[grokit]

As far as classical music goes I think we need to separate chamber-type music from more symphonic stuff, because these two types of music are presented differently for the most part. For the orchestral stuff the K701 and HD800 do a great job of instrument separation and soundstaging, but for more intimate chamber music the LCD-2 is spectacular at things like timbre and imaging. I would throw the HE-6 into the mix as a more versatile headphone that serves both of these purposes the best, but does not do as well within their individual specialization as the HD800/LCD-2 does.

 

[DeadEars]

Quote:

As far as classical music goes I think we need to separate chamber-type music from more symphonic stuff, because these two types of music are presented differently for the most part. For the orchestral stuff the K701 and HD800 do a great job of instrument separation and soundstaging, but for more intimate chamber music the LCD-2 is spectacular at things like timbre and imaging. I would throw the HE-6 into the mix as a more versatile headphone that serves both of these purposes the best, but does not do as well within their individual specialization as the HD800/LCD-2 does.

That's the old "horses for courses" argument.  I guess it's a good point.  I just don't want to believe it...
 
You can certainly make a case if you only listen to one kind of music.  For instance if your tastes are largely big-scale orchestral works, then you would probably over-value things like ability to do dynamic contrasts or ability to deliver soundstage and air.  And you're absolutely right about timbre and spacing when it comes to chamber music (love my LCD's with Bach!)
 
But I expect my headphones to be good at everything.  So I don't want to think that some music is better represented with some cans than others, even though it might be true from the standpoint of specific attributes of the headphone.  Instead, I've always believed tht a great reproducer was a great reproducer, regardless of genre.  If it draws me into the musical experience it wins, but if it creates some dissonnance or false sounds that call the illusion into question, then I don't like it. 
 
In my one experience with the HE-6's, I became overly aware of the details at the expense of the whole cloth of the music.  I didn't like it.  But I'd certainly love to give them more time, with known amplification & sources, before pronouncing a final judgement on them.  I have a little more experience with the HD-800's and I own a set of K701 (now being used by my daughter).  I don't see them as being classical "specialist" phones either.  In fact, both of these annoyed me on occasion with over-emphasis on treble presentation at the expense of the music.  Others will violently disagree with me, I'm sure.
 
In my albeit limited experience, with only a handful of headphones, the only other headphone that has done as well at delivering the whole musical picture (better actually) were some Stax headphones from more than a decade ago, that my dad still owns, and I can't afford.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

Don't think much of them right now, but I'll see if that changes as I listen more to them. I guess I'll try some electronica.
 

Probably just a matter of what you were looking for, and what the LCD-2 represent.
 
A lot of people here are going for what I perceive as unnatural clarity. 
 
The biggest indicator for me between the LCD-2 and other headphones is in the drums, specifically floor toms, and well tuned bass drums.
 
On my HD 800 I think "wow that sounds clear, crisp, clean etc... but not perfectly right". The LCD-2 on the other hand have that visceral quality that real drums have and make me think "this is well recorded". There is a certain "bloat" or "congestion" that is just part of the music that many people are not used to hearing... or that is my take. I don't find the LCD-2 congested, but if you are going for that "hi-fi" clarity they could very well be perceived as such. Just a mater of perspective and experience with real music too I suppose.
 
I think electronica is one of the easiest genres to hear the LCD-2's strengths if you ever will hear them as such. Layering and imaging are pretty strong. If you like electronica and don't like it on the LCD-2 I think it is a pretty safe bet you should sell them as Kevin suggested. Other genres might prove to have higher potential to reveal a headphones performance, but electronica, to me, is a quick way to judge.
 
Take this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h5YC_Mx4Uw&feature=related many other headphones make it sound much less coherent. On the LCD-2 the clarity is always there, but the balance between the rhythm and the melody is perfect. My HD 800 make this so sibilant it is unbearable. Personally, I think Sander van doorns mastering leaves a little to be desired, but it shows pretty well how headphones can make or break a song.
 
Strobe by deadmau5 is also another song I find annoying/not optimal on a lot of headphones compared to the LCD-2.
 
Avratz by Infected Mushroom was really well received on the LCD-2 at a small get together we had a while ago too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcsrvqPVsUk&feature=related at around 2:00 is where it really starts if you want to skip ahead.
 
 
 
 
 

 

[visualguy]

 
Thanks for all the pointers about the LCD-2. I really need to listen to them some more - it's just hard to find the time...
 
The main thing I'll be looking for is some advantage or appealing presentation (at least on some types of music) when compared to the HE-6, and I don't mean sounding better on poorly recorded or badly mastered music.
 

