC001]

"...similar bass quality but the HD800 has more bass body."

My perception of both is exactly the opposite and I find absolutely nothing similar between them in the bass region.

The problem I find with the Sennheiser HD series (580, 600, 800) is that they attenuate the low bass more than the LCD-2F does. And if you apply EQ to lift the bass to a neutral level, it sounds wooly, not crisp or tight. The LCD-2F stays tight and crisp even if you EQ the level up a bit.

That said, along with the 2016 LCD-2F, I have an original HD580 from 22 years ago that I still listen to daily. It's been through several pad replacements (both earcup & headband) and still works and sounds like new. Despite its attenuated low bass, it's great through the upper bass, mids and lower treble. Which makes it fine for most acoustic music.

In comparison, I find the LCD-2F has better extension in the very bottom & top octaves. And it has a more open, transparent voicing that makes the HD580 sound a tad boxy in comparison. The HD580 is not a boxy sounding headphone, but only in comparison to the LCD-2F, which reveals a more true/honest timbre in the mids and lower treble, especially for acoustic instruments. A mild EQ, +4 dB @ 3850, Q=0.8, brings the LCD-2F tonality to near perfection, as good as any headphone I've ever heard.

 

[xRaptorxPunisher]

We all hear differently. The HD800 is so bright I find it un-listenable. But I can listen to the HD650. That alone tells me the HD800 is more different from the LCD-2F than the HD650 is. At least to me, perceptually. The Oratory1990 graphs I posted above show a thread of truth to your comparison description. But to me, personally, the difference in tonality from 2 kHz on up is so massive it swamps everything else.

Funny enough I didn't mention listening impressions I actually spoke about the Frequency response. You prob find the HD800 unlistenable because frankly, it sounds like crap, the way it tilts bright coming off of the 6k peak makes it sound worse. One is of course a planar, they tend to have a more plastic timbre. My point was pretty simple, it's amazing how many get their nappies in a twist, especially mr buys the same headphone 25 times a few post up.

Because some people obviously struggles reading the details, the HD800 is more similar to the LCD-2 than the HD650 is to the LCD-2, doesn't mean they sound the same. It does shock me how some people spend so much on a headphone yet not actually understand how their headphone performs(not aimed at you)

For the record, I'd listen to the LCD-2 any day over the HD800, I think the HD800 un modded is one of the worst sounding headphones in the world, I'm not even joking.

 

[xRaptorxPunisher]

The problem I find with the Sennheiser HD series (580, 600, 800) is that they attenuate the low bass more than the LCD-2F does. And if you apply EQ to lift the bass to a neutral level, it sounds wooly, not crisp or tight. The LCD-2F stays tight and crisp even if you EQ the level up a bit.

That said, along with the 2016 LCD-2F, I have an original HD580 from 22 years ago that I still listen to daily. It's been through several pad replacements (both earcup & headband) and still works and sounds like new. Despite its attenuated low bass, it's great through the upper bass, mids and lower treble. Which makes it fine for most acoustic music.

In comparison, I find the LCD-2F has better extension in the very bottom & top octaves. And it has a more open, transparent voicing that makes the HD580 sound a tad boxy in comparison. The HD580 is not a boxy sounding headphone, but only in comparison to the LCD-2F, which reveals a more true/honest timbre in the mids and lower treble, especially for acoustic instruments. A mild EQ, +4 dB @ 3850, Q=0.8, brings the LCD-2F tonality to near perfection, as good as any headphone I've ever heard.

That statement literally appeals to any dynamic driver. Planars, almost if not all of them have completely sealed front volumes which results in linear bass, the issue with this is you lose bass decay and reverb. If you break the seal on say a hifiman, lift them a few cm off your ears and you hear more boom, or bass body, open headphones like the HD650 cannot do low bass very well due to not having a sealed front so they by design have more mid bass which mean all the decay, body in the recording is retained.

