[bassboysam]

I have a late 2.1 and it's still in perfect condition.

 

[theblueprint]

I have the 2.2 prefazored ones, and they're still in pristine condition. My buddy's nonfazored 2.2 and 3 are looking great still too, maybe the QC issues are only with fazored LCDs?

 

[ilom]

Recently purchased a pair of Audeze LCD-2's with bamboo and microsuede and am thoroughly enjoying them.  I have to agree with the quality level of the stock cable, they definitely cut some costs there.  The cable is flimsy, cheaply insulated, and the connectors are a joke.  There are the cheapest of cheap chinese mini xlr connectors.  They also no longer include a wood polish kit.  In any case...
 
But my comment is more on the sound.  I listen to my LCD's almost exclusively with a iFi iDSD micro (always been a fan of the burr-brown dacs) headphone amp and really like the sound.  I find it to be even more natural and analog using HQplayer and upconverting my flac192 sources to octadsd (I know sounds like a gimmick but all that cpu processing is actually amazingly analog sounding).  I have also tried these phones with other amps for short periods of time.  My thing is possibly every single person on head-fi goes on about how dark these phones are.  I found the opposite.  To me they are bright, sometimes bordering on too bright.  I remember reading some older posts talking about people sending their LCD2's in to have them de-veiled or whatever and after they sounded brighter.  I'd personally like to send mine in and have them "veiled".  Maybe Audeze changed the design or drivers and the new 2015's are brighter.  If anyone has any insight let me know.  I also have HiFiMAN RE-600S IEMs, Beyer DT150's, and they both sound less bright than my LCD-2's.
 
To me the real measure of brightness is the sound of a violin.  I know exactly what they should sound like and most headphones, including all the senn's I've owned, add brightness and sizzle to a violin sound thats not there and never will be.  If a violin sounded like that no accomplished player would ever use it.  They arent supposed to sound crispy and bright (some call it "air").  If the trend is to make a violin sound like a violin mic'd then having the treble cranked to 11 then designers are succeeding.  Or maybe headphone usage kills sensitivity to high frequencies.  I'm not new to good sound but very new to the world of quality headphones so its possible I just don't get it.
 
I know some have said the microsuede sounds brighter than the leather.  And that they now use thinner material to cover the driver on the inside.  But I am hoping to get a chance to listen to the older dark LCD-2's and maybe I'll find what I'm looking for.
 
Btw the mids are absolutely fantastic and the bass is definitely Audeze's killer app in that it sounds so pure, real, and clear in its presentation.  It's the first time I have heard bass in a headphone that resembled a good 2 channel system, with true clear resolution (as opposed to annoying jumbled loudness in the lower range).
 
Any comments would be appreciated even those including "sorry dude your ears are just messed up".  

 

[bassboysam]

Recently purchased a pair of Audeze LCD-2's with bamboo and microsuede and am thoroughly enjoying them.  I have to agree with the quality level of the stock cable, they definitely cut some costs there.  The cable is flimsy, cheaply insulated, and the connectors are a joke.  There are the cheapest of cheap chinese mini xlr connectors.  They also no longer include a wood polish kit.  In any case...

But my comment is more on the sound.  I listen to my LCD's almost exclusively with a iFi iDSD micro (always been a fan of the burr-brown dacs) headphone amp and really like the sound.  I find it to be even more natural and analog using HQplayer and upconverting my flac192 sources to octadsd (I know sounds like a gimmick but all that cpu processing is actually amazingly analog sounding).  I have also tried these phones with other amps for short periods of time.  My thing is possibly every single person on head-fi goes on about how dark these phones are.  I found the opposite.  To me they are bright, sometimes bordering on too bright.  I remember reading some older posts talking about people sending their LCD2's in to have them de-veiled or whatever and after they sounded brighter.  I'd personally like to send mine in and have them "veiled".  Maybe Audeze changed the design or drivers and the new 2015's are brighter.  If anyone has any insight let me know.  I also have HiFiMAN RE-600S IEMs, Beyer DT150's, and they both sound less bright than my LCD-2's.

To me the real measure of brightness is the sound of a violin.  I know exactly what they should sound like and most headphones, including all the senn's I've owned, add brightness and sizzle to a violin sound thats not there and never will be.  If a violin sounded like that no accomplished player would ever use it.  They arent supposed to sound crispy and bright (some call it "air").  If the trend is to make a violin sound like a violin mic'd then having the treble cranked to 11 then designers are succeeding.  Or maybe headphone usage kills sensitivity to high frequencies.  I'm not new to good sound but very new to the world of quality headphones so its possible I just don't get it.

I know some have said the microsuede sounds brighter than the leather.  And that they now use thinner material to cover the driver on the inside.  But I am hoping to get a chance to listen to the older dark LCD-2's and maybe I'll find what I'm looking for.

Btw the mids are absolutely fantastic and the bass is definitely Audeze's killer app in that it sounds so pure, real, and clear in its presentation.  It's the first time I have heard bass in a headphone that resembled a good 2 channel system, with true clear resolution (as opposed to annoying jumbled loudness in the lower range).

