[mrspeakers]

Quote:

Creating and adding odd order harmonic distortion is a technique that has been used for years by Aphex with their Aural exciter products.  The Aural Exciter supposedly addedor recovered "perceived" detail to audio passed through it.  The products never did anything for me and all I was ever able to hear from them were increased levels of distortion when they were used.  I guess my ears are too used to hearing the real thing to be fooled by that which is counterfeit.  
 
I am told that is how bank tellers are trained to spot counterfeit money...  They get REAL familiar with the real thing, and when the phony stuff shows up, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
 
If you want to learn how to recognize REAL, natural, neutral audio reproduction, spend as much time as you can with the real thing.  It will do wonders for your ability to appreciate true neutrality and sonic accuracy.
 
 

 
 
I got a real laugh out of your description of the Aphex gear; I've never heard of deliberately injecting distortion.  I guess there's something for everyone.  A high hat must have sounded like buckshot in a frying pan. I think you picked a great example that illustrates my point, you didn't explicitly say it, but it sounds like you agree that the LCD-2 lacks that nasty "sparkle" so much gear passes off as clarity... 
 
The LCD-2 really amazes me on percussion, especially cymbals.  It's really one of the few times I've heard a system that really gets the sound of the brass to be brass-like, you can really sense the metal, and the strike of the stick on even a half decent recording, and on a good one...
 
P.S.  I assume the "listen" comment isn't directed at me, but If you look at my profile, you'll observe in addition to doing speaker design, I play flute.  Not well, mind you...    My household has a sax, clarinet, flute and french horn playing a good deal of the time, and sometimes keyboards and singing and I used to dabble in acoustic guitar and e-Bass, so I am reasonably clear on live vs. recorded...  
 
 

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

I got a real laugh out of your description of the Aphex gear; I've never heard of deliberately injecting distortion.  I guess there's something for everyone.  A high hat must have sounded like buckshot in a frying pan. I think you picked a great example that illustrates my point, you didn't explicitly say it, but it sounds like you agree that the LCD-2 lacks that nasty "sparkle" so much gear passes off as clarity... 
 
The LCD-2 really amazes me on percussion, especially cymbals.  It's really one of the few times I've heard a system that really gets the sound of the brass to be brass-like, you can really sense the metal, and the strike of the stick on even a half decent recording, and on a good one...
 
P.S.  I assume the "listen" comment isn't directed at me, but If you look at my profile, you'll observe in addition to doing speaker design, I play flute.  Not well, mind you...    My household has a sax, clarinet, flute and french horn playing a good deal of the time, and sometimes keyboards and singing and I used to dabble in acoustic guitar and e-Bass, so I am reasonably clear on live vs. recorded...  
 

Yes I am agreeing with your general observations that to the untrained ear, the lack of distortion may be misinterpreted as a lack of detail.  BTW, the intent of the creators of the Aphex was that its distortions be mixed in with great subtlety.  Most hacks got too heavy handed with it, but no matter how much subtlety was used, distortion will always be distortion.  Reality is always preferable to me.  No, the "listen" comment was not directed at you.
 
 

 

[complin]

An interesting theory I'm not qualified to comment on.
 
However; our fellow headfiers seem to be forgetting some basic facts of life.  Even if we were all listening to absolutely identical systems we would still disagree on the sound it produces!  Just look at how many different loudspeakers there are out there and the different shapes and sizes of rooms they are used in, no wonder they sound different.  I would use the same analogy for headphones.  Physically we are all different, as will be our ears, the shape of our ear canal, range of frequencies we can hear, age, exposure to live music, choice and quality of recorded material and the configuration of our systems.  With all these variables in play should it be any surprise then that we all have different opinions. NO.  You can look at the specifications and frequency graphs until hell freezes over, but it wont tell how YOU will perceive it sounds.  It will provide you with a guide and that's all, so we shouldn't get obsessive about them and offer them up as proof to support our preconceptions.    
 
The whole point of this forum is to share our own experiences and how we have "tuned" our headphone system to give us great PERSONAL pleasure in listening to our type of music.   I've tried some of the tweaks put forward here (like after market cables) and they have turned out to be very costly mistakes.  However; others have really helped transformed my listening experience, so keep an open mind and be adventurous, but don't assume that spending lots of $$$$ will always result in nirvana. 
 
Quote:

I have a theory on the brightness question for the LCD-2.  It can't to my knowledge be proven easily, but it's based on my experience with speaker design and "brightness" perception.
 
