[SomeGuyDude]

Welp. I'm back.

 

[MRC001]

Your interpretation is entirely reasonable

  For me the graphs show a slight roll-off from 70hz on the fazor graph where rev2 is nearly flat. Tyll made 5 measurements on each channel with slightly different positions. So I don't think this difference is due to errors or position. Moreover it is confirmed by listening. And finally if high frequencies can modify the bass perception it isn't really the case with the sub which will rather impact the level  perception by triggering more profoundly the natural compression of the hear.

I don't think this subjective difference in bass response can be attributed to such a subtle difference in the bass response FR curve. The difference in bass response is only a few DB at 20 Hz and it's a flat gradual slope over several octaves. That's extremely difficult to hear. Anyone who doesn't believe the 2.2 and Fazor have virtually identical near-perfect bass response should compare either to any top-notch dynamic headphone like the HD-800.
 
However, the FR difference of the 2.2 versus Fazor in the higher frequencies is bigger and easily audible, and thus the more likely reason they sound different. So I admit your explanation is possible, but I think it's implausible.
 
That said, this whole debate is really a quibble because we agree on the essential points. (A) The 2.2 and Fazor both measure near-perfect flat bass response, (B) the 2.2 and Fazor subjectively sound different in the bass response.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

After sitting for about an hour with the HD800 and the LCD-2F, no. They do not compare.
 
Simply put, the LCD-2F leaves the HD800 in the dust bass-wise. It's just not a fair comparison. The HD800 bass, every time I've listened to them, is severely lacking. The HD800s is back up in the running but the linear response of the LCD-2F still wins that battle. The HD800 wins on comfort and soundstage by a substantial margin as well as speed and clarity by a smaller but still significant one. 
 
Comparing the LCD-2F to the X and 3 left me feeling that the X sounded more dynamic but less coherent, the 3 was better across the boards but at twice the price it had better be. However, the difference in price didn't match the difference in sound for someone who has to consider budget when buying headphones. If you have pure disposable income, get the 3 for sure. If price is a concern, get the 2 and don't look back.
 
Going off my memory of the 2.2pre, I'm feeling like these aren't as velvety, but the tradeoff is that they sound more "complete." That is 100% to my ears, though, and not a statement of fact. I am extraordinarily pleased to return to the LCD-2 family after thinking I was never going to own a pair again. 
 
Not even kidding, I knew the 3 was out of my price range and the X didn't really appeal by description, and more than that I felt like the 2F from descriptions was going to lose everything I liked about the 2.2. Boy was I wrong. 

 

[MRC001]

  After sitting for about an hour with the HD800 and the LCD-2F, no. They do not compare.
Simply put, the LCD-2F leaves the HD800 in the dust bass-wise. It's just not a fair comparison.

Exactly!
 

... Not even kidding, I knew the 3 was out of my price range and the X didn't really appeal by description, and more than that I felt like the 2F from descriptions was going to lose everything I liked about the 2.2. Boy was I wrong. 

Owning the 2014 and 2016 LCD-2 Fazor (1 of each), and having auditioned the LCD-X for several days, my impression is that the 2016 is slightly better and combines the best of the LCD-2 and LCD-X. The natural voicing of the 2014 LCD-2, combined with the tighter, cleaner bass and faster treble of the LCD-X.

 

[sludgeogre]

 
After sitting for about an hour with the HD800 and the LCD-2F, no. They do not compare.
 
Simply put, the LCD-2F leaves the HD800 in the dust bass-wise. It's just not a fair comparison. The HD800 bass, every time I've listened to them, is severely lacking. The HD800s is back up in the running but the linear response of the LCD-2F still wins that battle. The HD800 wins on comfort and soundstage by a substantial margin as well as speed and clarity by a smaller but still significant one. 
 
Comparing the LCD-2F to the X and 3 left me feeling that the X sounded more dynamic but less coherent, the 3 was better across the boards but at twice the price it had better be. However, the difference in price didn't match the difference in sound for someone who has to consider budget when buying headphones. If you have pure disposable income, get the 3 for sure. If price is a concern, get the 2 and don't look back.
 
