[x RELIC x]

I guess we're from different planets. Note, I was saying the Fazor element was for the cohesion of soundwaves after passing through the magnetic grill, not for treble boost (though perceived detail may be mistaken as a boost in treble). I'm not saying anything about the other changes Audeze has made. When I demo'd the Fazor LCD-2 in the store compared to my ver2.2 I didn't hear any of the weird characteristics you guys are talking about, and this isn't my first picnic. The perceived clarity was better, yes, but no where near an HD800. If you like the deficient treble of the LCD-2 v1 all the power to you. I agree with Tyll 100%.... there may be more grain in the treble with the LCD-2 Fazor compared to the LCD-3 and LCD-X, but it isn't weird.

 

[x RELIC x]

in that case, here on earth there's these things called real instruments...play them in real life then listen to them on a headphone and see if they sound the same

Let's not go there. My goal is always to get to realistic instrument reproduction, and I simply didn't hear anything weird. YMMV.

 

[x RELIC x]

I've been playing instruments for many years including piano, violin and I have also worked with many vocalist and I can tell you for certain the LCD-2F is off with all of those things. I think our experience levels will come into play here. I personally find the HD650, Nighthawk, LCD 2.1 to nail how the human sounds and the timbre of piano and violin, wood winds etc.

You aren't the only one who has heard and played live instruments. Anyway, sorry your pair isn't doing it for you. I'm just relating my own impression and I certainly don't hear any strange peak. Of course Audeze variation may be at play here, which is a shame because some hear it as great and some hear it as 'off'. Like I said, I own the LCD-2 rev 2 (built on 07-23-2012) and not the Fazors, and I won't be selling them anytime soon. I auditioned the Fazor in store when it came out and although they were brighter than my pre-Fazor pair with a little more clarity I didn't hear anything 'weird'.

And, once again, There were many changes to the LCD-2 when the Fazors were introduced, not just the Fazor grill. Back to my original comment I feel these may have more of an effect than just the Fazor grill.

 

[marcan]

I have a rev2. I tried the the LCD-X and LCD3F and for me they didn't sound right for me.
Missing the low end and peaky highs.
I also tried several headphones in the studio (LCD2.2, HD800, HD650, ...).
We compared the direct sound (mainly voice and acoustic guitar) with the one recorded with the dummy head.
The LCD2.2 was by far the more natural sounding. Closed eyes listening with the LCD2.2 really gives you the impression to be there.
That's my experience with the LCD2.2 and why I want let them go.
I think the fazer is not directly responsible for the rolled off sub bass, the sensitivity may be the culprit.
Now the fazer will add energy in the treble.
So both changes are somehow cumulative and make them sound a bit sterile to my taste.
Regarding details, I find the LCD2.2 very revealing without being bright. Details are still what they are: details.
You can hear details but you still have the the big picture.
I have also to add that the amp is very important for the LCD2.2 (being less sensitive), and a bad amp can give an anemic sound.

 

[CanadianMaestro]

Apart from prod variations, I wonder how much of the perceived "off the mark" sound profiles of the fazor models is the result of amp synergies (or perceived lack thereof?). Are the fazors fussier with amp matching?
 
I really enjoyed my 2.2 pre-faz, but have yet to aud any fazors. I've always felt I was lucky with my 2.2, as I had wonderful amps to pair with it. I am a firm advocate of amp synergy with transducer gear like speakers and HPs.

 

[oAmadeuso]

Apart from a hinge screw that keeps coming lose I love my Fazor LCD 2's.
 
Maybe there's better out there but I won't know because I can't afford to buy another pair.

 

[heliosphann]

I posted earlier about this, but I currently own pre-fazor 2.2's and 2.2f's made in Oct '15. I'm going to do a second round of comparison this weekend, but I preferred the sound of the 2.2f's in round one. Really they were quite close, but despite a small loss in sub-bass, the 2f's had better treble, larger soundstage and slightly more detail retrieval. Also noticed the 2.2's needed a good 1/8th turn more on my volume pot vs the 2.2f's.

 

[marcan]

I posted earlier about this, but I currently own pre-fazor 2.2's and 2.2f's made in Oct '15. I'm going to do a second round of comparison this weekend, but I preferred the sound of the 2.2f's in round one. Really they were quite close, but despite a small loss in sub-bass, the 2f's had better treble, larger soundstage and slightly more detail retrieval. Also noticed the 2.2's needed a good 1/8th turn more on my volume pot vs the 2.2f's.

Sure you percieve more details with the fazer but does it sound natural.
And the 2.2 are more taxing on the amp. It's probably what makes them more full on a good amp.

 

[Spamateur]

I've been playing instruments for many years including piano, violin and I have also worked with many vocalist and I can tell you for certain the LCD-2F is off with all of those things. I think our experience levels will come into play here. I personally find the HD650, Nighthawk, LCD 2.1 to nail how the human sounds and the timbre of piano and violin, wood winds etc.

I would agree with you on the HD650. I think they reproduce timbre almost better than anything else I've heard, particularly with stringed instruments. I think part of that for me has to do with the level of microdetail they provide. You can really feel fingers sliding on fretboards and the sound of a guitar pick nicking strings. It's really uncanny. None of it is from the false clarity provided by being a bright or treblehead headphone, either.
 
I think the HD650 in general is much more revealing than either the LCD-2F or LCD-X that I've owned, but then again it's darn near impossible to find anything more revealing without going the HD800 icepick-in-ear-treble route. 

