milosz
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2009
- Posts
- 971
- Likes
- 123
MY "REVIEW" OF THE LCD-2
Having finally got my LCD-2's, I've spent some time listening to them on a variety of tube and solid state amplifiers. No need to write a full review of the 'phones, it's been done. I will instead report some of my experiences- impressions-thoughts since having got these.
First off, these are the most significant headphones I've bought. Significant in that they have certain fundamental characteristics that no other headphones I've owned have had. Other phones I've owned - starting with ESP9's in 1969- have provided me with varying flavors and levels of listening enjoyment, and the better units have done good service to the music as well. But these Audeze offer neutrality. Their response from subsonics to the top of the range of human soprano fundamentals is ruler flat; response above this range is smooth enough to avoid sounding colored. From graphs I've seen, distortion is below 0.1% from 20 Hz and up at 90 dB. Waterfall response is the most perfect I've ever seen for any transducer- there simply is no resonant stored energy. They reproduce square waves better than any audio transducer I've ever seen. You may feel that their 2 KHz-9 KHz range is a little low, and I wouldn't argue, but I feel that this in no way takes away from their neutrality. I would think these would be perfect instruments for evaluating audio during mastering in the studio. They also are the least fatiguing phones I've used in terms of sound. They add nothing to the sound.
This has led me to think about all audio gear in a slightly different way. My Sennheiser HD800's have a different sound, they emphasize certain things in the recording. That's true of all my other headphones; and they are all quite enjoyable and involving. But these LCD-2's are fundamentally different- rather than creating a sonic presentation for me, they seem to contain just what's already there in the recording. It's this lack of emphasis, of euphonious coloration, that makes them different. Not necessarily better- that is a matter of taste. But fundamentally different in that neutrality is their defining characteristic rather than "speed" "detail" "PRaT" "air" "lush mids" etc. I happen to like them VERY MUCH; Your Mileage May Vary.
A few other notes:
Having finally got my LCD-2's, I've spent some time listening to them on a variety of tube and solid state amplifiers. No need to write a full review of the 'phones, it's been done. I will instead report some of my experiences- impressions-thoughts since having got these.
First off, these are the most significant headphones I've bought. Significant in that they have certain fundamental characteristics that no other headphones I've owned have had. Other phones I've owned - starting with ESP9's in 1969- have provided me with varying flavors and levels of listening enjoyment, and the better units have done good service to the music as well. But these Audeze offer neutrality. Their response from subsonics to the top of the range of human soprano fundamentals is ruler flat; response above this range is smooth enough to avoid sounding colored. From graphs I've seen, distortion is below 0.1% from 20 Hz and up at 90 dB. Waterfall response is the most perfect I've ever seen for any transducer- there simply is no resonant stored energy. They reproduce square waves better than any audio transducer I've ever seen. You may feel that their 2 KHz-9 KHz range is a little low, and I wouldn't argue, but I feel that this in no way takes away from their neutrality. I would think these would be perfect instruments for evaluating audio during mastering in the studio. They also are the least fatiguing phones I've used in terms of sound. They add nothing to the sound.
This has led me to think about all audio gear in a slightly different way. My Sennheiser HD800's have a different sound, they emphasize certain things in the recording. That's true of all my other headphones; and they are all quite enjoyable and involving. But these LCD-2's are fundamentally different- rather than creating a sonic presentation for me, they seem to contain just what's already there in the recording. It's this lack of emphasis, of euphonious coloration, that makes them different. Not necessarily better- that is a matter of taste. But fundamentally different in that neutrality is their defining characteristic rather than "speed" "detail" "PRaT" "air" "lush mids" etc. I happen to like them VERY MUCH; Your Mileage May Vary.
A few other notes:
- Of all the amps I've tried them on, my (three-channel) Beta 22 seems to offer the best sound. And, interestingly, my Bijou was also nice. On the Bijou they seemed to have a pleasant "sparkly" sound, although the lows were not as well controlled as with solid state amps. (I'm surprised these low-impedance phones worked as well as they did on the OTL tube amps I tried them on, OTL amps are not known to be friendly to low-impedance headphones, and the LCD-2 are 50 ohms.)
- They are NOT particularly comfy. They are heavy and although the lambskin-leather earpads are butter-soft, I much prefer velour or microfiber earpads. I can only hope Audeze (or someone) will come out with velour aftermarket pads. That said, they are not skullbusters either. They are OK to wear but could be better. Nothing can be done about their weight, but I have got to figure out how to get velour pads on these things.
- The cables, while good, are far too stiff. This also takes away from "wearability."
