[sokolov91]

Quote:

 
Quote:

Quote:

How do you think LCD-2 decay vs HD800?

IMO the LCD-2 has a longer decay. If I'm reading the measurements by Tyll correctly, they show the same (going by impulse response?).

I'm not understanding this "decay".  This must be a psychoacoustic phenomena.  The most noteable objective differences between these two cans for me was tonal balance.  The HD800s place an emphasis on ambience whilst the LCD2s place an emphasis on instrument body - due to their differing treble bias.  Both drivers are quick enough to stop and start as commanded by the amplifier at an incredible acceleration rate, this rate of acceleration is what separates these two cans from the mid-fi / previous gen flagship categories.
 
I understand transient reponse, which is a function of the acceleration rate of the drivers - this is the rise time, the "falling time" is the same as the rise time as it is merely an acceleration in the opposite direction.  These rise and fall times when it comes to the LCD2s is a dependant on the commands given by the source and up to the amplifier to back it up with a headphone load.  Anyone care to enlighten me with the issue of decay? 

Well what it means to me is how something dies off...
 
Like a bass drum... a snare, a string etc.  The sounds do not abruptly end... the more resolving and quieter the gear, the longer we can hear evidence of the inital sound (recording permitting.)
 
 
So like a bass drum would have snares rattling, adjacent skins vibrating a bit and its initial rise and fall. When the dB drop, but there is still detail and info, to me this is good decay.
 
Could be we are just using the wrong term but it is definitely not purely psychoacoustic... some headphones seem to have a hard time sustaining and playing things in their entirety.
 

 

[SP Wild]

What grokit posted up merely reinforces what I am alluding to...that when it comes to the LCD2 or HD800, it is more a function of the commands given by your source as it decodes the recording and the amplifiers capability in relaying the decoded commands to the drivers...and then it is up to the drivers to once again decode the data...and our minds, once again to decode via a HRTF filter.
 
I hear the HD800s and LCD2s as having nearly identical response times and decoding capability.  The LCD2s having a shade quicker response time.  As decoded by my HRTF, the HD800s have an unnatural treble bias that will hi-lite reverbs of the instrument in ambience because if it exists in trhe recording this is the HD800s key strength, ambience retrieval.  To my HRTF it comes at a cost of tonal accuracy in recreating acoustic instruments.
 
My HRTF seems to respond well with the LCD2s as I do hear reverbs in ambience if it is in the recording, it is not as emphasised as the HD800s,  this suits me just fine as ambience reverb of a venue was never noticed by me when I was playing live.  It is also fantastic for me as the shade quicker response time of the LCD2s have proved valuable in my foray into DIY...I can asses the rise time of circuits more effectively with the LCD2s than the HD800s.
 
In fact, I hear a greater definition with the LCD2s ambient retrieval tha I do with the HD800s ambient retrieval...but the HD800s ambience reproduction is at a higher amplitude.

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

I'm not understanding this "decay".

 
I'm referring to how long a particular sound takes to dissipate. I.e. if a short, loud sound is played - how long it takes to fade out.
 
I could be wrong about LCD2 vs HD800 for this, as I did not compare the quality side by side and am operating purely from memory for the HD800. IMO there are other things such as the frequency response of the LCD2 and the soundstage of the HD800 that makes the rate of acoustic decay less... important in determining the overall sound.
 
As for the speed of the LCD-2 I found it didn't keep up as well with some goa tracks (eg. the pleiadians track I linked earlier) as the HD800, but that again could be the frequency response which is most definitely not to my taste.

 

[Asr]

To the people posting about the attack/decay subject: are you musicians or have you heard live unamplified instruments before? If not, I would suggest listening to live instruments before posting about attack/decay, as one should know how to mentally separate the music from the headphones as far as this subject is concerned.
 
Another thing I'd like to point out is that sometimes decay is mistaken for reverb. Decay on most instruments is actually pretty fast and refers to the short amount of time between when an instrument has stopped being played and how long it continues to generate sound afterwards. Reverb refers to how long the sound waves continue to propagate in the room.
 
It's a lot easier to hear reverb over decay in recorded music, especially as more and more instruments get involved - which is why I mention listening to live instruments, as it's vastly easier to hear decay on live non-recorded (and unamplified) music.

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

To the people posting about the attack/decay subject: are you musicians

Yes.

 
Regardless, I'm fairly sure there's ample information (impulse responses and CSDs should be enough, I think?) to make an objective comment on the issue. I'm not in the state of mind to find them currently, however.

 

[jamato8]

I used to play the sax and violin. I still play the harmonica. I seldom here the subtle changes to notes in recorded music. Hopefully this will be better portrayed soon with the arrival of the LCD-2. 

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

To the people posting about the attack/decay subject: are you musicians or have you heard live unamplified instruments before? If not, I would suggest listening to live instruments before posting about attack/decay, as one should know how to mentally separate the music from the headphones as far as this subject is concerned.
 
Another thing I'd like to point out is that sometimes decay is mistaken for reverb.