The idea is simple: the orthos have a driver operating in an inherently linear magnetic field.  As such, the driver is free from odd-order distortions that typically create extra energy in the treble band that some perceive as brightness, but which to me is audible as grain in the high registers.  Other sources of this distortion can include wave modalities in the driver surface, but again, i think the ortho may be less prone to this.
 
I found in designs where I had drivers with lower odd order distortion that people tended to describe them as "more detailed, but kind of softer" in the top end.
 
I believe the same thing is in play on the LCD-2, and that you might take a phone with a similar frequency response curve but higher order distortion, and it will sound brighter.
 
Anyhow, I no longer have the gear I need to run tests like this, but I think it's likely to explain why many people perceive less "brightness," yet those of us who appreciate the phone hear tremendous extension and perceive the phone as being quite extended.  Just curious who else perceives this effect...

 

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

An interesting theory I'm not qualified to comment on.
 
However; our fellow headfiers seem to be forgetting some basic facts of life.  Even if we were all listening to absolutely identical systems we would still disagree on the sound it produces!  Just look at how many different loudspeakers there are out there and the different shapes and sizes of rooms they are used in, no wonder they sound different.  I would use the same analogy for headphones.  Physically we are all different, as will be our ears, the shape of our ear canal, range of frequencies we can hear, age, exposure to live music, choice and quality of recorded material and the configuration of our systems.  With all these variables in play should it be any surprise then that we all have different opinions. NO.  You can look at the specifications and frequency graphs until hell freezes over, but it wont tell how YOU will perceive it sounds.  It will provide you with a guide and that's all, so we shouldn't get obsessive about them and offer them up as proof to support our preconceptions.    
 
The whole point of this forum is to share our own experiences and how we have "tuned" our headphone system to give us great PERSONAL pleasure in listening to our type of music.   I've tried some of the tweaks put forward here (like after market cables) and they have turned out to be very costly mistakes.  However; others have really helped transformed my listening experience, so keep an open mind and be adventurous, but don't assume that spending lots of $$$$ will always result in nirvana. 

If we were all listening to live, un-amplified acoustic instruments, we would all agree that they sounded like the real thing.  For any given headphone design, the design HRTF would match closely enough to a number of our own individual HRTFs and for those of us that it matched, we would agree that what we heard over the headphones matched what we heard in real life.  For some of us, the HRTF would not be close enough to create that illusion.  In any case, once you take away the standard reference of real acoustic sound, there is no more reference standard, and all bets are off.  It then becomes simply a matter of personal preference, with no respect to reality.
 

 

[complin]

Ah you mean like the Stax Mafia

 I've been a paid up member of them for years

 
I would guess non headfiers would see us more as a Cult than a Sect

  I'm afraid that's what happens when someone produces a great product that turns into a runaway success. 

 
Quote:

The LCD2 fans are slowly becoming like a sect

(yes that's a criticism). And that's from someone who is on the LCD2 side...

 

 

[complin]

Yes I like Philip Glass too.  You might also like John Adams  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXenb58LbKA&feature=related and John Taverner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMoKKUCjqes
Quote:

Yeah, it's kind of like listening to Phillip Glass.
 

 

[bumblingbooby]

 
Your apology is accepted of course pp312. However, your attempt at humour in that post notwithstanding, I think it's presumptuous to extrapolate from your own audiophile experience (extensive as it is), by making sweeping generalisations about what I or anyone else have been conditioned to regard as "hi fi". 

 

I liked the LCD-2 overall but not enough to want to own it. I think that it does some things very well and others not so well and that isn't confined to its treble presentation. I certainly don't regard it as the panacea to the deleterious effects of exaggerated treble and artificial soundstaging, that some of its more strident supporters would have us believe. And I'd appreciate your knowledgeable opinion even more, if you could refrain from appearing to know better than the rest of us who don't happen to share your enthusiasm for the LCD-2. 

  

 

 

 

 

[complin]

Sounds like we are a similar vintage

I too have been listening to music since the 1960' and regularly attend concerts or Jazz club, and when I had more time played various instruments.  I've listened to headphones since the late 1960's, and whilst I agree the Audeze are a great set of headphones I personally feel the Stax 007 are still superior in many ways to the LCD 2.  I personally find the overall sound signature and neutrality very similar between the two, and like them both in different ways.  The Audeze does some things better I feel than the 007, its more direct and the low end frequency extension appears to be superior.
However; overall I still feel the 007 when properly amplified, is superior to almost anything else out there, particularly getting out of the way of the music (neutrality), in the layering of instruments, sound-stage and rendering the complex tonality of the sound. 
 
