[MRC001]

Audeze used to give individual FR graphs with every headphone. But they stopped doing that and now they give a single characteristic for the model. They say they did this because the new drivers & construction are more consistent so there is less variation from unit to unit, than there used to be with prior versions.
 
Earlier in this thread I posted the individual FR curve for my 2014 Fazors overlaid with the characteristic FR for the latest LCD-2 which Audeze sent me. They are virtually identical. The differences Audeze made didn't affect FR much; they were focused mainly on the time domain - better impulse and transient response.
 
Edit: here's the link: http://www.head-fi.org/t/509710/audeze-lcd-2-impressions-thread/10425#post_13198335

 

[kazuya95]

Just curious what headphones do you think Havasu more sound signature but sound better?

The Focal Elear is also a good headphone.

 

[uhhmike]

The Focal Elear is also a good headphone.

I heard it recently through a Sony PHA3 (i think thats the amp/dac.) I thought it was decent, but not amazing. it sounded nice, but not special, to my ears - but it could also be the amp/dac (i think the PHA3 seems decent but is overpriced, basically). I liked the LCD2F more. that thing sounded sweet!

 

[kazuya95]

I listened to HD-600 for over 10 years my impression of the comparison to the LCD-2 is similar. The HD-600 is a great headphone, but the LCD-2 is more open, transparent and natural sounding.

However, I was recently looking to get another set of headphones for listening at work, in the kilobuck price range. The LCD-2 was great for its time, but a lot has changed and improved over the past few years so it's worth looking at alternatives. I did a lot of homework on the Focal Elear, seriously considered it. But I like my LCD-2 so much, I decided that I will try the newest version of the LCD-2 first. In the unlikely case that I don't like it, I'll send it back and try another headphone, either another planar magnetic perhaps one from HiFiMan, or the Focal Elear.

If you try the Focal Elear, please let us know what you think. There are plenty of reviews, but I'd like to hear what someone who really likes the LCD-2 thinks of it.

Listened in the shop and amped with a Chord mojo.
The Focal Elear has a good bass and extension not as deep than any lcd2f but really good impact and balanced.
Medium is a little forward than my lcd2f 2016 with Siver cable. And sounds very clean. Treble is a little rolled off.

The soundstage is wider, deeper , taller than the lcd2f. The Elear catchs all the details of the song but is not analytical. I can hear some details that i didn't notice with the lcd2f.
The Elear is more neutral and has better dynamic. Less power hungry. better confort. But is a little bit less organic.
for me the Elear is more balanced and cleaner than the LCD2f

The synergie between Elear and the mojo is really good.

 

[MRC001]

How did the Focal Elear's midrange linearity, voicing, natural realism strike you? This is the most important part of the sound to me, as I listen to mostly acoustic music. And it's an area where the LCD-2 really shines. I've seen in specs and read from reviewers that the Elear has a "V" shaped response with recessed mids.

 

[TWerk]

The ELEAR is not so good. Just forget about it.

 

[JLoud]

I have both the LCD2 and Elear.  I really like the Elear but the LCD-2 has a much smoother mid-range. Elear is better for pop or electronic music.  I prefer the Audeze for rock.

 

[MRC001]

A few years ago I did an extended 1-week audition of the HiFi Man HE-500 and it struck me in a similar way. Fantastic deep extended clear bass, very good highs, but the mids were recessed with unnatural voicing of acoustic instruments, which made it a no-go for me, though it would be a great headphone for non-acoustic music. I ended up with the LCD-2 cuz it has the excellent bass & treble of the HE-500, yet with a smooth, natural midrange. The LCD-2 isn't the most detailed of headphones, but I'm willing to give up a little detail for neutral response & natural voicing.
 
As we see here, the Elear has wildly different opinions from reviewers, which makes it a bit of a mystery.

 

[shinjinian]

 
Did you get a graph on your latest version ?

No it didn't come with any data sheet for measurements. From my time listening to the new one I can say the bass extension is pretty much on par with prefazor models, the mids have a little more clarity, and the treble is slightly brighter (although the treble still isn't as sharp and fatiguing as other high end cans, it's a pretty natural signature). It's a large improvement over the 2.1's but nothing game changing.

 

[EdwardPL]

The Elear reminds me of a better version of the current LCD-2. The Elear does have a roughter treble though.