Any comments would be appreciated even those including "sorry dude your ears are just messed up".  

I found my 2.1 much brighter than I ever expected based on all the reviews. It took about 2 weeks or so for my brain to adjust. I still don't think they are as dark as people claim but they are not bright to me anymore. I think it has more to do with adjusting to the more linear frequency response compared to your typical dynamic driver.

 

[x RELIC x]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Recently purchased a pair of Audeze LCD-2's with bamboo and microsuede and am thoroughly enjoying them.  I have to agree with the quality level of the stock cable, they definitely cut some costs there.  The cable is flimsy, cheaply insulated, and the connectors are a joke.  There are the cheapest of cheap chinese mini xlr connectors.  They also no longer include a wood polish kit.  In any case...

But my comment is more on the sound.  I listen to my LCD's almost exclusively with a iFi iDSD micro (always been a fan of the burr-brown dacs) headphone amp and really like the sound.  I find it to be even more natural and analog using HQplayer and upconverting my flac192 sources to octadsd (I know sounds like a gimmick but all that cpu processing is actually amazingly analog sounding).  I have also tried these phones with other amps for short periods of time.  My thing is possibly every single person on head-fi goes on about how dark these phones are.  I found the opposite.  To me they are bright, sometimes bordering on too bright.  I remember reading some older posts talking about people sending their LCD2's in to have them de-veiled or whatever and after they sounded brighter.  I'd personally like to send mine in and have them "veiled".  Maybe Audeze changed the design or drivers and the new 2015's are brighter.  If anyone has any insight let me know.  I also have HiFiMAN RE-600S IEMs, Beyer DT150's, and they both sound less bright than my LCD-2's.

To me the real measure of brightness is the sound of a violin.  I know exactly what they should sound like and most headphones, including all the senn's I've owned, add brightness and sizzle to a violin sound thats not there and never will be.  If a violin sounded like that no accomplished player would ever use it.  They arent supposed to sound crispy and bright (some call it "air").  If the trend is to make a violin sound like a violin mic'd then having the treble cranked to 11 then designers are succeeding.  Or maybe headphone usage kills sensitivity to high frequencies.  I'm not new to good sound but very new to the world of quality headphones so its possible I just don't get it.

I know some have said the microsuede sounds brighter than the leather.  And that they now use thinner material to cover the driver on the inside.  But I am hoping to get a chance to listen to the older dark LCD-2's and maybe I'll find what I'm looking for.

Btw the mids are absolutely fantastic and the bass is definitely Audeze's killer app in that it sounds so pure, real, and clear in its presentation.  It's the first time I have heard bass in a headphone that resembled a good 2 channel system, with true clear resolution (as opposed to annoying jumbled loudness in the lower range).

Any comments would be appreciated even those including "sorry dude your ears are just messed up".  

Audeze did indeed change the drivers and moved toward a brighter and more articulate presentation last year. The Audeze lush sound with the LCD-2 was born from the initial release of the headphone and they have been moving toward a clearer presentation with each revision. The LCD-2 ver 1 is darker than the LCD-2 ver 2 is darker than the LCD-2 with fazor.

The fazor was implemented after the release of the LCD-X and LCD-XC. It's a waveguide grill over the driver that helps keep the sound more uniform as it goes through the magnet structure of the drivers. There's a good description of it on Innerfidelity if you want to know more. This created a sense of elevated treble.

At the same time as implementing the fazor Audeze also tweaked the drivers to be a bit faster which also contributes to a brighter perceived sound. So yes, over time they have been moving away from darker veiled headphones and moved toward brighter and more articulate ones. If you want the dark Audeze veil you need to look for an older pair.

 

[ilom]

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

Audeze did indeed change the drivers and moved toward a brighter and more articulate presentation last year. The Audeze lush sound with the LCD-2 was born from the initial release of the headphone and they have been moving toward a clearer presentation with each revision. The LCD-2 ver 1 is darker than the LCD-2 ver 2 is darker than the LCD-2 with fazor.

The fazor was implemented after the release of the LCD-X and LCD-XC. It's a waveguide grill over the driver that helps keep the sound more uniform as it goes through the magnet structure of the drivers. There's a good description of it on Innerfidelity if you want to know more. This created a sense of elevated treble.

At the same time as implementing the fazor Audeze also tweaked the drivers to be a bit faster which also contributes to a brighter perceived sound. So yes, over time they have been moving away from darker veiled headphones and moved toward brighter and more articulate ones. If you want the dark Audeze veil you need to look for an older pair.

Thank you for the detailed explanation.  This finally makes sense.  I wonder if Audeze has a "veil" mod they can do for me.  Based on your info I have a feeling I would be better suited to LCD-2's one or two revisions ago.  I should say the LCD-2's have done one awesome thing for me and that is allow me to listen to rock again.  I listen to many types of music but stayed away from rock for some time just because everything I owned annoyed me when I played rock, especially late 70's stuff like Boston or Rush.  With the LCD-2's I can listen to that music fairly loudly without any major annoyances and actually "fall into" the music.  The brightness only presents itself on random material that I know well like Mazzy Star/Hope Sandoval's tambourine is too loud and too forward.  These types of tracks that bug me are rare and also as someone said before maybe I just need to get conditioned to the sound.  Anyhow thanks a ton for the info, much appreciated.
 