Going off my memory of the 2.2pre, I'm feeling like these aren't as velvety, but the tradeoff is that they sound more "complete." That is 100% to my ears, though, and not a statement of fact. I am extraordinarily pleased to return to the LCD-2 family after thinking I was never going to own a pair again. 
 
Not even kidding, I knew the 3 was out of my price range and the X didn't really appeal by description, and more than that I felt like the 2F from descriptions was going to lose everything I liked about the 2.2. Boy was I wrong. 

I had an early fazor version and mine has failed a couple times so I have the latest driver now. I feel like as they have evolved they have become more coherent and detailed across the board, but still have that silky smooth sound that I enjoy. The only thing I think the earlier versions did better is the transient response/dynamics of it. My early version never had the crumpling sound that the new versions when you first put them on, and my old ones actually would make that noise sometimes, and once it started they would fail shortly after. What this told me, and what was verified earlier in the thread, is that they lowered the compliance of the driver in combination with other changes to improve the tuning and increase reliability/durability. It makes sense, as a really taut diaphragm is more likely to fail over time than one which has a little give in it, but snappyness of transients and dynamics is always going to be sacrificed.
 
I think Audeze has done a fantastic job of tweaking the LCD-2 over time and their current effort remains a fantastic headphone. Even after having it fail on me twice, I still love it. You have to admire a company that stands behind their product to this degree and keeps making it better.

 

[MRC001]

  I had an early fazor version and mine has failed a couple times so I have the latest driver now. I feel like as they have evolved they have become more coherent and detailed across the board, but still have that silky smooth sound that I enjoy. The only thing I think the earlier versions did better is the transient response/dynamics of it. My early version never had the crumpling sound that the new versions when you first put them on, and my old ones actually would make that noise sometimes, and once it started they would fail shortly after. What this told me, and what was verified earlier in the thread, is that they lowered the compliance of the driver in combination with other changes to improve the tuning and increase reliability/durability. It makes sense, as a really taut diaphragm is more likely to fail over time than one which has a little give in it, but snappyness of transients and dynamics is always going to be sacrificed.
 
I think Audeze has done a fantastic job of tweaking the LCD-2 over time and their current effort remains a fantastic headphone. Even after having it fail on me twice, I still love it. You have to admire a company that stands behind their product to this degree and keeps making it better.

I agree with your assessment except for the note on transient response. Objectively, the newer LCD has better transient response - cleaner and faster. You can see this in InnerFidelity's impulse measurements. Subjectively, it is also an improvement, at least to me.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

I'll say this. My old pre fazor model had the crumpling paper sound, my new set does not. YMMV

 

[sludgeogre]

  I agree with your assessment except for the note on transient response. Objectively, the newer LCD has better transient response - cleaner and faster. You can see this in InnerFidelity's impulse measurements. Subjectively, it is also an improvement, at least to me.

Gotcha, this is all mental memory so I must be off there. Something about the dynamics of it sounds a bit different, it just didn't feel as aggressive as I remembered at times, but who knows, I'm probably just off base with it. I still love it, but something about the latest variant somehow feels a little more tame in the impact department.
 

I'll say this. My old pre fazor model had the crumpling paper sound, my new set does not. YMMV

That is so weird. Their driver variation is so strange.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

Gotcha, this is all mental memory so I must be off there. Something about the dynamics of it sounds a bit different, it just didn't feel as aggressive as I remembered at times, but who knows, I'm probably just off base with it. I still love it, but something about the latest variant somehow feels a little more tame in the impact department.

That is so weird. Their driver variation is so strange.

Memory is definitely a funny thing. I remember the old LCD2 having a more smooth and liquids sound over impactful, but I'm thinking I'm remembering wrongly.