 

[tunarat]

 
Quote:

 
Thanks for all the pointers about the LCD-2. I really need to listen to them some more - it's just hard to find the time...
 
The main thing I'll be looking for is some advantage or appealing presentation (at least on some types of music) when compared to the HE-6, and I don't mean sounding better on poorly recorded or badly mastered music.
 

 
What source are you using? My experience (opinion) of the LCD2 is that they convey acoustic strings and classical music with precise accuracy.
 
 

 

[visualguy]

Quote:

 
 
What source are you using? My experience (opinion) of the LCD2 is that they convey acoustic strings and classical music with precise accuracy.
 
 

Benchmark DAC1 HDR.
 

 

[tunarat]

Well, then I would suggest selling the cans and getting your money back

 

[visualguy]

Quote:

 
I think electronica is one of the easiest genres to hear the LCD-2's strengths if you ever will hear them as such. Layering and imaging are pretty strong. If you like electronica and don't like it on the LCD-2 I think it is a pretty safe bet you should sell them as Kevin suggested. Other genres might prove to have higher potential to reveal a headphones performance, but electronica, to me, is a quick way to judge.
 
Take this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h5YC_Mx4Uw&feature=related many other headphones make it sound much less coherent. On the LCD-2 the clarity is always there, but the balance between the rhythm and the melody is perfect. My HD 800 make this so sibilant it is unbearable. Personally, I think Sander van doorns mastering leaves a little to be desired, but it shows pretty well how headphones can make or break a song.
 
Strobe by deadmau5 is also another song I find annoying/not optimal on a lot of headphones compared to the LCD-2.
 
Avratz by Infected Mushroom was really well received on the LCD-2 at a small get together we had a while ago too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcsrvqPVsUk&feature=related at around 2:00 is where it really starts if you want to skip ahead.
 
 
 
 
 

Thanks for the links to the two works of electronica. I listened to them on my Focal Twin6 studio monitors, my HD800 and my LCD-2. These electronica pieces sounded very different on all three! I liked how they sounded on the Focals best by far. Second was the LCD-2, and then the HD800 last. Indeed, the LCD-2 sounds better on this music than the HD800. Better bass on the LCD-2. Listening to the first piece, some parts of the mix were indeed too prominent on the HD800 (I think that's the element that you found to be sibilant). The LCD-2 actually subdues those elements.
 
Yes, I would definitely pick the LCD-2 if I was going to listen to this type of music (particularly in the case of something like the first piece). However, I think neither one of the headphones got these pieces right to be frank with you. They sounded MUCH better on the studio monitors. I haven't tried this music on the HE-6 and SR-007 yet.
 
 

 

[h4nc0]

 

Thanks for the links to the two works of electronica. I listened to them on my Focal Twin6 studio monitors, my HD800 and my LCD-2. These electronica pieces sounded very different on all three! I liked how they sounded on the Focals best by far. Second was the LCD-2, and then the HD800 last. Indeed, the LCD-2 sounds better on this music than the HD800. Better bass on the LCD-2. Listening to the first piece, some parts of the mix were indeed too prominent on the HD800 (I think that's the element that you found to be sibilant). The LCD-2 actually subdues those elements.
 
Yes, I would definitely pick the LCD-2 if I was going to listen to this type of music (particularly in the case of something like the first piece). However, I think neither one of the headphones got these pieces right to be frank with you. They sounded MUCH better on the studio monitors. I haven't tried this music on the HE-6 and SR-007 yet.
 
 

Not to piss on Focal Twin6s, but LCD-2 sounds more true to the source than the Focals to me.  And Benchmark DAC1 is very nice but slightly bright sounding, lacking in low end.  I used one for years.  I thought, at the time, it was how it was supposed to sound, until I got better converters.

 

[K3cT]

I do listen mostly to classical, but I also listen to other types of music. Presumably, the LCD-2 isn't a very good choice for classical because it doesn't reproduce acoustic instrument music well, but that means that it isn't good for non-classical acoustic music either. That would be a huge deficiency... Are you saying that the LCD-2 is mostly just suited for electronic music and vocals? What's special about the way it plays electronic music and vocals to make it worthwhile to own these headphones which don't play other music particularly well?
 
By the way, I agree that classical music doesn't sound great on the LCD-2 based on my experience so far.
 
I'm trying to figure out where they are strong and when I should use them.
 

No, on the contrary I thought the LCD2 produces acoustics in a really pleasing manner, piano and stringed instruments in particular. It's the lack of air that can get really annoying with this genre but the other posters have a point, I'm specifically talking about symphony. For chamber music, I thought the LCD2 does its job fine. It's curious really as the LCD2 images and separates instruments very well but somehow it's still lacking an airy soundstage.