You can EQ the LCD-2 to have more bass presence but it will not have the same impact as a dynamic driver, pistonic motion allows the drivers to have more dynamic impact. Some headphones like the HE-6 and Abyss are the exception here, those headphones sound ridiculous, HE-6 I heard had velour pads so the break in seal will explain the body but also those headphones(HE-6, HE-500) are some of the most speaker like headphones I've heard. The HE-6 though still cannot produce the same dynamics as, shocker, a dynamic driver like the Focal Clear.

The LCD-2 does not sound open, at all, it has a sealed front volume(As well as recessed mids, blunted presence region, honky forward 1k region) and is more like a semi open headphone. The HD600 for example may sound closed due to it's more forward mids however. The LCD-2 pushes the upper mids back so certain sounds in the recording will sound further away while 1k is pushed forward on the LCD-2. Openness isn't about how far away the sound is, openness is how certain instruments break, play a guitar on the HD600 then switch to the LCD-2 they're very different, notes breath better where as the Audeze has more controlled air flow.

I do agree that the LCD-2 can sound very good with EQ, but most users do not EQ their headphones so will always judge in stock form.

 

[MRC001]

... Because some people obviously struggles reading the details, the HD800 is more similar to the LCD-2 than the HD650 is to the LCD-2, doesn't mean they sound the same. It does shock me how some people spend so much on a headphone yet not actually understand how their headphone performs(not aimed at you)

I'm still not convinced that the HD800 is more similar to the LCD-2F than the HD650 is. What exactly do you mean by "similar"? You suggest it is FR. There are different ways to compare curves (total difference in area, slope local and global, etc.). How about we keep it simple and apply the Mark VII eyeball test.

Here's the LCD-2F (red) versus HD650 (blue):

Here's the LCD-2F (red) versus HD800 (blue):

Neither is a close match, but to my eyes the the HD650 is less different / more similar. If you say the HD800 is closer, I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I'm not convinced.

 

[xRaptorxPunisher]

I'm still not convinced that the HD800 is more similar to the LCD-2F than the HD650 is. What exactly do you mean by "similar"? You suggest it is FR. There are different ways to compare curves (total difference in area, slope local and global, etc.). How about we keep it simple and apply the Mark VII eyeball test.

Here's the LCD-2F (red) versus HD650 (blue):


Here's the LCD-2F (red) versus HD800 (blue):


Neither is a close match, but to my eyes the the HD650 is less different / more similar. If you say the HD800 is closer, I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I'm not convinced.

If you look at the HD650 response, literally any measurement of them you can see that it has some mid bass boost then gently rolls into a cohesive mid range, it pretty much stays that way with a boost around 5k to which it returns for a gentle roll off. The HD650 is a more cohesive sounding headphone than both the HD800 and LCD-2, even the measurement you've posted show that the HD650 is the odd one out in that it is the only headphone which measures cohesively.

The LCD-2 is more coaster like in the mid range, the peak at around 1k then then rises and falls leading up to the absolute nose dive in the upper mids to which it comes back for a 6k peak. The HD800 is also a more cohesive headphone than the LCD-2 except unlike the HD650 it dips in the upper mids then rebounds for a 6k dildo before coming back to provide plenty of extension and air. Yet again, both the LCD-2 and HD800 have upper mid dips, both have 6k rebounds, both have similar bass cleanliness. Differences are the HD800 is warmer but brighter up top, LCD-2 is leaner but darker. Both are rough headphones, now rough can be taken as you want, I find the current LCD-2 very messed up sounding with it's 1k peak and 6k peak, it isn't smooth and it certainly isn't cohesive, EQ fixs this but that's not the point. HD800 is also rough, but it's roughness comes from 6k and onwards where as the LCD-2 has rough spots throughout the response. The peak at 1k makes makes male voices sound etchy instead of deep and chesty like the HD800 or HD650.

An untrained ear that doesn't quite understand FR will say the HD800 is thin, now I can understand their point of view for certain tracks but they're only listening to one aspect of it's sound, the HD800 has a full response in the areas in needs to be full apart from the upper mids which is female vocal range.

