[not_sure]

 

[*] Maybe a little stupid question but Achristilaw do you prefer LCD-2 over JH13? I am not a big fun of iem's but I have finded JH13 suprisingly more real sounding than most of the full-size dynamic headphones.

 

[MikePio]

After reading the majority of this thread, it is very apparent that these headphones sound like they are flawless, and this kind of scares me. 1) Hype 2) They really are that good and I have to spend a grand

   So far from the impressions many people seem to like them over the HD800, T1 am I right? are they really that good? To put it in better terms, what are their weaknesses? No headphone is perfect... It just sounds to me kind of really amped up, and I have been too eager before, just want to be sure on this one. 

Cheers,

 

[Icarium]

Highs aren't perfect. Tone could be a little bit more resonant. That's if you go into the nitty gritty. If you go holistically then sure it's not an absolutely perfect sound signature and there are ones I perhaps like more or the same.
 
There is no single perfect headphone though the O2 seems the most well rounded when properly amped.
 
As far as better than the HD800s goes... well in my opinion that's not hard to do. I like the AD2ks better than the hd800 and it's not simply a bass thing either (AD2ks arent really known for their bass). My two main beefs with it are 1. Still not fast enough for my taste, not nearly (Versus AD2ks which are cheaper, k1k and qualias which are not. It's not even in the same league). 2. It doesn't have a cohesive image as the L and R are separated and fed to each of their respective ears. Pretty much any headphone that isn't like this is immediately better for me.
 
About the only thing it has going for it are comfort, faster than previous dynamic sennheisers (lulz they were damned slow so again not hard to do), reasonably detailed but not tops and wide but inaccurate soudnstage. Woo....

 

[FrankCooter]

Icarium has pretty good ears. Thanks for injecting a note of adult reason into an otherwise juvenile feeding frenzy. I'm attracted to these, but at $1k, I'll wait for a well thought out consensus to emerge.

 

[Equus]

Quote:

Icarium has pretty good ears. Thanks for injecting a note of adult reason into an otherwise juvenile feeding frenzy. I'm attracted to these, but at $1k, I'll wait for a well thought out consensus to emerge.

 
Wow, that comes across as pretty harsh man.  Of course nothing is perfect, but these are new toys.  When you buy a new car you usually notice how cool it is before you realize the negative things after the "honeymoon" is over.  At least that's how it goes for me.

 

[sachu]

Quote:

Icarium has pretty good ears. Thanks for injecting a note of adult reason into an otherwise juvenile feeding frenzy. I'm attracted to these, but at $1k, I'll wait for a well thought out consensus to emerge.

Frank, you know my love for the TPs and you have heard what it can sound like. Now imagine that being bettered, convincingly and then some. It isn't a perfect headphone for sure. I too find a few faults in the highs but left it out cause they are exactly what DanC calls them, nitpicking. There are some other issues for me as well with regard to comfort issues. They are nowhere close to being as comfortable as my reference headphones.
 
The Fostex with the Leather O2 pads and memory foam is miles ahead in terms of comfort and feel. The pads on the LCD-2 though while broken in well since i first heard them at dBel's were still too hard and this coupled with the slightly high clamping force on the headband came close to giving me a headache the first time i went on a 3 hour listening run.
 
As regards to the way it sounds, as mentioned before I find a few faults in the highs personally, but i know it can be tuned (kwkarth might have come up with the first mod for it really..will let Kevin elaborate on this). The impact levels in the bass sin't as great as the TPs. But other than that i find it difficult to find fault with them.
 
Obviously I am biased and make no effort to hide this in my review, hence the caveat.
They are what they are to me, an ortho that is tuned well from the start without horribly compromising in one or more areas to satisfy the rest.

 

[Pyriel0]

Quote:

 
Wow, that comes across as pretty harsh man.  Of course nothing is perfect, but these are new toys.  When you buy a new car you usually notice how cool it is before you realize the negative things after the "honeymoon" is over.  At least that's how it goes for me.

It needed to be said by someone. A few of the ortho lovers say the high freqs are dropped/recessed but then call it balanced. Its nice that someone with some of the top tier headphones and amps put this back into a realistic perspective. 
 
If the hype isn't checked, people will judge other headphones based off the lcd-2. Then everyone will say any headphone(that actually does have a balanced frequency range) has too much treble. Being the best ortho available doesn't make it the best headphone available.

 

[sachu]

Quote:

Highs aren't perfect. Tone could be a little bit more resonant. That's if you go into the nitty gritty. If you go holistically then sure it's not an absolutely perfect sound signature and there are ones I perhaps like more or the same.
 
There is no single perfect headphone though the O2 seems the most well rounded when properly amped.
 
