[Skylab]

Quote:

Agreed.  Creamy, huh?  Loada crap.  Smooth? Yes.  Lush?  Perhaps.  The LCD2s are just too transparent to use a thick substance as a descriptor.
 
 

Well put, IMHO.  "Smooth" is much better as a descriptor for the LCD-2 than "Creamy", for me anyway.
 

 

[Frank I]

Quote:

Well put, IMHO.  "Smooth" is much better as a descriptor for the LCD-2 than "Creamy", for me anyway.
 

Agree dont forget Creamy was used after too many French pastry was consumed

 

 

[tupac0306]

Creamy is used when people want to describe LCD 2's sound as “too smooth"

 

[daveathall]

I have difficulty relating to these descriptions/terms with regards to sound, what the last couple of pages has illustrated, (for me anyway) is that descriptive terms/words mean different things to different people. 

 

[Yoga]

Quote:

Where do you purchase time a time machine to make accurate comparisons like that?

Listened to a few bright songs, noted how a couple of bits made me go 'eeeeerk'.
 
Burned them in for a couple of days (straight), listened again - smoother. No 'erks' :¬)

 

[BrainFood]

Quote:

Agreed.  Creamy, huh?  Loada crap.  Smooth? Yes.  Lush?  Perhaps.  The LCD2s are just too transparent to use a thick substance as a descriptor.
 

 
 
 
Careful or you'll put googleli out of a job .  No more daily or twice-daily cream reminders.
 
The fuller, aromatic taste of fresh black coffee is nicer anyway.  Creamy coffee is for breakfast.

 

 

[googleli]

Creamy is the right word. "Smooth" is for T5p. "Lush" and "smooth" are for SR009. The LCD2 is not very transparent once you've heard the 009. But there is something more in the LCD2 Rev 1 that made me keep it. Yes, you bet - the CREAMINESS.

 

[Red Jacket Mike]

Well, I received my LCD-2 rev 2's yesterday.  After the first 20 minutes of listening, I knew I preferred them to the originals.  I ran them overnight, and they are still running now.  The sound seems to have improved slightly since yesterday; bass is solid, deep, and detailed; with some tracks, not much of a difference in the low end from the rev 1s, but with others, especially music with acoustic string bass, there is quite an improvement  in the bass quality.
 
Midrange on the rev 2 is, to my taste, superior to the rev 1; vocals are not quite so forward, but seem properly placed in the mix on good recordings.  I like being in the front row, but not on the stage.  The rev 1 midrange always seemed a little thick and closed to me.  I like the new mids better.
 
Highs just seem to be a bit more open and airy, if those are the proper terms; cymbals just sound correct to me now.  
 
I'm using these with a Mac Mini / iTunes AIFF files / Stage DAC / Concerto setup, and I'm very pleased so far.  Overall, I think the improvement for me is worth the purchase.  And if a couple of hundred hours of play time on these will improve things further, I can't wait.  I'm a Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler fan, so I'll be working my way through the group's 6 albums, followed by Mark's 6 solo albums, which I think are all excellent showcases for the LCD-2s.
 
By the way, my rev 1s are up for sale in the Headphones For Sale forum (along with a few other pair, I know).  I'm including both the original foam/metal headband, and a new leather one with them.  You can check out the listing here.

 

[Yoga]

Quote:

Well, I received my LCD-2 rev 2's yesterday.  After the first 20 minutes of listening, I knew I preferred them to the originals.  I ran them overnight, and they are still running now.  The sound seems to have improved slightly since yesterday; bass is solid, deep, and detailed; with some tracks, not much of a difference in the low end from the rev 1s, but with others, especially music with acoustic string bass, there is quite an improvement  in the bass quality.
 
Midrange on the rev 2 is, to my taste, superior to the rev 1; vocals are not quite so forward, but seem properly placed in the mix on good recordings.  I like being in the front row, but not on the stage.  The rev 1 midrange always seemed a little thick and closed to me.  I like the new mids better.
 
Highs just seem to be a bit more open and airy, if those are the proper terms; cymbals just sound correct to me now.  
 