To date the Audeze for is for me one of the very, very few headphones that have come close to the 007.  Considering the the LCD2's cost and its modest amplifier requirements in my view its a great bargain in overall sound quality and is capable of providing top notch quality at a relatively modest price.    
 
Quote:

 After 50 years in and around hi-fi, as well as attending live concerts, I believe I have a pretty good idea of what a naturally balanced headphone or speaker sounds like, and to my ears nothing has yet come closer than the LCD-2. With all the familiar material I've played on it the Audeze has been like a chameleon, bright when the recording is bright, dull when it's dull. Initially I thought it was too bright, but as I went through my collection I began to realize that it was simply reflecting the characteristics of the recordings, no more or less, and more faithfully than I'd ever heard before. It undoubtedly has aural faults, nothing is perfect, but I don't believe dullness is one of them, and those who hear it as dull perhaps haven't spent enough time at live concerts and venues. IMO, of course.  
 

 

[SP Wild]

 
Quote:

I have a theory on the brightness question for the LCD-2.  It can't to my knowledge be proven easily, but it's based on my experience with speaker design and "brightness" perception.
 
The idea is simple: the orthos have a driver operating in an inherently linear magnetic field.  As such, the driver is free from odd-order distortions that typically create extra energy in the treble band that some perceive as brightness, but which to me is audible as grain in the high registers.  Other sources of this distortion can include wave modalities in the driver surface, but again, i think the ortho may be less prone to this.
 
I found in designs where I had drivers with lower odd order distortion that people tended to describe them as "more detailed, but kind of softer" in the top end.
 
I believe the same thing is in play on the LCD-2, and that you might take a phone with a similar frequency response curve but higher order distortion, and it will sound brighter.
 
Anyhow, I no longer have the gear I need to run tests like this, but I think it's likely to explain why many people perceive less "brightness," yet those of us who appreciate the phone hear tremendous extension and perceive the phone as being quite extended.  Just curious who else perceives this effect...

I think this theory is very valid and I have been pondering similar thoughts lately.  I don't use headphones as often as I used to, and because of this, when I do - the LCD2 is truly spectacular in the way it presents such a lifelike presence.  Basically, I think the less I use headphones, the less I am accustomed to typical headphone distortions which I learn to enjoy when using them more often.  I have been noticing how unlike any other headphone, there is no physical vibration in the entire headphone.  The sound is so "still" and "stable" - distortions in other headphones become so obvious.  The distortion measurements are a good indicator and the LCD2 is also the lowest measured as well.
 
The only resonance I now hear is that of tinnitus mixing with the audio signal when I am listening to the LCD2s at a low volume - a low distortion amplifies this phenomena in my opinion, as well as any "instabilities" in amplifiers and sources.  Any cavity resonances should be easily measurable and illustrated in the waterfall plots...the LCD2s to me are the only circumaural design I can say I have heard that doesn't have any cavity resonances, and my reference for this phenomena are my supra aural cans, the PX100, Porta Pross and Grado HF2s - all which I like because they are free from cavity resonances in the space between ear and driver.
 
HRTF issues I gather is altogether different to hearing loss.  Hearing loss manifest itself on real life to the same extent as to headphones - as real life sound loses some of its vibrancy due to wear and tear, so too does the LCD2 - and the end result is still a profound match between what I hear in real life and the LCD2s.  I am steadfast with Kevin on this one, the only true reference is real life.  Not other speakers.
 
I have heard many a "live" concert that does not match the LCD2s general presentation, and for me these "live" and AMPLIFIED performances have no bearing on how actual acoustic instrument sounds as a musician will hear it.  The performers are behind the speakers - and are not exposed to the shrill, they just play to how they hear it on that stage, being behind the speakers - they hear it differently, trust me.  The electronics involved in many of these performances are truly distorted when driven to the volumes as loud as they do.  That's how I hear it.
 
I'm reminded of the time I was walking along Sydney harbour where the Opera House and Harbour Bridge is.  I was accompanied by a fellow head-fier who enjoys a pair of K701s as a musical reference.  As we passed street performers, we pass a one playing a twelve string acoustic guitar, unamplified - I remark, notice how this is not at all bright, like my HD650s?  Then a few metres away, there is another basker with an acoustic guitar - hooked up to an amplifier..."see how this one sounds more like your K701?".  It was not possible to disagree at this point.

 

[pp312]

 
Quote:

 
Your apology is accepted of course pp312. However, your attempt at humour in that post notwithstanding, I think it's presumptuous to extrapolate from your own audiophile experience (extensive as it is), by making sweeping generalisations about what I or anyone else have been conditioned to regard as "hi fi". 