As far as better than the HD800s goes... well in my opinion that's not hard to do. I like the AD2ks better than the hd800 and it's not simply a bass thing either (AD2ks arent really known for their bass). My two main beefs with it are 1. Still not fast enough for my taste, not nearly (Versus AD2ks which are cheaper, k1k and qualias which are not. It's not even in the same league). 2. It doesn't have a cohesive image as the L and R are separated and fed to each of their respective ears. Pretty much any headphone that isn't like this is immediately better for me.
 
About the only thing it has going for it are comfort, faster than previous dynamic sennheisers (lulz they were damned slow so again not hard to do), reasonably detailed but not tops and wide but inaccurate soudnstage. Woo....

I disagree and have differing viewpoints to you on a few things. But that's to be expected on a forum.
 
The problems with the HD800 are too many for me to list. Biggest flaws are
1> Midrange is sucked out, unemotional
2> Strident highs, enough to pierce my ears in some tracks
3> Slightly boomy bass
4> Not fast enough compared to orthos, but among the fastest dynamics I have heard (haven't heard your AD2K..)
5> Biggest of all flaws, it isn't an ortho. 

 
Edit: Oh, and the second flaw you point out with regards to soundstageing on the HD800..I am sorry my impression with the stacker 2 + HD800 was completely the opposite. With the EHHA i could see some cracks appearing from L to middle to R, but on the stacker 2 it was like one expansive canvas.
Switching to my TPs this was apparent immediately. The TPs neatly cut the image into left-middle and right, like the scene was being painted on 3 different canvases and it was trying to stitch them up the best it could..
This was the only thing that the HD800 did superlatively for me.
 
As for "If you go holistically then sure it's not an absolutely perfect sound signature and there are ones I perhaps like more or the same."
I agree with you here. But only if you've had less than 25 hours of listening time on them. Once you get adjusted to their sound signature I kid you not, you will start missing it on other headphones. This sounds corny yes but the LCD-2 sounds 'real' to me. Real with respect to the source material. What you feed in is faithfully put out. Its uncanny how easily it manages this task.

 

[perrew]

Icarium how do you rate the K1000 in all of this vs. HD800 and LCD-2 and which amp do you run with them respectively?

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Icarium has pretty good ears. Thanks for injecting a note of adult reason into an otherwise juvenile feeding frenzy. I'm attracted to these, but at $1k, I'll wait for a well thought out consensus to emerge.

Thanks for being Frank, but methinks you paint with too broad a brush.

 

[subtle]

Quote:

After reading the majority of this thread, it is very apparent that these headphones sound like they are flawless, and this kind of scares me. 1) Hype 2) They really are that good and I have to spend a grand

   So far from the impressions many people seem to like them over the HD800, T1 am I right? are they really that good? To put it in better terms, what are their weaknesses? No headphone is perfect... It just sounds to me kind of really amped up, and I have been too eager before, just want to be sure on this one. 

Cheers,

How do you possibly come to the conclusion that "many" people like them over the HD800, T1, etc. when only like five people total have even heard the LCD-2?  The majority of that five are known ortho lovers with an obvious bias as well.  I'm just going to wait for achristilaw to have a week or two with them and get acquainted.  I trust him to tell it like it is.  Reviews like that one sachu put up are an entertaining read, but when a review can't list even one negative it's obviously biased and a bit over hyped.

 

[sachu]

Quote:

Quote:

How do you possibly come to the conclusion that "many" people like them over the HD800, T1, etc. when only like five people total have even heard the LCD-2?  The majority of that five are known ortho lovers with an obvious bias as well.  I'm just going to wait for achristilaw to have a week or two with them and get acquainted.  I trust him to tell it like it is.  Reviews like that one sachu put up are an entertaining read, but when a review can't list even one negative it's obviously biased and a bit over hyped.

Right you are Sir. The sample size is still too small for any definitive opinion. But so far, it looks promissing. I am glad that those of us reporting on it have similar if not identical views on the virtues of the LCD-2.This means they have good Q&A, so far atleast.
 
I have however posted here, in slightly better detail the shortcomings of the LCD-2 and my reasons for leaving them out of the review.

 

[subtle]

Quote:

Right you are Sir. The sample size is still too small for any definitive opinion. But so far, it looks promissing. I am glad that those of us reporting on it have similar if not identical views on the virtues of the LCD-2.This means they have good Q&A, so far atleast.
 
I have however posted here, in slightly better detail the shortcomings of the LCD-2 and my reasons for leaving them out of the review.

I should take the time to read the entire thread prior to posting in haste from now on.  I read Mike's post and was puzzled so I immediately replied.  Then I went back and read the rest and saw that you had already addressed some negatives.
 
