[Ampeezy]

  You are looking at graphs wrong. Firstly having a treble that is below the bass and mids doesn't account for treble roughness. Measurements also don't tell the whole story especially with treble..look at an HD800 graph and it will show a lower or equal treble to the mid range..but anyone who has mixed with an 800 will know it's treble is elevated above the rest of the response.  Also like I said in the studio with tracks that I've mixed with the current LCD-2 and LCD-3  shows elevated treble and I've mixed these tracks myself. Without sounding rude,  I don't know how good your ears are...I can tell you I've met a lot of people who can't even tell the difference between a rough treble or a smooth one.
 
I can confirm that the current LCD-2 has a boosted treble that is on the rough side. A lot of graphs show the spikes and rough areas but I confirm if everyone will hear it. Everyone I've met so far has agreed the fazor models are boosted in the highs and recessed in the upper mid range. 

Safe to assume rough = unpleasant, mayhaps grating, uneven, or perhaps obviously unnatural in some fashion? Well i have not experienced this with my Fazor Lcd-2. The original Fazor which i had before really had elevated treble in my opinion but even then i did not think it was rough, but rather a bit unbalanced. To each their own, you obviously do not like the lcd series, and i believe on that we can agree. Its as simple as that.

 

[thefitz]

...and now we see the struggles of using subjective terminology to describe objective measurements....

 

[marcan]

I did hear that the first LCD2 fazor model was peaky but my LCD2 rev 2 is just smooth. The transient being very fast, details are there without shrillness. But if you have a deficient DAC or amp it's another tell. While being smooth the LCD2 can be very revealing of anything before it.
Also the lake of distortion at high level can be misleading on the listening level.

 

[sludgeogre]

  I did hear that the first LCD2 fazor model was peaky but my LCD2 rev 2 is just smooth. The transient being very fast, details are there without shrillness. But if you have a deficient DAC or amp it's another tell. While being smooth the LCD2 can be very revealing of anything before it.
Also the lake of distortion at high level can be misleading on the listening level.

Indeed, that super fast decay, combined with a slightly rolled off lower treble, is what makes even poorly mastered, shrill, distorted tracks easier to handle, as that horrible ringing from harsh tracks is not nearly as hard to handle if it decays quickly.
 
Well said @marcan , I totally agree.

 

[exsomnis]

  You are looking at graphs wrong. Firstly having a treble that is below the bass and mids doesn't account for treble roughness. Measurements also don't tell the whole story especially with treble..look at an HD800 graph and it will show a lower or equal treble to the mid range..but anyone who has mixed with an 800 will know it's treble is elevated above the rest of the response.  Also like I said in the studio with tracks that I've mixed with the current LCD-2 and LCD-3  shows elevated treble and I've mixed these tracks myself. Without sounding rude,  I don't know how good your ears are...I can tell you I've met a lot of people who can't even tell the difference between a rough treble or a smooth one.
 
I can confirm that the current LCD-2 has a boosted treble that is on the rough side. A lot of graphs show the spikes and rough areas but I confirm if everyone will hear it. Everyone I've met so far has agreed the fazor models are boosted in the highs and recessed in the upper mid range. 

 
I think the problem is translating a roughness in the treble frequency response graph into real life listening. It can't translate as roughness in listening because treble frequency sounds are typically rough by nature. Crashing cymbals are rough. 
 
That said, the treble on the 2.2 is definitely not as refined as it can be but it's not a huge issue because it is definitely rolled off. As for the new LCD 2s, I will reserve comment until I get mine back.

 

[DivergeUnify]

Headphones rarely nail 3/3 areas. The LCD2 has great bass and mids. More even midst than the 650, and bass that,is much faster and deeper than the HD650

 

[marcan]

Headphones rarely nail 3/3 areas. The LCD2 has great bass and mids. More even midst than the 650, and bass that,is much faster and deeper than the HD650

LCD2 has also a better treble extension than the 650. Actually the 650 is mid centric but does it have better mids... not sure.

 

[mkarikom]

  Every single song I've heard that has treble presence has treble roughness with the LCD's, it emphasises the treble in the newest editions so it's more prominent. It's something all Audeze headphones share. There's no way it's smoother than the 650, the 650 doesn't have any bumps in the response while the Audeze headphones are all choppy in the treble. 
 
 
The Smoothest I've heard was the 2.1 and even that has it's share of roughness in the treble. I compared the Audeze LCD-2 2016 version with the HD650 hooked up to the yggy and black widow and the HD650 just absolutely leaves it for dead in smoothness, resolution and tonal balance. The Bass was way better with the LCD-2's though and that's something they do really well. Being an audio engineer  I use my own tracks so  I can tell which headphones are giving me an accurate representation of the music and the new fazors exaggerate the treble unfortunately,
 
I've tried the new Shedua's and also have a rosewood 2016 edition. Using my test tracks in the studio there's also a recess in the upper mid range that creates a little unbalance, this wasn't as bad with the old LCD's as the treble was lower in level. I simply cannot work with the Audeze because of their lacking upper mids and boosted highs, I find headphones like the Hifiman Edition X better in that regard or something like the HD650(Quiet environments) although it lacks a bit of low bass being open and dynamic. 
 
I find the HD650 to be superior in the studio and for music listening but I did find the LCD-2 to sound better on lower grade gear. 

O to the Z to the O to the N to the E

 

[Ampeezy]

  O to the Z to the O to the N to the E

Dont get the lingo lol

 

[PinkyPowers]

He suffered a stroke last fall. Forgive the poor fellow.

 

[mkarikom]

He suffered a stroke last fall. Forgive the poor fellow.

Close, but actually just trying to offer respite from the stodgy rhetoric of people ****ting on the LCD-2, which is the best headphone.

 

[PinkyPowers]

Close, but actually just trying to offer respite from the stodgy rhetoric of people ****ting on the LCD-2, which is the best headphone.

Can't argue with that.

 

[Ampeezy]

  Close, but actually just trying to offer respite from the stodgy rhetoric of people ****ting on the LCD-2, which is the best headphone.

ah, yes haha

 

[meringo]

My new LCD2 have arrived. I feel like an idiot not buying these sooner. The sound signature is what I've been chasing for some time.

 

[fiascogarcia]

  My new LCD2 have arrived. I feel like an idiot not buying these sooner. The sound signature is what I've been chasing for some time.

It's always great to find that listening sweet spot, and often times it's a lucky find.  Getting others impressions on this site is very helpful information, but ultimately you just have to trust your own ears, given that we each have a unique preference for what sound we're looking for, and we all listen with different equipment that very likely adds its own flavor.  Congrats on finding your sound signature!