I got mine only yesterday so this is very preliminary - the phones only have 6-8 hours on them. But I've been mostly listening to classical. My reference for the last several years has been the O2, with a custom-built tube amp based on the Stax T1 (but quite a bit more open-sounding). For the Audeze I've been listening on a custom built ss amp which drives them very well - plenty loud enough is around 10 o'clock (heck, even my Sony XA777ES headphone jack sounds pretty decent, though with much less gain available). I also now have a custom cable for them too, actually an extra Stax O2 Mk1 cable that got damaged and had to be replaced. It's a PC-OCC cable I think, although maybe not the same as the current Mk2 cable - now with Swtichcraft TA4Fs and gold-plated phone plug.
Anyway, based on a very cursory comparison and just a few hours of listening to the Audeze, it's obvious that these two phones offer quite different, and I would say complementary, windows onto music. The Audeze can be absolutely thrilling - it's a tightly controlled, dynamic, richly detailed, very present sound - a red-blooded type of experience. The Stax are quite a bit more laid back, very smooth and refined-sounding - extremely seductive in fact, especially for chamber music. Part of the difference certainly is tubes vs. ss. Unfortunately I don't have any other amps for comparison. But the friend who built my amps is working on a fully-discrete ss amp which he says will blow away the one I have now. So I'll wait till then (and after more break-in) before coming to any conclusions about the ultimate merits of the Audeze. But whatever happens, I'm not parting with the O2; even though my amp may not be the absolute last word in driving them (I've never heard the Blue Hawaii), there's a wonderful synergy about that sound that for me really does emotional justice to classical music, within the limitations of electrostatic technology (e.g. dynamics are not as good), and the slightly dark balance only seems to add to that mysterious alchemy. The Audeze on the other hand are probably a better reference tool, they just seem to dig deeper and come back with more of what's there, like a faithful, eager retriever. They put more texture, detail and color on instruments, whereas the O2 somehow seem to envelop the listener in the acoustic atmosphere that the music generates (I don't necessarily mean they represent acoustic space better, but they seem to emphasize the acoustic more - this might be being helped along by the liquidity of tubes, or it might be an artifact of the O2 in general). One thing's for sure, the LCD2 are very revealing of differences upstream, and cable fine-tuning may be worthwhile (Cardas will also make some if anyone's interested). Without doubt they are the most accurate-sounding and overall enjoyable dynamic headphones I've heard. Btw for me they are not at all on the dark side of neutral.
Quote:
Anyway, based on a very cursory comparison and just a few hours of listening to the Audeze, it's obvious that these two phones offer quite different, and I would say complementary, windows onto music. The Audeze can be absolutely thrilling - it's a tightly controlled, dynamic, richly detailed, very present sound - a red-blooded type of experience. The Stax are quite a bit more laid back, very smooth and refined-sounding - extremely seductive in fact, especially for chamber music. Part of the difference certainly is tubes vs. ss. Unfortunately I don't have any other amps for comparison. But the friend who built my amps is working on a fully-discrete ss amp which he says will blow away the one I have now. So I'll wait till then (and after more break-in) before coming to any conclusions about the ultimate merits of the Audeze. But whatever happens, I'm not parting with the O2; even though my amp may not be the absolute last word in driving them (I've never heard the Blue Hawaii), there's a wonderful synergy about that sound that for me really does emotional justice to classical music, within the limitations of electrostatic technology (e.g. dynamics are not as good), and the slightly dark balance only seems to add to that mysterious alchemy. The Audeze on the other hand are probably a better reference tool, they just seem to dig deeper and come back with more of what's there, like a faithful, eager retriever. They put more texture, detail and color on instruments, whereas the O2 somehow seem to envelop the listener in the acoustic atmosphere that the music generates (I don't necessarily mean they represent acoustic space better, but they seem to emphasize the acoustic more - this might be being helped along by the liquidity of tubes, or it might be an artifact of the O2 in general). One thing's for sure, the LCD2 are very revealing of differences upstream, and cable fine-tuning may be worthwhile (Cardas will also make some if anyone's interested). Without doubt they are the most accurate-sounding and overall enjoyable dynamic headphones I've heard. Btw for me they are not at all on the dark side of neutral.
Quote:
Can anyone indulge me as to the qualities of the LCD2 with small and large scale classical? Please and Thank you!
