[droopy1592]

The original tuning is what launched the company. It was a unique deep and non-fatiguing sound.

Just got some LcD3f. Comparing them to my prefazor lcd2 they are technically superior on the top end but there is some fatigue I get from the high mids/treble that I don't even get from my Grado ps500e (also dark for a Grado). I like the LCd3fs but they are like listening through a hard glass of dense and sweet fine wine while the LCD2 pre fazor are like listening through a plastic jar of unrefined honey.

I don't know what to do. Mids are less veiled on the 2 for me.

 

[PinkyPowers]

Page 607 disappeared... is it a site bug, or after 607 pages are we finally kicking a dead horse on LCD-2 impressions, or did the animals (us) get too rowdy and shut down by the zoo-keeper?

There were some deleted posts, and deleted members. Again. We have a troll that won't die.

 

[Alchemist007]

Just got some LcD3f. Comparing them to my prefazor lcd2 they are technically superior on the top end but there is some fatigue I get from the high mids/treble that I don't even get from my Grado ps500e (also dark for a Grado). I like the LCd3fs but they are like listening through a hard glass of dense and sweet fine wine while the LCD2 pre fazor are like listening through a plastic jar of unrefined honey.

I don't know what to do. Mids are less veiled on the 2 for me.

I was in the same situation, I ended up liking the 3F more because it pairs well with my tube amp to bring back some of that prefazor 2 lushness with the appropriate tubes. But the treble is just plain better which won me over, I can have my lushness when I want and my treble!

 

[MRC001]

Just got some LcD3f. Comparing them to my prefazor lcd2 they are technically superior on the top end but there is some fatigue I get from the high mids/treble that I don't even get from my Grado ps500e (also dark for a Grado). I like the LCd3fs but they are like listening through a hard glass of dense and sweet fine wine while the LCD2 pre fazor are like listening through a plastic jar of unrefined honey.

I don't know what to do. Mids are less veiled on the 2 for me.

I suggest trying the LCD-X. It's the most neutral headphone I've heard from Audeze, I would say the best they make if you value neutrality, speed, detail. Less expensive than the 3F, too.

 

[droopy1592]

I was in the same situation, I ended up liking the 3F more because it pairs well with my tube amp to bring back some of that prefazor 2 lushness with the appropriate tubes. But the treble is just plain better which won me over, I can have my lushness when I want and my treble!

I would hate to get a tube amp just for the lcd3. What was your honest opinion of the 2 and please elaborate on what made you want the 3f more please. I'm stuck.

 

[droopy1592]

I suggest trying the LCD-X. It's the most neutral headphone I've heard from Audeze, I would say the best they make if you value neutrality, speed, detail. Less expensive than the 3F, too.

I heard them at a meet. Don't know the exact version but the timbre is off a bit for me. I hear the 2016s are exciting though. You think they are more neutral than the 3f?

 

[MRC001]

I heard them at a meet. Don't know the exact version but the timbre is off a bit for me. I hear the 2016s are exciting though. You think they (LCD-X) are more neutral than the 3f?

The X timbre is not perfect, but neither is the 2F or 3F or any other headphone. The X is very close to perfect though. The X favors the high frequencies and overtones while the 2F and 3F favor the core frequencies. All have good voicing and timbre, but approach it from opposite directions. Overall, the X sounds closer to netural to my ears; it's slightly on the cool/bright side of neutral, but the 2F and 3F are on the warm side of neutral and just a touch more warm than the X is cool.
 
A math analogy: imagine a linear scale where 1.0 is perfectly neutral tonality, < 1.0 is warm and > 1.0 is cool or bright. The 2F and 3F are 0.9, the X is 1.05.
 
To my ears, the 3F has the same overall sound and warm voicing as the 2F, just a slightly more refined version of it, perhaps slightly faster transient response. The 2F and 3F sound closer to each other than either of them sounds to the X, which is a different beast.
 
NOTE: My 2F/3F comparison is from 2014, while the X I listened to was a 2016 model. So I didn't get every combination. I listened to 2F / 3F back to back, picked the 2F, then a couple of years later compared the 2F with the X.
 
If you're using a tube amp the X may be out of the question due to its low impedance. But it is efficient and easy to drive for any solid state amp. The X may be OK for a tube amp with an output transformer, though that's likely to have higher noise floor.

 

[Alchemist007]

I would hate to get a tube amp just for the lcd3. What was your honest opinion of the 2 and please elaborate on what made you want the 3f more please. I'm stuck.

The prefazor 2.2 did some good but left quite a bit to be desired on the highs, female vocals in particular I didn't really like on them. Beforehand I had (and still have) the Fidelio X1, which is V shaped, so I was really missing out on mids, and the highs could be harsh. The 2.2 did lows and mids justice. The 3F does everything pretty well, but is not as lush as the 2.2 on the lows in particular (this is where the tube helps).

 

[cedstrom]

Just picked up a pair of LCD-2 Rosewood, used, bought 2 months ago from a Audeze dealer. I have the original reciept and all original parts (except wood oil?).

I checked the included Audeze certificate, and it says inspection date was march 2015. Is this the first Fazor version then?

Hmmmm.. Wanted the latest version...

 

[fiascogarcia]

Just picked up a pair of LCD-2 Rosewood, used, bought 2 months ago from a Audeze dealer. I have the original reciept and all original parts (except wood oil?).

I checked the included Audeze certificate, and it says inspection date was march 2015. Is this the first Fazor version then?

Hmmmm.. Wanted the latest version...

Latest version began November 2015, I believe.

 

[cedstrom]

Latest version began November 2015, I believe.

My certificate says juli 2015, so it can not be the latest version then...

 

[bavinck]

My certificate says juli 2015, so it can not be the latest version then...

Should have bought my pair for sale in the classifieds, the date of build is March 2016

 

 

[cedstrom]

Should have bought my pair for sale in the classifieds, the date of build is March 2016

Shipping to Sweden from USA is rather expensive

My friend will be looking for a pair after hearing my LCD-2 though

 

[DivergeUnify]

Just picked up a pair of LCD-2 Rosewood, used, bought 2 months ago from a Audeze dealer. I have the original reciept and all original parts (except wood oil?).

I checked the included Audeze certificate, and it says inspection date was march 2015. Is this the first Fazor version then?

Hmmmm.. Wanted the latest version...

The grass isn't neccessarily greener on the other side.
 
Older fazors have a more upfront midrange, only missing the deepest of subbass, and may or may not have a less intense treble spike at 10k

 

[MRC001]

True, to my ears the 2014 LCD-2F (first Fazor version) sounds fantastic. I don't think it misses even the deepest bass. But relatively speaking it can perceptually seem that way compared to the prior non-Fazor version because the Fazor doesn't attenuate the upper mids / lower treble as much, it's closer to neutral so the bass sounds (and is) comparatively lower in level. But the bass is actually ruler flat to subsonic if you measure it.
 
Isn't it ridiculous that we need to invent these terms to describe the LCD-2 - 2.2, 2F, 2.2F? Because Audeze changes the sound without giving it a new model number. I'm all for them constantly striving for improvement, but at least give each change a version number!