[klfl]

O2, lacks dynamics? What do you understand by "dynamics"?
 

 
This post here explains the term pretty accurately:
http://www.head-fi.org/a/describing-sound-a-glossary
 
I once recorded acoustic guitar and piano on the pcm-d50 and hooked it up with the O2/LCD-2, very good detail but the sound is flat and lacks energy. It is much more enjoyable with the pico power. (which measures as good, if not better than the O2. http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AllAmpsJuly2013.pdf)
I enjoy the O2 and it provides the best performance in its price range, but it certainly has its limitations. It is never justified to say something is flawless without comparing with a wide variety of similar products.
 

No, haven't heard the LCD-X. It's on the list though. My research tells me it has the LCD-2 pre-Fazor's bass quality and articulation. It's FR graph looks very linear too. I think, and this is only my opinion, Audeze transferred that bass articulation and body from the 2 to the X; otherwise, you wouldn't differentiate the 2 from the X and justify the price increase.

 

Very interesting speculation, looking forward to your future impressions.
I wish to try the LCD-X/XC myself in the near future.

 

[hodgjy]

I had the LCD-2Fazor for a month and I don't find the bass honest at all. And it's bloated, there's bloom in it. And it's lacking/light. I'm comparing to the LCD-2 pre-Fazor and speakers though. I'm assuming the LCD-X don't have this problem (haven't heard it).

 
We all hear things differently, but I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that the 2.2f is BOTH bass light AND bloomy.

 

[diamondears]

This post here explains the term pretty accurately:
http://www.head-fi.org/a/describing-sound-a-glossary

I once recorded acoustic guitar and piano on the pcm-d50 and hooked it up with the O2/LCD-2, very good detail but the sound is flat and lacks energy. It is much more enjoyable with the pico power. (which measures as good, if not better than the O2. http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AllAmpsJuly2013.pdf)
I enjoy the O2 and it provides the best performance in its price range, but it certainly has its limitations. It is never justified to say something is flawless without comparing with a wide variety of similar products.

Very interesting speculation, looking forward to your future impressions.
I wish to try the LCD-X/XC myself in the near future.

Yes, that's my understanding of dynamics too and I certainly didn't find the O2 lacking in it. It handles transients and dynamic peaks and dips pretty well, excellently, in fact that I'm really amazed by it.

I think what you're hearing out of the O2 is your DAC. O2 is very transparent, so it ain't gonna tweak your DAC for you.

Re LCD-2F vs LCD-2 Rev. 2 (not the pre-fazor immediately preceding/near the fazor), the bass quality difference is very substantial and clear that it's interesting you don't see it, and you see it the ther way around. And I'm not alone on this.

 

[diamondears]

We all hear things differently, but I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that the 2.2f is BOTH bass light AND bloomy.

By bloomy I meant one-note-ish bass, sorta adding or bass than the actual recording, but overall body is light. So by light I meant lacking in mass or body, which I think is due to lack in sub-bass.

Btw, it's also interesting that the sub-bass on the FR graphs at innerfidelity are awesomely linear, but not in my LCD-2F's FR graph as well as others that have posted. Bought the LCD-2F based on the innerfidelity FR graphs. Was surprised it ain't same on mine.

 

[scizzro]

 Bought the LCD-2F based on the innerfidelity FR graphs. Was surprised it ain't same on mine.

 How much is it off? Do you have a picture handy?

 

[diamondears]

:blink:  How much is it off? Do you have a picture handy?

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

 

[klfl]

Re LCD-2F vs LCD-2 Rev. 2 (not the pre-fazor immediately preceding/near the fazor), the bass quality difference is very substantial and clear that it's interesting you don't see it, and you see it the ther way around. And I'm not alone on this.

No, you misunderstood. There is indeed a change in bass from the pre-fazor to the LCD-2F, and I am glad they made the change. It is one step closer to neutral. A lot people do recognize this as an improvement, for example Michael Mercer.

 

[scizzro]

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

Hmm, that is quite interesting. I'm guessing that 8k dip isn't really noticable.. are there even any instruments that reach 8k? Maybe a percussion triangle? lol
 
And yeah your mid/upper bass looks a little more represented than Tyll's... 

 

[diamondears]

No, you misunderstood. There is indeed a change in bass from the pre-fazor to the LCD-2F, and I am glad they made the change. It is one step closer to neutral. A lot people do recognize this as an improvement, for example Michael Mercer.

You prefer LCD-2F's bass, I prefer the LCD-2 Rev. 2's. I agree LCD-2F has more treble.

I see LCD-2F as not bright on really transparent and neutral amps. It adds bit of treble and removes bit of bass on the recordings. On warm amps, it is perfectly neutral sounding.

 

[klfl]

sorta adding or bass than the actual recording

After testing out my own recording with a few instruments. That's exactly how I would describe pre-Fazor 2.2.

 

[diamondears]

After testing out my own recording with a few instruments. That's exactly how I would describe pre-Fazor 2.2.

For warm amps, yes.

 

[klfl]

A few weeks ago I asked Audeze customer support why they have changed the sensitivity rating of LCD-2 from 93db/mw to 101db/mw (similar change for LCD-3). Their response is that they have changed how they measure their own headphones. They now measure at a different location closer to the ear. So I suspect that this factor will add more variables to the FR graph from Audeze.
 
It is very possible that if you re-measure an old production LCD-2 with new method, you will see some key difference between the two results. 
 
So an official Audeze FR graph from 2014 is not directly comparable with one from 2012. Since how the measurements are taken are different.

 

[hodgjy]

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

 
The dip in bass occurs around 30-40 hz, which I consider to be inconsequential.  The lowest frequency of many instruments is 31 hz, and many people cannot hear tones below 25 hz anyway.  There is no need for a flat response from 5 hz to 60 hz since most of the information cannot be heard.  Every headphone is a compromise, so if designing them to drop off at 30 hz somehow offers an improvement elsewhere, such as better treble and imaging (which the Fazor supposedly does), I welcome that.

 

[diamondears]

The dip in bass occurs around 30-40 hz, which I consider to be inconsequential.  The lowest frequency of many instruments is 31 hz, and many people cannot hear tones below 25 hz anyway.  There is no need for a flat response from 5 hz to 60 hz since most of the information cannot be heard.  Every headphone is a compromise, so if designing them to drop off at 30 hz somehow offers an improvement elsewhere, such as better treble and imaging (which the Fazor supposedly does), I welcome that.

Everybody will notice the dip from 25-40 hz. That's actually a lot. Lots of music now with artificial bass going low. The fullness and weight, which actually can't be pinpointed when listening, comes from those frequencies. I switch speakers with frequency range up to 45hz while another up to 40hz and I hear lots being lost on the 45hz speakers. Moreso if comoared with up to 25hz speakers.

 

[diamondears]

I'm pretty sure (though again I've nt heard the X) there's a lot difference between LCD-2F's bass and LCD-X. There's a reason they priced the X that high. That bass is something. It's the difference between excellent and wow.