 

[WayTooCrazy]

What do you guys think a Deckard and LCD-2F are worth? Been mulling around the idea of selling them and trying something else out in a Sealed/Portable arena. Possibly an AudioQuest NightOwl or Ether C Flow to go with my Mojo.

 

[MRC001]

The 2016 LCD-2 arrived today. First impression comparing side by side with my 2014 Fazors with only 3 hours of listening across a variety of music: it's a slightly more refined version of the 2014 LCD-2 Fazor. The 2016 is a touch less warm, more open, bass is slightly tighter and deeper, treble is a touch brighter yet not bright sounding. A bit more neutral in tonality, transients and extreme HF are touch faster and cleaner. Stating all these differences makes it sound more different than it is. They're quite similar and these differences are subtle, yet noticeable on very good recordings.
 
There's a slight voicing difference in the upper bass to lower mids that I haven't yet determined which I prefer. The 2014 is a touch more palpable, which on some recordings adds realism to the timbre of cello and voice, yet on other recordings sounds like a slight boxy resonance.
 
Also the 2016 is just slightly more efficient: subjectively about 1.5 dB louder at the same volume position as the 2014. When comparing them I corrected for this difference with my digital EQ.
 
That's without EQ. I prefer to apply a subtle parametric EQ to the 2014 (+2.5 dB @ 4600 Hz, Q=0.67) to offset the slightly recessed upper mids & lower treble. The 2016 doesn't need this EQ. When I compare EQed 2014 to the 2016 without EQ, they're closer yet the same differences apply, just to less effect.

 

[kazuya95]

The 2016 LCD-2 arrived today. First impression comparing side by side with my 2014 Fazors with only 3 hours of listening across a variety of music: it's a slightly more refined version of the 2014 LCD-2 Fazor. The 2016 is a touch less warm, more open, bass is slightly tighter and deeper, treble is a touch brighter yet not bright sounding. A bit more neutral in tonality, transients and extreme HF are touch faster and cleaner. Stating all these differences makes it sound more different than it is. They're quite similar and these differences are subtle, yet noticeable on very good recordings.

There's a slight voicing difference in the upper bass to lower mids that I haven't yet determined which I prefer. The 2014 is a touch more palpable, which on some recordings adds realism to the timbre of cello and voice, yet on other recordings sounds like a slight boxy resonance.

Also the 2016 is just slightly more efficient: subjectively about 1.5 dB louder at the same volume position as the 2014. When comparing them I corrected for this difference with my digital EQ.

That's without EQ. I prefer to apply a subtle parametric EQ to the 2014 (+2.5 dB @ 4600 Hz, Q=0.67) to offset the slightly recessed upper mids & lower treble. The 2016 doesn't need this EQ. When I compare EQed 2014 to the 2016 without EQ, they're closer yet the same differences apply, just to less effect.

You are all right for the difference between the 2 versions.

The last lcd2f 2016 is better than the 2014 in every areas but the 2016's is not better for voice, the high mid seems brighter. The 2014's is smoother and more relaxing IMO.
+1 The last fazor is more balanced and go to a neutral side.

 

[MRC001]

...
The last lcd2f 2016 is better than the 2014 in every areas but the 2016's is not better for voice, the high mid seems brighter. The 2014's is smoother and more relaxing IMO.
+1 The last fazor is more balanced and go to a neutral side.

I hear what you're talking about with voices, though I can't say I have an overall preference. Listening to voices across the spectrum from various classical singers like Baroli to bluegrass singers like Welch and Krauss and to jazz singers like Wilson and Krall, I find the 2014 sounds more realistic with some voices, the 2016 with others.
 
The differences in this 2016 LCD-2 is similar to what I heard in the LCD-X last year, though the X was a touch too bright for me, voicing acoustic instruments slightly less naturally than the LCD-2. This 2016 LCD-2 has some of what I liked in the X (faster cleaner transient response, tighter bass control), but with more natural voicing.

 

[EdwardPL]

I actually find the X and 2016 LCD-2 similar.

What you are hearing with the voices is that Audeze dive off in the upper mids. On the pre fazor it wasn't as much of an issue as the treble was lower in level.

The 2016 has a weird peak and a lower rebound from the upper mid recession so voices can sound more drowned out. The original fazor(2014) had a lot more problems, even weirder treble, worse inconsistencies between units. Even though its grainy and dry I prefer the current 2016 LCD-2 over the first batch of fazors but both are not up to the level of a cherry picked 2.1 or 2.2.