[astralpen]

I have owned these and currently own the LCD-Xs. All the Audeze products are a little on the "romantic" side sonically. To my ear, the Mr. Speakers Ether is a more neutral sound. The Audezes definitely are all about the pleasure of listening, though...

 

[MRC001]

I have owned these and currently own the LCD-Xs. All the Audeze products are a little on the "romantic" side sonically. To my ear, the Mr. Speakers Ether is a more neutral sound. The Audezes definitely are all about the pleasure of listening, though...

Due to shape of head, ears, etc. everyone has a different HRTF and the variance is significant. So what sounds most natural or realistic varies from one person to the next. My HRTF must be similar to Audeze's sound because the LCD-2 is the most natural realistic sounding headphone I've ever heard. Play a high quality recording of chamber music and it sounds like I'm sitting at a live performance, 3-5 rows back from the stage. Most other headphones like the LCD-X, and to a much bigger degree the Senn 800S, are artificially bright sounding to me. They sound more detailed, but it's artificially detailed - live performance doesn't sound like that - at least not to me.
 
Because the sense of realism depends on individual HRTF, there is no absolute reference FR for headphones, like there is for speakers.

 

[MRC001]

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.

So do I - the 2016 is definitely a step toward the X compared to the 2014.
 
The 2016 is definitely brighter sounding, which I'd expect to see in a FR curve. But I have both curves and they're virtually the same. The 2016 has a slightly bigger jump at 8-10 kHz, but it's only a 2 dB difference from the 2014 (1 dB lower dip to 1 dB higher peak). That's within the margin of error of testing - you often see bigger differences on the same headphone, just taking it off the test head and putting it back on.
 
Because the FR curves are so similar, perhaps the differences we're hearing is in the time domain or in lower distortion.
 
I like the 2016 enough I'm tempted to have Audeze upgrade my 2014. They quoted $400 for that. That's kinda pricey, so I'm postponing the decision until I do more listening.

 

[astralpen]

Except that many people report the same thing...

 

[MRC001]

True. There are only so many HRTF variations, and among billions of people there are bound to be many who share similar HRTF curves.
 
No doubt someone at some time has studied what kinds of physical features - size & shape of ears, ear canal, head, nose, nasal & mouth cavities, etc. contribute to different peaks & dips in the HRTF curve.
 
We can experiment ourselves how big HRTF differences are. While listening on speakers, put your hands behind your ears and push them forward a bit. Or open your mouth really wide. These all change the sound, some a lot some a little. That's what it sounds like naturally to someone else.

 

[davehutch]

Interesting info on Audioquest's webpage about how they designed the Nighthawk to take the room interaction out of the equation

 

[EdwardPL]

I wouldn't put too much stock into Audeze supplied graphs..lots of smoothing and you can't tell where the peaks are. I measured a few pairs a while back, I'll post the graphs when I get my old computer back.

 

[MRC001]

I'd love to see them. How much variance did you see taking a headphone off the test head, putting it back on and re-measuring it? If Tyll's measurements on InnerFidelity are representative, the variance is significant. In that sense, the margin of error is high so one can't read any such graph too precisely - so it makes sense to smooth the data lest someone read it with more precision than it really has.

 

[kazuya95]

So do I - the 2016 is definitely a step toward the X compared to the 2014.

The 2016 is definitely brighter sounding, which I'd expect to see in a FR curve. But I have both curves and they're virtually the same. The 2016 has a slightly bigger jump at 8-10 kHz, but it's only a 2 dB difference from the 2014 (1 dB lower dip to 1 dB higher peak). That's within the margin of error of testing - you often see bigger differences on the same headphone, just taking it off the test head and putting it back on.

Because the FR curves are so similar, perhaps the differences we're hearing is in the time domain or in lower distortion.

I like the 2016 enough I'm tempted to have Audeze upgrade my 2014. They quoted $400 for that. That's kinda pricey, so I'm postponing the decision until I do more listening.

You did yours tests with the stock cable?

 

[EdwardPL]

I don't find seal as much as an issue for some Planars as I do with dynamics.

I found measurements to be within in each other every time. When I measured them it seemed to be pretty much what I found on listening test a treble rise to give "air" sadly it came across as artificial. The older models had a more cohesive treble regardless of the roll off.

I'd love to own a 2.1 again but reliability is always a concern.

 

[MRC001]

You did yours tests with the stock cable?

Yes.
As long as a cable is well designed & built - low reactance, properly sized, properly wired, good connectors, it is sonically transparent.