I'm using these with a Mac Mini / iTunes AIFF files / Stage DAC / Concerto setup, and I'm very pleased so far.  Overall, I think the improvement for me is worth the purchase.  And if a couple of hundred hours of play time on these will improve things further, I can't wait.  I'm a Dire Straits and Mark Knopfler fan, so I'll be working my way through the group's 6 albums, followed by Mark's 6 solo albums, which I think are all excellent showcases for the LCD-2s.
 
By the way, my rev 1s are up for sale in the Headphones For Sale forum (along with a few other pair, I know).  I'm including both the original foam/metal headband, and a new leather one with them.  You can check out the listing here.

Grab yourself Fidelia (App Store) or Audirvana. iTunes is known for producing (relatively) poor output.
 
BitPerfect (App Store) is and looks promising, although I've had some bugs/issues with it.
 

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

Grab yourself Fidelia (App Store) or Audirvana. iTunes is known for producing (relatively) poor output.
 
BitPerfect (App Store) is and looks promising, although I've had some bugs/issues with it.
 

I like the sound of Audirvana but it does a lot of skipping on my iMac.  Don't know why because it's a powerful machine.  Going to kick it up from 4 to 8Gb memory and see what happens.    I also like Fidelia.  I like the fact that I can add AU's to the player and test out the EQ theories floating about, but my preference is not to EQ.   I want to try out the Pure Music player.  Wyred4Sound keeps recommending it.    
 

 

[Windsor]

Quote:

I like the sound of Audirvana but it does a lot of skipping on my iMac.  Don't know why because it's a powerful machine.  Going to kick it up from 4 to 8Gb memory and see what happens.    I also like Fidelia.  I like the fact that I can add AU's to the player and test out the EQ theories floating about, but my preference is not to EQ.   I want to try out the Pure Music player.  Wyred4Sound keeps recommending it.    
 

Do any of those players use the iTunes library?
 

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

Do any of those players use the iTunes library?
 

Yes they all access the Itunes library.  Currently I'm using Amarra because when it accesses the Itunes library it will also update the iTunes list.  For me this is important because I toss in a lot of new tunes and I need to see the "Plays" list get updated.   I wouldn't recommend Amarra though.  Not because it doesn't sound good but because it is just way way too expensive.  You can get excellent sound from the other players. Amarra though is better but not enough better to justify its cost.

My understanding is that Pure Music updates the iTunes list and from what I've read sounds excellent.  Both Audirvana and Fidelia access the iTunes list but do not update the list.  If you can get Audirvana to run on your system it is an excellent free player.  http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Audio/Audirvana.shtml

 

[Windsor]

Quote:

Yes they all access the Itunes library.  Currently I'm using Amarra because when it accesses the Itunes library it will also update the iTunes list.  For me this is important because I toss in a lot of new tunes and I need to see the "Plays" list get updated.   I wouldn't recommend Amarra though.  Not because it doesn't sound good but because it is just way way too expensive.  You can get excellent sound from the other players. Amarra though is better but not enough better to justify its cost.

My understanding is that Pure Music updates the iTunes list and from what I've read sounds excellent.  Both Audirvana and Fidelia access the iTunes list but do not update the list.  If you can get Audirvana to run on your system it is an excellent free player.  http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Audio/Audirvana.shtml

 
Thanks for the response, WA. 
 
I've tried Amarra onmy system. I found it adds a slight 'boost' to the sound of recordings giving them a little bit more weight, but it didn't seem worth buying at the time I tried it. 
 
I have a demo of Audirvana in my downloads folder, so I'll most probably soon give it a go.

 

[Hero Kid]

Check this thread for those looking at alternatives to iTunes.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/539740/mac-os-x-music-players-alternatives-to-itunes

 

[Red Jacket Mike]

I have tried Pure Music, but was not really impressed.  There were delays, clicking sounds, and the interface was not the best.  If I had heard a lot of audible improvement, I would have put up with it's shortcomings, but I didn't really hear a difference.  Also, it didn't always work well with my iPad and the Apple Remote app, which I use to control my Mac Mini.
 
However, I have not tried the new version 8 yet, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.
 
From anyone's experience, do any of the other players mentioned above work smoothly using the Remote app with an iPad?