 

[marcan]

  Your interpretation is entirely reasonable
I don't think this subjective difference in bass response can be attributed to such a subtle difference in the bass response FR curve. The difference in bass response is only a few DB at 20 Hz and it's a flat gradual slope over several octaves. That's extremely difficult to hear. Anyone who doesn't believe the 2.2 and Fazor have virtually identical near-perfect bass response should compare either to any top-notch dynamic headphone like the HD-800.
 
However, the FR difference of the 2.2 versus Fazor in the higher frequencies is bigger and easily audible, and thus the more likely reason they sound different. So I admit your explanation is possible, but I think it's implausible.
 
That said, this whole debate is really a quibble because we agree on the essential points. (A) The 2.2 and Fazor both measure near-perfect flat bass response, (B) the 2.2 and Fazor subjectively sound different in the bass response.

I think your statement is a bit presumptuous. Just saying that a difference isn't audible based on the FR without listening is not serious. Sure 1.5dB difference at 40hz is audible. So I suggest you to grab a 2.2 compare them, then we can talk about it. And I don't see the point to compare to the HD800 for the sub bass difference of the LCD2.2 and the fazor version.
Cheers

 

[SomeGuyDude]

  I think your statement is a bit presumptuous. Just saying that a difference isn't audible based on the FR without listening is not serious. Sure 1.5dB difference at 40hz is audible. So I suggest you to grab a 2.2 compare them, then we can talk about it. And I don't see the point to compare to the HD800 for the sub bass difference of the LCD2.2 and the fazor version.
Cheers

I believe the previous poster said kinda the opposite of this, that they objectively measure nearly flat but they subjective do sound different. 
 
The reason the HD800 was used was to point out what a truly significant difference in bass response sounds like. Going from the LCD-2 to the HD800 shows a stark change. Going from 2.2 to 2F is far more subtle.
 
At least that's how I'm reading the post.

 

[MRC001]

  I think your statement is a bit presumptuous. Just saying that a difference isn't audible based on the FR without listening is not serious. Sure 1.5dB difference at 40hz is audible. So I suggest you to grab a 2.2 compare them, then we can talk about it. And I don't see the point to compare to the HD800 for the sub bass difference of the LCD2.2 and the fazor version.
Cheers

It's a bit presumptious to attribute the cause of any subjective observation to a specific objective measurement, especially in light of the knowledge that our subjective impressions can be so misleading. We perceive small differences in volume as sounding more "full" not louder, we can perceive dynamic compression as "more detail" not compressed, etc.

 

[MRC001]

  I believe the previous poster said kinda the opposite of this, that they objectively measure nearly flat but they subjective do sound different. 
 
The reason the HD800 was used was to point out what a truly significant difference in bass response sounds like. Going from the LCD-2 to the HD800 shows a stark change. Going from 2.2 to 2F is far more subtle.
 
At least that's how I'm reading the post.

I'm glad somebody understands what I'm saying

 

[SomeGuyDude]

  It's a bit presumptious to attribute the cause of any subjective observation to a specific objective measurement, especially in light of the knowledge that our subjective impressions can be so misleading. We perceive small differences in volume as sounding more "full" not louder, we can perceive dynamic compression as "more detail" not compressed, etc.

Let's not forget the reason the "loudness war" started was people tended to select albums in jukeboxes that were recorded a little louder and more compressed than others. People tend to drift toward those albums.
 
I know compression is a dirty word in audiophile circles, but it didn't show up because recording engineers had a random hate boner for listeners and felt like making everything sound like garbage out of spite, and it's not like it's easier to compress a mix than leave it with its natural range. It's no different than why consumer headphones tend to be v-shaped. Record labels and audio manufacturers follow what the consumers ask for. 

 

[marcan]

  It's a bit presumptious to attribute the cause of any subjective observation to a specific objective measurement, especially in light of the knowledge that our subjective impressions can be so misleading.

It depends the observation order. In this case it was a subjective observation that has been confirmed by the graphs.

 
I'm glad somebody understands what I'm saying

I would be glad too