I also considered the idea that down the line I may get a better dac/preamp that has tube(s) and may soften the sound a bit more.
 
This may be a really stupid question but can I buy an aftermarket cable that would make the phones less bright?  Or less treble peaky might be a better way to say it.  (I realize most people are searching for more brightness when they change cables)

 

[x RELIC x]

I haven't heard much difference from cables, not to the level you're looking for. Others will swear by them. I feel you would be better served by an EQ or warmer upstream gear (tubes?).

 

[theblueprint]

I've found that my LCD2.2s (nonfazor) to be less veiled and more opened when I feed it more power (especially via balanced). Giving them 1W of power brings the veil and darkness back. I've confirmed this with other owners too. It's not night and day, but you definitely notice it. What amp are you using?

 

[x RELIC x]

I've found that my LCD2.2s (nonfazor) to be less veiled and more opened when I feed it more power (especially via balanced). Giving them 1W of power brings the veil and darkness back. I've confirmed this with other owners too. It's not night and day, but you definitely notice it. What amp are you using?

He's using the iDSD which should have enough power. I agree, more power gives more dynamics and gives the headphones the power required to reproduce bass properly.

 

[DavidA]

  I also considered the idea that down the line I may get a better dac/preamp that has tube(s) and may soften the sound a bit more.
 
This may be a really stupid question but can I buy an aftermarket cable that would make the phones less bright?  Or less treble peaky might be a better way to say it.  (I realize most people are searching for more brightness when they change cables)

A better/different DAC/AMP could make a big difference in the sound depending on what you currently have.  I tried my LCD-2f with my Asgard2 and it was not that great, a little to bright, with the Project Ember or Lyr2 the LCD-2f its quite good IMO.

I also don't think cables will make the difference for you as @x RELIC x posted.

 

[theblueprint]

A better/different DAC/AMP could make a big difference in the sound depending on what you currently have.  I tried my LCD-2f with my Asgard2 and it was not that great, a little to bright, with the Project Ember or Lyr2 the LCD-2f its quite good IMO.


I also don't think cables will make the difference for you as @x RELIC x
 posted.

Funny, I have an Asgard 2 too, and I've found the 1W it provides retains the darkness still. I actually prefer a tad bit more brightness and find that the Mjolnir gives me what I want (though there might be a confounding variable here, as Mjolnir is inherently a bright amp).

 

[DavidA]

Funny, I have an Asgard 2 too, and I've found the 1W it provides retains the darkness still. I actually prefer a tad bit more brightness and find that the Mjolnir gives me what I want (though there might be a confounding variable here, as Mjolnir is inherently a bright amp).

Haven't heard a Mjolnir but I think the Asgard2 is also a slightly bright amp compared to the Lyr2 and Project Ember but then you start bringing in the variable of tubes so that makes comparison harder.  Changing the output impedance/resistance on the Ember produces a very noticeable change is sound, at the low setting the sound is the brightest with the expense of some bass, the middle setting provides the best balance to me while the high setting will produce a slightly dark lush sound.

 

[ilom]

The iDSD has a number of power settings but I contacted iFi and they suggested normal for the LCD-2's which is 1000mw.  There's also "turbo" which is 4000mw but then it becomes an issue of too loud at the lower range of the volume control.  They did say they felt 1W was on the lower end of the suggested power range for the LCD-2's.
 
I was looking at the Marantz HD- DAC1 (around $800) and also iFi has a tube based HA/pre coming out soon (in the $1500 range).  The iFi would be the upper end of what I want to spend.  If anyone has any gear that is on the darker side in this range I'd appreciate the suggestions.
 
Also thanks for the all great info, its awesome when there's a community of people willing to help. 

 

[theblueprint]

The iDSD has a number of power settings but I contacted iFi and they suggested normal for the LCD-2's which is 1000mw.  There's also "turbo" which is 4000mw but then it becomes an issue of too loud at the lower range of the volume control.  They did say they felt 1W was on the lower end of the suggested power range for the LCD-2's.

I was looking at the Marantz HD- DAC1 (around $800) and also iFi has a tube based HA/pre coming out soon (in the $1500 range).  The iFi would be the upper end of what I want to spend.  If anyone has any gear that is on the darker side in this range I'd appreciate the suggestions.

Also thanks for the all great info, its awesome when there's a community of people willing to help. 

As DavidA mentioned, a tube amp would give you a lusher, perhaps more veiled sound. He's correct in saying that the Asgard 2 is brighter compared to his tube amps, even though I find Asgard 2 to be slightly warm. It's all relative anyway and besides any tube setup will generally give you a warmer sound.

Do you hear a difference in normal and turbo mode on your iDSD? Just curious.

 

[DavidA]

If you want to stay SS and not worry about tubes, look into a Gustard H-10, its a warm SS amp that is fairly cheap, they have been on MassDrop twice in the last few months for $299 and some of the posters in other threads like them with a variety of headphones from planars to 300ohm Senns.