Play drums in a band... have been "a musician" for over half of my life...  I am only 20 after all haha
 
but yes, to truly understand this you would need to understand how the instruments behave in RL. I think people stand to benefit from amplified instruments too though... hearing an electric guitar in the flesh, with or without an effect pedal is good info too.

 

[jax]

 
Quote:

You don't need an SPL meter to find that a headphone is grainy, artificial treble boost, sibilant..you use your ears for that. Train your ears well enough to find out what sort of sound you like and that's all you will ever need to measure something in terms of its musicality.
 
<snip>
 
For that matter, who says you have to give a frack about what anyone says..listen and make up your own mind. 

Bingo!  Bulseye! Spot-on! Word!  The truth will set you free!  I could probably have said it better myself (I might have said, "...flying frack..."), but that'll do

  This last sentence is a pearl of wisdom.  Write it down, print it out, translate it into seven languages and paste it to your mirror right next to the Stuart Smalley Affirmations.  If you don't know how valuable this advice is right now, just hang onto it and check in on it every few months.  Eventually you'll figure it out and once that bell goes off there's not turning back and you'll wonder why you wasted so much time before it came to you.  Ding, ding, ding.....we have a winner!  Tell him what he's won, Don Pardo....

 

[Junliang]

What kind of amps do you guys think is better for LCD 2 ?

Tube Amp or Solid State amp ?
 
I am thinking of a WA6 vs Schiit Asgard.
 
Opinions ?

 

[jamato8]

deleted

 

[dw1narso]

Quote:

Hopefully this will be better portrayed soon with the arrival of the LCD-2. 

Hi Jamato8,
 
I saw HD650 and HF2 in your signature... when you got the LCD-2, would you please update us with your opinion regarding LCD-2 compared to HD650 and HF2.
 
I got a chance to hear LCD-2 today... from what I hear today (driven by Burson HA160 with the built-in PCM1793 DAC), to me it sounds closer to HF2 instead of HD650..., in the sense of both having the spectrum balance weighting to the left of the frequency spectrum (read: heavier towards lower end of the spectrum, instead of the higher end of the spectrum), and both have rolled of treble that makes the sound ambience (airiness) is less pronounced.
 
Unfortunately I don't bring my HF2 for comparison, so my "assumption" above is just based on my memory of the sound of HF2.
 
Side note: one should not immediately A-B-ing LCD-2 and HE-6, because the presentations of both are very different. They definitely have different frequency contour... And (probably caused by different housing design) hearing LCD-2 instantly right after hearing HE-6 makes the LCD-2 sounds like a closed phone... when there's at least 5 minutes to rest my ears and fade my memory of the sound, the effect would be reduced..

 

[jamato8]

I would be happy to compare the 650, HF-2 and LCD-2. I often find that listening for a few days and then switching tells me more than going back and forth as you have noted. I do like "air" in the sound if it is there so I will have to see how this affects my listening pleasure and if it comes to pass that they lack this for me or not. The UM2's have a rolled off high and I could never get past his. It ruined the music for me. 
 
I will say that it is seldom I hear live music with a great deal of air. I think that in recorded music I look for this to get past the knowledge that I am listening to recorded sound. 

 

[Currawong]

jamato8: I can only go by my first and only balanced amp, the Phoenix, with which much of the overall performance must be attributed to the DAC as well.  I, and the others of us with similar rigs have probably scored lucky on the synergy front here as much as anything.  Anyhow, the direction I am coming from is being an avid Stax fan. If I was to fault the Stax rigs which I liked, it is that they couldn't move as much air as dynamic headphones, but made up for this by being effortlessly detailed to the point that all but the top dynamics seemed like a pretentious attempt at music delivery. Stax amps by their very design are balanced, even if their inputs are not, as the headphones work that way. I feel the LCD-2s balanced in my rig give much the same affect -- the large surface area of the driver gives a similar presentation, though they can move considerably more air, which to me gives the best of both worlds.  Out of various single-ended amps, I've felt the presentation to be a bit too much in-my-head for the ideal, but the whole balanced arrangement seems to rectify this somewhat. The only downside is that even the Omega 2s sound brighter, and there was a time when I found the O2s to be too dark!  I have gone the route of putting a silver-based cable on them (APSv3) which gives a bit more sparkle to the sound with them.

 

[Frank I]

 
Quote:

What kind of amps do you guys think is better for LCD 2 ?

Tube Amp or Solid State amp ?
 
I am thinking of a WA6 vs Schiit Asgard.
 
Opinions ?

 
It depends on whether you like a music sound with good detail or a hard aggressive blah sound. If you want musical go for the Woo6 if you like blah then buy the Asgard. If SS is your thing the Matrix M Stage is better as is the Concerto.

 

[oqvist]

 
Quote:

What kind of amps do you guys think is better for LCD 2 ?

Tube Amp or Solid State amp ?
 
I am thinking of a WA6 vs Schiit Asgard.
 
Opinions ?

It depends on whether you like a music sound with good detai or a hard agressive blah sound. If you want musical go for the Woo6 if you like blah then buy the Asgard. If SS is your thing the Matrix M Stage is better as is the Concerto.