 

I liked the LCD-2 overall but not enough to want to own it. I think that it does some things very well and others not so well and that isn't confined to its treble presentation. I certainly don't regard it as the panacea to the deleterious effects of exaggerated treble and artificial soundstaging, that some of its more strident supporters would have us believe. And I'd appreciate your knowledgeable opinion even more, if you could refrain from appearing to know better than the rest of us who don't happen to share your enthusiasm for the LCD-2. 

  

 

 

 

Suitably chastised, bumblingbooby.

 
But you know, it's hard not to be a know-all when you do actually know all.

 

 

[pp312]

 
Quote:

Sounds like we are a similar vintage

I too have been listening to music since the 1960' and regularly attend concerts or Jazz club, and when I had more time played various instruments.  I've listened to headphones since the late 1960's, and whilst I agree the Audeze are a great set of headphones I personally feel the Stax 007 are still superior in many ways to the LCD 2.  I personally find the overall sound signature and neutrality very similar between the two, and like them both in different ways.  The Audeze does some things better I feel than the 007, its more direct and the low end frequency extension appears to be superior.
However; overall I still feel the 007 when properly amplified, is superior to almost anything else out there, particularly getting out of the way of the music (neutrality), in the layering of instruments, sound-stage and rendering the complex tonality of the sound. 
 
To date the Audeze for is for me one of the very, very few headphones that have come close to the 007.  Considering the the LCD2's cost and its modest amplifier requirements in my view its a great bargain in overall sound quality and is capable of providing top notch quality at a relatively modest price.    
 

I'm happy to take your word that the 007s are superior in many areas, complin, as unfortunately my budget only runs to $1000 per headphone.
 
I bought my LCD-2 slightly used from a guy who'd moved on to the Stax 507 (think that's the right number). He's happy with those, as well he should be, but still claims a certain nostalgia for the Audeze. In any case I hope I wasn't sounding as though I thought the Audeze were the last word in phones; rather I was trying to make the point that it's naturally balanced, not treble recessed. That seems to be the great point of dispute about them, as indeed it was/is with the HD650, which I've also defended. With the LCD-2 there's even less to defend as they're quite a bit brighter than the 650.    
 
 

 

[complin]

Yes as I said in my post I think at the cost of an Audeze combo they represent a really great sonic bargain. 
 
Although I think the Stax 007's are superior you are looking at around 3 times the cost with a suitable amp (BHSE, T2). I'm sure the Stax 507's would give them a good run for their money, but cant comment as I haven't heard a set so far. 

 
Quote:

I'm happy to take your word that the 007s are superior in many areas, complin, as unfortunately my budget only runs to $1000 per headphone.  

 
 

 

[complin]

Have a look at this review http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/548875/review-audeze-lcd-2-hifiman-he-6-stax-sr-507-stax-oii-mki-bhse-et-al concurs with my feelings very much.  I think you will find the notes you can download very useful too.  An excellent review, even if you dont agree with all the conclusions

 
Quote:

I'm considering the LCD-2s and find the description of their sound to my liking, but there's one thing I can't seem to find too much detail on - imaging.  When I listened to a T1, the instruments were much more localised and pushed out in front of my head than my K702 and the DT880 with which I directly compared it.  As a result, the soundstage felt a lot narrower but I definitely preferred it as it seemed as though it was in front of my head.  Instruments all came from a particular place in front of me.  Does the LCD-2 have similar or better imaging capabilities?  Thanks!

 

 

[jackmccabe]

Complin, I suggest you read up on this experiment as it is widely regarded as nonsense.

 

[goofyvic]

Quote:

It's not the aspects of the LCD-2's presentation, but the nature of that specific music.  It is ethereal and mesmerizing, entirely minimalist, and quite hypnotic if  you are open to it.  I imagine it may be a bit overwhelming on headphones.   Maybe not....I'm actually listening to "The Disintigration Loops" as I type this and it's quite haunting and beautiful.  For me it is a bit like meditation - great music to just zone out to, or fall asleep by, or just watch your thoughts pass.  But again, definitely not for everyone. It is the kind of thing you really need to let wash over you, and if you are open to it, it really grows on you and the experience can be quite moving.  I hope you enjoy it. 
 

X2. Simply captivating. Album after album, just immersed in music. I find it difficult to go back to dynamic driver headphones. Guess I'm an ortho convert/addict. I'm listening to Eva Cassidy's Live At Blues Alley right now, LCD2 open a whole new perspective to the album.