 

[Malfunkt]

  I would agree with you on the HD650. I think they reproduce timbre almost better than anything else I've heard, particularly with stringed instruments. I think part of that for me has to do with the level of microdetail they provide. You can really feel fingers sliding on fretboards and the sound of a guitar pick nicking strings. It's really uncanny. None of it is from the false clarity provided by being a bright or treblehead headphone, either.
 
I think the HD650 in general is much more revealing than either the LCD-2F or LCD-X that I've owned, but then again it's darn near impossible to find anything more revealing without going the HD800 icepick-in-ear-treble route. 

It's weird, in my observation, my LCD2 has audibly more resolution and detail than the two HD650s I've owned. There is just greater depth to the sound and clarity on the LCD2. That said, the frequency curve of the HD650 on the upper mids and treble balance is more natural. The LCD2 counters with a better balance and presentation on the low end. I wrote recently in my HD650 review http://www.head-fi.org/products/sennheiser-hd-650-headphones/reviews/15211 about this, and the HD650's naturalness is really apparent with binaural field recordings.
 
Put aside musical instruments, the environmental sounds of nature are etched into our minds and offer a true reference. Of course, the quality of such is completely dependent on the recordings and mastering. On my HD650, it just 'puts me there'. The LCD2 is still very good and better in some ways for these types of recordings, but I slightly prefer the 650.

Still I absolutely love my LCD2 classic. I've heard a classic LCD3 that I thought was better and have heard fazored versions. Can't quite put my finger on it but I didn't immediately gel with the 2F and 3F. Not to say they were bad at all. I may have even preferred them in the long run.
 
One thing, if Audeze headphones really do vary significantly as much as people talk about, at least their drivers are matched. It if was quality control issues, wouldn't we see drivers sounding vastly different in the left and right channels? Maybe someone else can illuminate on this. 

 

[kernel8888]

I think hearing and impressions vary much more than the headphones... my current model sounds different day to day depending on my mood, fatigue, volume, have I been sick and congested, etc.

 

[LEGendARY]

My LCD-2 f (December 2015) is a tiny bit congested, sounds more like a semi-open, relative to the HD 598, which has crazy soundstage. Though they quite revealing. The vocals, in some recordings, are ever so slightly annoying. I mean just a tad forwardish to my liking. I sometimes feel an urge to push the singers face to the back just a little. I don't know how some of you guys are complaining about the mids being off, or to the back to be exact!
 
 
Any recommendations for a stand that can hold two headphones??
 
I have been thinking about going to a carpenter and make my own stand 

 

 

[Spamateur]

  My LCD-2 f (December 2015) is a tiny bit congested, sounds more like a semi-open, relative to the HD 598, which has crazy soundstage. Though they quite revealing. The vocals, in some recordings, are ever so slightly annoying. I mean just a tad forwardish to my liking. I sometimes feel an urge to push the singers face to the back just a little. I don't know how some of you guys are complaining about the mids being off, or to the back to be exact!
 
 
Any recommendations for a stand that can hold two headphones??
 
I have been thinking about going to a carpenter and make my own stand 

 

The mids are a bit forward for me where they coincide with the peaks in the frequency response, so I definitely know what you're referring to. My headphone doesn't emphasize the low throat sounds well if that makes sense.
 
As for a headphone stand, the 2-headphone model linked below is awesome. It's adjustable so you can crank it up to take strain off your cable connectors. I have my HD650 and LCD2 on it:
 
http://www.wooaudio.com/products/wahps2.html

 

[Spamateur]

  It's weird, in my observation, my LCD2 has audibly more resolution and detail than the two HD650s I've owned. There is just greater depth to the sound and clarity on the LCD2. That said, the frequency curve of the HD650 on the upper mids and treble balance is more natural. The LCD2 counters with a better balance and presentation on the low end. I wrote recently in my HD650 review http://www.head-fi.org/products/sennheiser-hd-650-headphones/reviews/15211 about this, and the HD650's naturalness is really apparent with binaural field recordings.
 
Put aside musical instruments, the environmental sounds of nature are etched into our minds and offer a true reference. Of course, the quality of such is completely dependent on the recordings and mastering. On my HD650, it just 'puts me there'. The LCD2 is still very good and better in some ways for these types of recordings, but I slightly prefer the 650.
 

 
I definitely agree with you about the upper mid and treble balance being more natural on the HD650. I'm honestly considering ditching my LCD2F as I find it a bit fatiguing due to the treble spike on about half my music. I'm actually on my second HD650 as well. I think if you sell them once you quickly realize how good they were and how much you miss them. It's sort of like a good relationship that you ended for dumb personal reasons, and you come crawling back after realizing how good you had it. The more I think about it, the more I'm pretty sure I could go back to living with the HD650 as my only headphone.
 
I also agree  LCD2 has more depth and layering in how it presents music. On the other hand, I think the HD650 features a wider soundstage with more air and separation between instruments, but they're all spaced out evenly and at the same distance instead of having the depth that the Audeze has. This is what I was referring to as the HD650 having "false" clarity. In contrast the Audeze has that thick, enveloping presentation that I describe to my friends as "two speakers strapped to your head."

 

[krumley7882]

I think hearing and impressions vary much more than the headphones... my current model sounds different day to day depending on my mood, fatigue, volume, have I been sick and congested, etc.

I agree. My mood, cognition and general orientation at any given time greatly impacts my perception. Just got the LCD2.2f- Jan-10-2016 and they are amazing as hell... I personally prefer the beefy bottom of the LCDX, but the lcd2 nonetheless fill the whole body with music. Running through iDSD I -3D the image. Tis fantastic. Bummer to read that so much fluctuation occurs between different owners LCD. Before purchase I was able to compare to Ethers, HD800 and Enigmacoustics. For me. The LCD2 was a nice middle ground re: soundscape.