To come back to the original point here, HD650 is warm, cohesive, natural timbre but darkish. HD800 is warm, bright, rocky upper end, steely timbre, recessed upper mids, 6k peak . LCD-2 is not what I'd call warm, more dark, rough, plasticky timbre, 1k, 6k peaks with recessed upper mids. The LCD-2 is closer to the HD800 than it does the HD650 because it shares more traits, of course they sound different but they have more in common. Even LCD-2s from the same manufacturing date sound different to each other.

The HD650 doesn't really share any traits to the LCD-2 to be honest, both tilt a bit darker, that's literally about it, HD650 is a warm headphone, present upper mids, cohesive. Too many people on this board get caught up and don't read into the details, I didn't say they sound the same, how can they? different drivers, different housing, one is open, one is semi open. The older LCD-, I'm talking 2010 prob shares more in common than the HD650 but it's still much different, still rolled off but it was a bit warmer sounding, smoother, no weird peaks of the newer models.

 

[tameral]

You might be right raptorman but all I know is i can't listen to headphones like the HD800 without the treble splitting my ears and causing me pain but I can listen to an Lcd-2 and an Hd-650 all day - so I must say in that regard you may be wrong

 

[xRaptorxPunisher]

I swear no1 reads any of my post correctly and just focuses on the negatives I mention.

Here's what I said in a reply to another chap.

"For the record, I'd listen to the LCD-2 any day over the HD800, I think the HD800 un modded is one of the worst sounding headphones in the world, I'm not even joking."

Not aimed at you but I remember in the Nighthawk thread I said they were muddy, overly bassy, but also said they were a guilty pleasure, fun, good driver mechanics and had some people say I hate them and I'm bashing them....headfi is prob the only forum where you cannot bring up faults without people white knighting their purchase. I can prob pick up faults with all my gear and would never complain if someone else did it, in-fact I take critical post much more seriously with respect than those who say everything is wonderful because those types of people make the hobby worse, especially when potential buyers rely on unbiased comments.

Sometimes it's hard to talk about the sound of Audeze headphones as they all sound different.

I've had some LCD-2's that I'd consider, good grade drivers. I've got one from 2017 that performs really well, minimal 1k shout, and 6k is controlled although sometimes it's a little rough every now and then, tonality is actually quite good but it's resolution is behind the HD600 series and Ananda etc.

I've heard a few 2020 builds lately, Sheduas. both really nice cuts, the wood is darker, looks more rosewood, beautifully made but the sound was god awful stock. Some 2014's which sound rolled off in the bass but smoother throughout the response than the 2020's. 2016's I thought didn't sound good but I put it down to driver variation. I don't think there's been any major driver revisions since 2016 but there's a lot of variation as I've heard them all sounding different. It's very much luck of the draw it's always best to cherry pick with LCD headphones if possible.

 

[tameral]

You clearly are experienced but be careful in drawing conclusions to new revisions of headphones. There's something about attachment to the familiar that prevents the capacity to properly evaluate something new - or an update - especially at a glance. That being said, being ignorant and coming into something new certainly affords its own kind of bias and openness perhaps to something that with great experience and taste, you'd have learned better.

 

[xRaptorxPunisher]

I don't personally get attached to equipment. Your comment would be true if we were discussing different sound signatures for example to which I wasn't, I was talking about variations of the same headphone regarding frequency response and even technical differences. If evaluating a different sound signature the process of subjective test is a lot different because then we're talking about adjustments etc.

 

[tameral]

This certainly opens up the subject of variation with Audeze headphones. If anyone can provide an explanation for why Audeze does not have sufficient quality control I'd be interested in learning more...Especially why they continue to produce progressively inferior LCD-2s... To my understanding about sound, it's amazing how easily we can have different impressions of how something may sound - based on mood, environment, various differences aside from the sound of the headphone itself and of course there are the profound differences of Amps and less so DACs etc.

 

[Crowbar44]

If you look at the HD650 response, literally any measurement of them you can see that it has some mid bass boost then gently rolls into a cohesive mid range, it pretty much stays that way with a boost around 5k to which it returns for a gentle roll off. The HD650 is a more cohesive sounding headphone than both the HD800 and LCD-2, even the measurement you've posted show that the HD650 is the odd one out in that it is the only headphone which measures cohesively.

