[BoilermakerFan]

Quote:

Well, thanks, but I already know "standard" 4-pin XLR wiring...
 
I was actually asking how the Rod Elliot's scheme changes if we try to connect it to 4-pin XLR instead of TRS...
 
...bit I think I got it: we use the same scheme - just that the grounds do not join on TRS sleeve but are completely separated (pin 2 = left ground; pin 4 = right ground).
 
Further, we can match headphone impedance and voltage swing of desired headphone with speaker amp's power... it is just a simple matter of recalculating R1, R2 and R3 resistance values and power ratings...
 
It seems that I just wasn't really thinking when I posed my question... Sorry.

 
Cool, I misunderstood your question then too.
 
Sounds like you have it sorted out.  Not a difficult build to do.  I'm working on a more complicated switching box to handle 3.5mm, 1/4" TRS, 4-pin XLR, and dual 3-pin XLRs to the same plus speaker wires with the integrated resistor network an the speaker binding posts of the box. 
 

 

[grokit]

^ Sounds like an awesome box, keep us posted!

 

[oqvist]

so different receivers need different resistors? Would love to try but I would need to find a shop somewhere that sells them

 

[BoilermakerFan]

You can use higher values, but then you're attenuating more signal than you need too and the source impedance goes up. 
 
From Rob's page:  "but will reduce the output of almost any amplifier to a nominal level of 5V RMS, and maintains the recommended 120Ω source impedance. This is designed to suit most headphones currently made, as they are generally designed to operate from that impedance."

 

[JadeEast]

I've used a single 100ohm resistor on the output of some low power amps and it works all right. More elaborate 2 and 3 resistor solutions are probably better but a single can work. Another attempt I made was using an in-wall autoformer for impedance matching, while it worked it didn't seem to offer much advantage over using resistors.

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

Not as, but they won't strike you as being tipped *up* in balance either.

So other than not being as dark, how is the LCD2 similar or different to the 007 MKI and MKII?

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

So other than not being as dark, how is the LCD2 similar or different to the 007 MKI and MKII?

To me, the O2's are more comfortable, but they're much more difficult to drive, requiring specialized amp and HV bias.  Sound is wonderful on both cans, with my preference going to the LDC-2, but you need to decide for yourself by listening.  The LCD-2 is a bit more open and transparent to my ears.  The bass is slightly better on the LCD-2 to my ears.

 

[Lunatique]

Quote:

To me, the O2's are more comfortable, but they're much more difficult to drive, requiring specialized amp and HV bias.  Sound is wonderful on both cans, with my preference going to the LDC-2, but you need to decide for yourself by listening.  The LCD-2 is a bit more open and transparent to my ears.  The bass is slightly better on the LCD-2 to my ears.

By better, I assume you mean just as deep, full-bodied, and punchy, but even more controlled and textured?
 
I loved everything about the 007MKII, and the only small thing I could pick on about it was that the treble is definitely darker than neutral, but it's hard to complain when it sounds so natural, organic, and wonderfully warm, yet still very articulated and detailed. It's a sound unlike any I have ever heard. And those beautifully textured mids---wow. If the LCD can do all of those things just as well, but is more airy, then it's perhaps the most perfect pair of headphones ever made. If that's the case, I'm going to have to place the order for one. But part of me still wants to make sure that the T1, ED8, and JH3A/JH16 are all inferior to the LCD2. The problem is, I have no way of getting to hear any of them to find out for myself.
 

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

By better, I assume you mean just as deep, full-bodied, and punchy, but even more controlled and textured?
 
I loved everything about the 007MKII, and the only small thing I could pick on about it was that the treble is definitely darker than neutral, but it's hard to complain when it sounds so natural, organic, and wonderfully warm, yet still very articulated and detailed. It's a sound unlike any I have ever heard. And those beautifully textured mids---wow. If the LCD can do all of those things just as well, but is more airy, then it's perhaps the most perfect pair of headphones ever made. If that's the case, I'm going to have to place the order for one. But part of me still wants to make sure that the T1, ED8, and JH3A/JH16 are all inferior to the LCD2. The problem is, I have no way of getting to hear any of them to find out for myself.
 

To my ears, the bass on the LCD goes deeper, is as well controlled, is slightly more punchy, and very musical.  It is not atonal or monotonic in the least.  The texture of the bowing on a double bass for example is very evident.  One can tell how much rosin was used on the bow.  Fullness?  I've never heard anything more coherent.  
 
Technically, one can say little at this level of performance...  The can either matches your individual HRTF or not. 

 

[SP Wild]

You're teasing the crap out of me.

 

[jjinh]

Quote:

You're teasing the crap out of me.

I think we all want to try a pair of LCD-2

 

[takezo]

ok, these are amazingly transparent and balanced.
here's my measured chart which came with the unit:
 

 

[sachu]

^^ that's sweet..man i just got my new source too today.
 

Just waiting for the LCD-2 now. 

 

[kwkarth]

Aww, that sucks man, there's a HUGE 0.75 dB spike right at 700 Hz.  

 

  CONGRATS!!!  
 
Quote:

ok, these are amazingly transparent and balanced.
here's my measured chart which came with the unit:
 

That sucks man, there's a HUGE 0.75 dB spike right at 700 Hz.  

 

  CONGRATS!!!
 

 

[SP Wild]

That graph to me translates to hours and hours of fatigue free listening.