I appreciate your review.  It was certainly an enjoyable read.  I must say I'm intrigued having never owned an orthodynamic and only one stat, the OII MKI.  I'm probably going to go ahead and place an order for them in the coming weeks.  The JH16 was next on my agenda, but I'm still a bit hesitant at the thought of spending so much on an IEM.  I'm just more accustomed to using a full size headphone so I imagine the LCD-2 would get more use.  I look forward to the first time ortho exposure.

 

[kwkarth]

With regard to reference standards and recessed highs...
 
Sound reproduction, being such a subjective thing, in the appropriate context, has no *right* or *wrong*.
 
We all have "different" standards of reference fixed in our heads.  In a review context, it is more important than cataloging all of the gear in your reproduction chain.  Many who have commented on the sound of these phones have mentioned reality as being their primary point of reference, then perhaps refer to another can or two as a secondary reference point, never forgetting their ultimate and primary reference.
 
My personal reference point is reality.  The un-amplified human voice, and acoustic instruments.  Strings, woodwinds, brass, percussion, etc.
 
As a recordist and audio engineer, my obsession has always been to "make it real."  When I read others mention the same reference point, reality, I pay attention to what they have to say, because chances are, as we desire the same ultimate outcome in our sound systems, our likes and dislikes will converge, at least to a point.
 
Many times over the years, my initial impressions of a piece of gear my be swayed off point temporarily, by some characteristic of the gear that "calls attention to itself."  Bright sparkly highs, for example, or punchy bass.
 
After more extended listening, it becomes evident that the elements that caught my initial attention, were actually artifacts of the gear itself, and not an accurate representation of what the program material was calling for.  Such artifacts, while fun at times, eventually wear themselves out for me.  When relying on the gear to enable me to do a better job of fulfilling my obsession, this is critical.
 
I started out saying that there are no *rights* or *wrongs* in this business of sound, so if reality doesn't float your boat, that's ok, because ultimately, it's about what you like to listen to and not what others think.  The LCD-2's will float the boat for many, but not all.  It depends upon where your reference point is, and what your goals are.

 

[Icarium]

Thanks Frank ;p I wish I could claim my ears are great, but they are certainly no Filburt's ears or the ears of anyone trained. I wish I could hear to 20khz still.
 
Really the LCD-2 is a great phone. It may be a top tier phone, but no one should even try to make that claim until after a period of time to see if the new toy syndrome does wear off. Sometimes it doesn't and it defeats all comers and that's when it's great.
 
I think it has the potential to be but we'll see in a few months after I've shot it out again my other phones. Sadly my life only allows me to listen to my home rig 1-2x a week so it takes time to do that. For now my time is dedicated to it and getting to know it. Maybe starting next week we can put some of the others back into play to see how it does.
 
Sachu we disagree on a lot of things so that's fine and we both know that we like very different things when it comes to sound, gear and music though there is some overlap at times. Yes the AD2k/k1k/qualias are faster headphones by a good notch or perhaps two. The Beyer T1 was too I think.. but I have to hear it another few times to really say for sure. Yes the HD800s are faster than almost every other dynamic headphone besides the ones listed and a few other random headphones, but if I classify the 4 others as fast then the hd800s to me are not fast.
 
I don't doubt that the hd800s can have a cohesive image with the right rig, but that's the thing though. Quality, to me, in a piece of gear is defined by versatility. I would much rather have a source, amp and headphone where when mixed in any match up it performs great but in different ways. That is more valuable to me than 3 pieces of extremely picky gear (Expensive or inexpensive) that when put together sound better than any rig out there but with any other change in the rig it sounds like crap.
 
I love my w5000s with the dynahi and it exceeds the ad2ks with that amp, but I would never claim the w5ks are a better headphone because with any other amp the ad2ks slaughters it.
 
Also I know that over time even the "best" is going to grow old for me and then I will want different. With how I structure my gear now I can throw together any combination of headphones/amp/source and I get a different experience but of equal quality. Maybe the bass is better but at the sacrifice of a bit of detail/soundstage. Maybe the sound is clearer and the soundstage is more expansive but at the cost of less bass and bit of thinness to the mids. I am sure I can optimize a rig to be conclusively better but at this point in time besides a few unobtanium items and diy projects I've reached a point where there is nothing out there that I want and I've tried and owned almost everything. Except maybe a T1 but only because it's closed and so I could use it at work, but I'm waiting until the used market is better. Maybe R10s again just because it sounds that good with the Balancing Act, but probably not.
 