As for your other questions, I thought the LCD2 excels in rock, vocal, metal and jazz. The LCD2's biggest strength is its natural tonality which is kinda Stax 007-like, the HE6 or HD800 in comparison can appear thin and strident. The HD800 especially just doesn't play well with mainstream music as it's too neutral. Other than the tonality, I thought the LCD2's other strength lies in its precision, in both speed and imaging. Speed-wise, it's probably only second to true Electrostatics and it's also one of the few systems that can render fast metal music coherently. Lately I've discovered that this genre of music is a good benchmark (there is this live Slipknot album that has a track of nothing but a drum kit being played at a breakneck speed) to stress-test your system. I also thought that the LCD2 is faster than its brethren HE6 although the latter can appear to be faster due to its thinner nature.

 

[h4nc0]

 
Quote:

It's curious really as the LCD2 images and separates instruments very well but somehow it's still lacking an airy soundstage.

 
 
Actually, I find the imaging to be one of the cons in LCD-2.  It has very good detail, frequency balance(or response), good transients but lacks the proper soundstage like most of the other headphones.  Imaging wise, it is no different than most headphones.  HD800, not that I heard it myself, seems to solve this issue and has a good, proper soundstage..?

 

[nigeljames]

Quote:

 
 
 
Actually, I find the imaging to be one of the cons in LCD-2.  It has very good detail, frequency balance(or response), good transients but lacks the proper soundstage like most of the other headphones.  Imaging wise, it is no different than most headphones.  HD800, not that I heard it myself, seems to solve this issue and has a good, proper soundstage..?

Although I have also never heard the HD800's given everything I have heard about them I would not consider them to have 'proper soundstage'. 
I have many times the statement that the K701's have an overly wide soundstage that affects every recording and from personal experience I agree and the HD800's suffer from the same complaint.
An headphone that artificially enhances soundstage is no better than one that restricts it.
The HD800's and K701's are often recommended for classical/orchestral because of the way it enhances soundstage.
Grados and LCD's are recommended for rock because they don't.
The LCD's are superb for rock but I would not personally recommend them for classical unless the listener was more interested in the power,weight and tonality of the performance and not the soundstaging and imaging.
The best for soundstaging I have heard are the T1's. Wide when needs to be,something the LCD's struggle with, and close up when thats what required something the HD800's cannot do (at least I have never heard anyone say they can, but could be wrong)
 

 

[jax]

Comparing the experience of  listening to music via headphones to the same music via speakers is pointless, IMO.  They are entirely different ways of experiencing music and one will never be the other.  There are crossover aspects you can compare and contrast, but ultimately headphones will never be speakers and vice versa.  There are separate threads on this subject, like this one. 
 
On soundstaging: the HD800 produces what I'd call an out-of-head experience of soundstage.  The LCD-2's keep it pretty much in between your ears and certainly occur to me as more confined than the HD800 in this respect.  If you are a fan of that out-of-head kind of feeling (Stax does this well also), you will likely be disappointed as the LCD-2 does not deliver music that way.  Neither Stax nor HD800 deliver the same tonal richness I hear from the LCD-2's though and can otherwise occur as a bit thin in comparison (whereas the LCD-2 can occur as more thick or heavy, and less airy for sure).  I'm not sure what the previous poster meant by "lacks the proper soundstage" - even the best of these do not throw a psycho-acoustic soundstage like speakers do - again a fruitless (pun intended) apples vs. oranges comparison. The tiny illusion even the best soundstaging cans can accomplish doesn't remotely hold a candle to the illusion good speaker systems pull off, at least in my own experiences with both.  Soundstaging is often overrated, IMO, though I have to say I enjoy the illusion, especially with speakers.  Nonetheless, sitting in an audience, even at the best of venues, listening to live music, I have never once been aware of the kinds of exaggerated spacial cues that sound engineers are able to produce on a recording.  In fact, I absolutely never pay any attention to it.  I do pay attention to it listening at home because it is part of an illusion.  It is not ultimately what moves me about the music I'm listening to, it just goes to adding an element of suspension of disbelief to the experience. 
 
Pursuit of such goals as these, expecting headphones to perform as speakers, might be best accessorized by one of these attached to your headphone band:
 

 

[h4nc0]

Comparing the experience of listening to music via headphones to speakers is not pointless.  Yes, comparing the imaging/soundstage aspect of both is pointless, but comparing other aspects such as detail, frequency balance, etc. are totally valid. 
 