 

[MRC001]

I don't find seal as much as an issue for some Planars as I do with dynamics.

I found measurements to be within in each other every time. When I measured them it seemed to be pretty much what I found on listening test a treble rise to give "air" sadly it came across as artificial. The older models had a more cohesive treble regardless of the roll off.

I'd love to own a 2.1 again but reliability is always a concern.

What did you use to measure them? Neumann KU 100s are pricey.

 

[MRC001]

After a few hours more listening I've completed my audition and comparison of this 2016 LCD-2 to my 2014 Fazor. I confirmed my first impressions reported earlier and given comments here [thanks for the tips], really focused on midrange. The 2016 midrange voicing is more ethereal. The 2014 portrays the woody core of cello, the midrange resonance of piano and human voice, with more presence than the 2016. And I like that presence. It's hard to say whether it's more natural or realistic because the amount of presence one hears in reality depends on the size & shape of the room and where you are relative to the musicians. It's like the edge of sound a violin makes when it's being played 3 feet from your ear. You never hear that in the audience, not even in the first row.
 
However, the 2014's midrange presence becomes a slight glare that veils complex or large ensemble music. With choruses, symphonies, etc. the 2016 is glare-free, resolving individual instruments and voices more naturally and clearly. Combined with its faster transients and tighter (yet not louder) bass, it's a great sound.
 
So the 2014's mids have slightly better voicing, yet it comes at a price. The 2014 over-emphasizes mid presence, the 2016 under-emphasizes it. I think the 2014 is a bit closer to reality. By comparison, the HD-600 emphasizes it far more than either, sounding brassy in comparison.
 
Overall the 2016 is better in many ways, but not in every way. I'm definitely keeping both. Still haven't decided whether to upgrade my 2014.
 
PS these 2016s are dated June 28. I asked Audeze whether they made LCD-2 driver changes since then, will post their reply.
Audeze say: There have been no further revisions to our drivers since the date that you mentioned, so if you were to upgrade your 2014 LCD-2s they should sound the same as your 2016s

 

[kazuya95]

After a few hours more listening I've completed my audition and comparison of this 2016 LCD-2 to my 2014 Fazor. I confirmed my first impressions reported earlier and given comments here [thanks for the tips], really focused on midrange. The 2016 midrange voicing is more ethereal. The 2014 portrays the woody core of cello, the midrange resonance of piano and human voice, with more presence than the 2016. And I like that presence. It's hard to say whether it's more natural or realistic because the amount of presence one hears in reality depends on the size & shape of the room and where you are relative to the musicians. It's like the edge of sound a violin makes when it's being played 3 feet from your ear. You never hear that in the audience, not even in the first row.

However, the 2014's midrange presence becomes a slight glare that veils complex or large ensemble music. With choruses, symphonies, etc. the 2016 is glare-free, resolving individual instruments and voices more naturally and clearly. Combined with its faster transients and tighter (yet not louder) bass, it's a great sound.

So the 2014's mids have slightly better voicing, yet it comes at a price. The 2014 over-emphasizes mid presence, the 2016 under-emphasizes it. I think the 2014 is a bit closer to reality. By comparison, the HD-600 emphasizes it far more than either, sounding brassy in comparison.

Overall the 2016 is better in many ways, but not in every way. I'm definitely keeping both. Still haven't decided whether to upgrade my 2014.

PS these 2016s are dated June 28. I asked Audeze whether they made LCD-2 driver changes since then, will post their reply.

Finally a good feedback comparing the two fazor editions 2014 vs 2016.Thank you!
I can be more agree with you.
The mids of the 2014 is a bit better for voices.
For me i prefer the 2014 for relaxing musics and the 2016 for a more engaging musics.
Maybe you have to try vegan pads on the 2016 it could fixe the issue in the high mid.

I can understand you want to keep both.
It's the same battle against the Lcd2 rev2 and lcd2 fazor 2014.

I used to have the 3 versions.
The prefazor , fazor 2014 and 2016.
The 2016 is more balanced and transparent so it's a step toward the LCD X which has a bigger soundstage.

Regards

 

[davehutch]

It's a big ol' thread so would someone mind commenting on whether the vegan pads make a difference to the sound on the LCD-2s please? I don't find anything wrong with the leather pads except for the heat/clammy fell, so ideally I'd like vegans when I buy the LCD-2s as long as they don't change the sound.
 
S'ok, I found a post saying the official answer is that there is no difference.