Oh yeah there are some traits that I never really budge on and that's mostly related to speed. I value speed above all else. Can this rig render mathrock drums with the precision that they deserve? Yes? Sold. Details and imaging are up there as well. And then musicality and tone. Will I sacrifice in every other area for speed? Probably not, but luckily I have yet to find a headphone that is that way so I don't need to make that choice. Speed also is critical to tightness of sound, decay, detail, clarity and all sorts of other things that I seem to care about. I don't think you can really have transparency without speed because if there is any sort of perceived latency then... how can you consider something to be transparent? I listen to slow music too and I don't see how slowness adds transparency there. Speed may not either, but it certainly won't take away. You can't really design a piece of gear to "inject" excess speed.. like can you make transient response faster than what's really there? I don't think so, but correct me if I'm wrong. You can probably cut out decay to simulate speed, but eh i dont think anyone would really find that worthwhile. Definitely not me.
 
So K1K versus LCD-2s? Completely different ends of the spectrum. On most rigs the K1K is not as full and cohesive as the LCD-2s (There are some amps like foo_me's Zanden that bring the two closer). Some of this is a tradeoff because the LCD-2s are exceedingly smaller soundstage wise in comparison so I'm pretty sure it just seems more punchy/cohesive due to that.
 
Bass? No contest the LCD-2s will slaughter no matter what rig is feeding either. The K1k bass roll off is well documented so no need to really elaborate on that. Even mid bass though the LCD-2s are just... almost without peer (Omegas 1s/2s with the right amp though could go either way).
 
Mids? Probably the k1k 6 out of 10 rigs. It's close though and time may change my opinion on this one.
 
Highs? No contest.. k1ks for sure.
 
Detail? Tough to say. The LCD-2s might still have a bit of softness in mid detail but its already night and day from the LCD-1 days and detail is simply a strength of the k1000s so I'd probably give the edge to it. Outside of mid detail though its about even or the LCD-2s win, but this is probably largely dependent on the rest of the rigs.
 
Speed? Ooh... K1ks are underratedly fast, but LCD-2s have the pretty clear edge on this. Rig might change this a bit, but I don't think enough to really cast any sort of real doubt.
 
Tone? Well tone for the k1ks is so dependent on the rig. 8/10 rigs if you built 10 rigs around each that aren't insane (Super underpowered for the k1k or high impedance OTL for the LCD-2s or electrostatic for either laf)... I'd say the LCD-2s probably have it. There are several 300B Set amps though that will give the k1k the edge.. though I'm sure there are better amps then what I own for the LCD-2s as well. The dynafet... various diy tube amps like the expressivo, and if various design gods designed something just for it.
 
Texture? K1ks probably. There is some missing resonance which may be a trade off for the insane speed of the LCD-2s (Stuff decays too fast for it to resonate) that gives this to the k1k.
 
Imaging? I'd probably give this to the LCD-2. It can be close with the right rig but most rigs I think the LCD-2 is going to win.
 
Soundstage? K1ks no doubt. It has one of the widest soundstages out there on par with the R10 and HE90 with the Qualias not far behind. The LCD-2s are wider than one thinks though but its tough to say for sure until you hear a peripheral sound.
 
Let me illustrate how I look at imaging and soundstage:
 
this is stuff like the k1k, qualias and sennheiser dynamic headphones in general
 
I'm using | for far off sounds and \ for center stage-ish sounds.
 
K1k
|          \                          center                     /          |
 
 
LCD-2s and w5ks
        |                       \     center     /                      |
 
 
Something like this if I actually had center centered.
 
So as you can see while the K1Ks actually have a larger soundstage I would say the LCD-2s are better at imaging because there's greater range between peripheral sounds and center sounds. And a majority of sounds are closer to the center so when you hear that 95 percent of the time a headphone will sound more claustrophobic than it really is, but if you listen to music with peripheral sounds (Electronica especially or anything that samples) then you get a real sense of how wide the soundstage is and can be. I mean I have no idea what's real or what the engineer intended... maybe in reality the k1k soundstage/imaging is accurate and the LCD-2 w5k is inaccurate, but it does make sense to me that in most set ups things will cluster pretty close to stage center... so based on that I consider LCD-2s/w5ks to be more accurate in imaging.
 
So that's my take on the two headphones. That's based on 2 hrs of time spent with the LCD-2s and 0 time in the last 3 months spent with the K1Ks. I absolutely don't guarantee that I won't pull a 180 on any of my opinions/stances when I do get more familiar with the LCD-2s and reacquainted with the k1ks and start shooting them out. But really that should not be a surprise to anyone. Impermanence is kind of how it goes with regards to auditory memory and anyone that claims otherwise or reps some definitivity with any of their opinions I am generally skeptical of. There are exceptions though... again as always.