What I meant by "lacks proper soundstage," is exactly just that.  All headphones that I have heard lack the proper soundstage.  And I was just saying that LCD-2 doesn't seem to have better imaging/separation than other headphones, because someone mentioned it in previous post.  You are right in saying that the soundstage created by normal sets of speakers is illusion.  But when the music is being mixed by an engineer, creating "proper" illusion of this soundstage and putting each track where it belongs, is very important.
 
maybe it's my english.   bye.
 
Quote:

Comparing the experience of  listening to music via headphones to the same music via speakers is pointless, IMO.  They are entirely different ways of experiencing music and one will never be the other.  There are crossover aspects you can compare and contrast, but ultimately headphones will never be speakers and vice versa.  There are separate threads on this subject, like this one. 
 
On soundstaging: the HD800 produces what I'd call an out-of-head experience of soundstage.  The LCD-2's keep it pretty much in between your ears and certainly occur to me as more confined than the HD800 in this respect.  If you are a fan of that out-of-head kind of feeling (Stax does this well also), you will likely be disappointed as the LCD-2 does not deliver music that way.  Neither Stax nor HD800 deliver the same tonal richness I hear from the LCD-2's though and can otherwise occur as a bit thin in comparison (whereas the LCD-2 can occur as more thick or heavy, and less airy for sure).  I'm not sure what the previous poster meant by "lacks the proper soundstage" - even the best of these do not throw a psycho-acoustic soundstage like speakers do - again a fruitless (pun intended) apples vs. oranges comparison. The tiny illusion even the best soundstaging cans can accomplish doesn't remotely hold a candle to the illusion good speaker systems pull off, at least in my own experiences with both.  Soundstaging is often overrated, IMO, though I have to say I enjoy the illusion, especially with speakers.  Nonetheless, sitting in an audience, even at the best of venues, listening to live music, I have never once been aware of the kinds of exaggerated spacial cues that sound engineers are able to produce on a recording.  In fact, I absolutely never pay any attention to it.  I do pay attention to it listening at home because it is part of an illusion.  It is not ultimately what moves me about the music I'm listening to, it just goes to adding an element of suspension of disbelief to the experience. 
 
Pursuit of such goals as these, expecting headphones to perform as speakers, might be best accessorized by one of these attached to your headphone band:
 
 

 

 

[jax]

 
Quote:

Comparing the experience of listening to music via headphones to speakers is not pointless.  Yes, comparing the imaging/soundstage aspect of both is pointless, but comparing other aspects such as detail, frequency balance, etc. are totally valid. 
 
What I meant by "lacks proper soundstage," is exactly just that.  All headphones that I have heard lack the proper soundstage.  And I was just saying that LCD-2 doesn't seem to have better imaging/separation than other headphones, because someone mentioned it in previous post.  You are right in saying that the soundstage created by normal sets of speakers is illusion.  But when the music is being mixed by an engineer, creating "proper" illusion of this soundstage and putting each track where it belongs, is very important.
 
maybe it's my english.   bye.
 


 

You might have misunderstood me.  I said that it was MY OPINION that comparing the EXPERIENCE of listening to speakers to (the experience of) listening to headphones is pointless.  Speakers engage visceral senses that headphones never can.  Headphone listening is entirely limited to our auditory senses.  I don't know about others, but I get far more enjoyment from listening to even the tiny Adam monitors in my office system than in listening to any headphone rig I've ever heard, and those are entirely modest speakers.  It's not for lack of quality of the headphones, and I would not dismiss a pair of cans because it did not hold up well to speakers.  That was what I was getting at.  Sure you can compare frequency response, balance and tonality, and various other minutia of specifics and stats and what each does with the material you feed it, but personally I see no point in doing so because you are bringing in another sensory system with speakers that is not engaged with headphones. I suppose you might talk about how it "sounds" different, but how are you to know how much your others senses aren't coming into play in perceiving that with the speakers?  I personally see no point in comparing the two. 
 
Engineers are mixing, with very few exceptions, with speakers in mind for the final output.  Headphones take a back seat.  Most engineers I've asked have said they work with speakers 90% of the time or more.  The obvious exception might be binaural recordings that are made specifically to listen to with headphones. If you want to limit your listening to the dozen or so eclectic binaural recordings out there I suppose you can then start to comment about how the engineers intent is being fulfilled.  But for recordings that were mastered for speakers...well, yes, I completely agree with you, if I understand you correctly; I've never heard headphones that do that much justice.  Again, pointless to use speakers as a yardstick.  Certainly useful to compare headphones to each other.