The LCD-2 is more coaster like in the mid range, the peak at around 1k then then rises and falls leading up to the absolute nose dive in the upper mids to which it comes back for a 6k peak. The HD800 is also a more cohesive headphone than the LCD-2 except unlike the HD650 it dips in the upper mids then rebounds for a 6k dildo before coming back to provide plenty of extension and air. Yet again, both the LCD-2 and HD800 have upper mid dips, both have 6k rebounds, both have similar bass cleanliness. Differences are the HD800 is warmer but brighter up top, LCD-2 is leaner but darker. Both are rough headphones, now rough can be taken as you want, I find the current LCD-2 very messed up sounding with it's 1k peak and 6k peak, it isn't smooth and it certainly isn't cohesive, EQ fixs this but that's not the point. HD800 is also rough, but it's roughness comes from 6k and onwards where as the LCD-2 has rough spots throughout the response. The peak at 1k makes makes male voices sound etchy instead of deep and chesty like the HD800 or HD650.

An untrained ear that doesn't quite understand FR will say the HD800 is thin, now I can understand their point of view for certain tracks but they're only listening to one aspect of it's sound, the HD800 has a full response in the areas in needs to be full apart from the upper mids which is female vocal range.

To come back to the original point here, HD650 is warm, cohesive, natural timbre but darkish. HD800 is warm, bright, rocky upper end, steely timbre, recessed upper mids, 6k peak . LCD-2 is not what I'd call warm, more dark, rough, plasticky timbre, 1k, 6k peaks with recessed upper mids. The LCD-2 is closer to the HD800 than it does the HD650 because it shares more traits, of course they sound different but they have more in common. Even LCD-2s from the same manufacturing date sound different to each other.

The HD650 doesn't really share any traits to the LCD-2 to be honest, both tilt a bit darker, that's literally about it, HD650 is a warm headphone, present upper mids, cohesive. Too many people on this board get caught up and don't read into the details, I didn't say they sound the same, how can they? different drivers, different housing, one is open, one is semi open. The older LCD-, I'm talking 2010 prob shares more in common than the HD650 but it's still much different, still rolled off but it was a bit warmer sounding, smoother, no weird peaks of the newer models.

So I got my HD 660S's earlier in the week and have been listening to them with the LCD-2F's in an alternating fashion for the past 4 days - probably a total of 7-9 hrs total.

I am new to this hobby and bought the 660S's to take to work while the LCD-2F's will stay home. Well, I can say simply, that FOR ME the HD 660S's are some great headphones, and for ~$350 (used-very available) are a screaming bargain, still a bargain at list price IMHO. The differences between the LCD-2F's and HD-660S are subtle, and just "different", TO ME. I honestly can't say I like one "better" than the other. I think the quoted post above is pretty accurate regarding the differences in treble and bass between the two cans, and frankly he has done a better job than I could in describing the details. However, to these "untrained ears" the differences are extraordinarily subtle, and do not in any way whatsoever impede enjoyment of music. My foray into desktop headphone audiophilia has gotten me back into music, and for that I'm very thankful. You can't go wrong with either of these cans.

Be aware I'm talking about the the HD 660S, NOT the beloved 650 or 600 or 6xx...

The LCD-2F's "look" like a $1000 headphone, and the HD 660's "look" like a $400 headphone, but they both sound great and give me ABSOLUTELY equal enjoyment of all music, regardless of genre (rock, classical, jazz, vocals). The HD660S gets the nod on comfort however.

I'm not much of a tweaker, so I think I'm probably done with my quest for a "better" headphone (both the LCD-2F and HD 660S are "good enough" for me). I almost pulled the trigger on a used set of Empyrean's, but at the last minute decided do go with the HD 660S - thinking that if I felt the LCD-2F's were that much better than the Senns, then the Empyrean's might also be better than the LCD-2F's (would love to hear if others feel this is a misplaced perspective). I'm now of the opinion that the law of diminishing (non-existent?) returns is alive and well in headphoneland (slowly puts on flameproof suit and slowly backs away from the keyboard ).