[Kurt]

Quote:

... it seems like I listen from backstage or behind a wall.

So, after the Sennheiser veil now the Audeze wall? 

 

[oqvist]

Quote:

So, after the Sennheiser veil now the Audeze wall? 

I have no such thing. It´s forgiving like the HD 650 and can also be perceived a bit slow but it´s much clearer and no curtain like the HD 650 with my setup.

 

[FauDrei]

So, after the Sennheiser veil now the Audeze wall? 

Really do not know how to explain better what I'm hearing than "behind the wall"... but a caveat should be issued here: I am coming from HE-5.
 
Will try to give equal listening time to both phones to minimize possible "mental burn-in" preferences in further assessments.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

I have no such thing. It´s forgiving like the HD 650 and can also be perceived a bit slow but it´s much clearer and no curtain like the HD 650 with my setup.

Slow? 

  Best square wave response in the industry.  Slow?  I think maybe there must be a better word to describe what you're hearing.

 

[sokolov91]

The sound was quite dense for me at first, but I found it was because my ears were not used to everything being reproduced so evenly, and so purely, that it made it sound congested, congested with details and macro that I have never heard before, or quite like that.
 
I don't find the audeze slow at all... if anything they are too quick. Listen to some Post-Hardcore with lots of ambient distorted guitars and random sounds that mesh together to form literally a wall of sound (you don't have to like it) and you will be amazed how cleanly the LCD-2 reproduces every last reverberated note in perfect harmony. 
 
They do sound "wholesome" (whatever that means, right?) and are tonally supremely correct, much like my HD 600 that I had, but they are nowhere near as diffuse and fuzzy in the imaging and soundstage. The HD 600 lost a fair bit of macro detail and fine detail due to this. The bass is also untouched, especially vs the HD 600.
 
Time has proven to me at least that these are by far worth the investment, and every bit people made them out to be (yes, even the sometimes eccentric kwkarth). I hope you will grow to find the same oqvist.
 
Remember how you said the SA5K had a FR response that maximized, or made it seem like they were supremely detailed? Well the LCD-2, to me are the exact opposite. They are as flat as headphones get, and also the most detailed, so it is no trickery of any sort.

 

[Roger Strummer]

Quote:

Slow? 

  Best square wave response in the industry.  Slow?  I think maybe there must be a better word to describe what you're hearing.

Technically there is practically no way to say they are slow. But they might be perceived "slow" due to the phenomena that people sometimes mistake accentuated treble with agility of the driver.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

.... "behind the wall"...
 

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
.... "a wall of sound" .........

 
 Pink Floyd meets Phil Spector or David Peel and the Lower East Side...........

 

[TigzStudio]

I personally don't get the behind the wall thing at all while listening to my LCD-2's.  Try boosting your bias on the Roc Fau?

 

[tonereef]

For anyone who's familiar with the HD 600 - they sound really quite a lot brighter than the LCD-2. If you think they reproduce, say, cymbal crashes at the right volume the Audeze will definitely sound "dark".  There's no doubt the Audeze represent the highs with much greater purity, but I'm not convinced that there's quite enough of them there (at least to my ears). I hope to have something more specific to say about this soon. But as far as the overall presentation goes, you just can't compare the Audeze to the 600 - the latter sound so much less like real music in almost every way (timbres, resolution, soundstaging).
 
Quote:

 
They do sound "wholesome" (whatever that means, right?) and are tonally supremely correct, much like my HD 600 that I had, but they are nowhere near as diffuse and fuzzy in the imaging and soundstage. The HD 600 lost a fair bit of macro detail and fine detail due to this. The bass is also untouched, especially vs the HD 600.
 

 

[oqvist]

Quote:

Slow? 

  Best square wave response in the industry.  Slow?  I think maybe there must be a better word to describe what you're hearing.

No it´s a perfect word since they are as mentioned "perceived" slow... Probably due to the some what muted treble and superior sub bass.Combined with not much of an attack or "PRaT". Always buttery soft and smooooth so it´s not necessarily a negative. If I want to dance, air drum or rock out hard I have better headphones. Otherwise I certainly have no better headphones

 

[FauDrei]

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 

.... "behind the wall"...

 
Originally Posted by sokolov91 

 
.... "a wall of sound" .........

 
Pink Floyd meets Phil Spector...

Ha, nicely spotted analogy. Let's see if my LCD-2 journey ends "Outside the Wall" as the album does.
 

I personally don't get the behind the wall thing at all while listening to my LCD-2's.  Try boosting your bias on the Roc Fau?

I have been tinkering with bias... somewhat. Much to my surprise LCD-2 seem to flourish on Roc bias voltages lower than 12-12,5V which are HE-5 optimal ones in my rig. I somehow expected, LCD-2 having higher impedance and sensitivity, that slightly higher bias would be LCD-2 optimum: something in 13-15V ballpark... so far it seems it isn't so - I am down to 11,25V at the moment... and it seems those can suck even more...
 
...but when Shpongle hits it - my scull is resonating.

 
(note: my Roc has been modified to let more current to the amps; while stock Roc gives cca. 1,5W@50Ω, mine goes to cca. 3,5W@50Ω)

 

[FauDrei]

For anyone who's familiar with the HD 600 - they sound really quite a lot brighter than the LCD-2. If you think they reproduce, say, cymbal crashes at the right volume the Audeze will definitely sound "dark".  There's no doubt the Audeze represent the highs with much greater purity, but I'm not convinced that there's quite enough of them there (at least to my ears).

Similar experience here: Take Strauss' Tritsch-Tratsch-Polka or Radetzky-Marsch (not that I like those that much, but good example) - crash cymbals and triangles are "mutilated" in relative comparison with other instruments on the same recordings.

No it´s a perfect word since they are as mentioned "perceived" slow... Probably due to the some what muted treble and superior sub bass.Combined with not much of an attack or "PRaT". Always buttery soft and smooooth so it´s not necessarily a negative. If I want to dance, air drum or rock out hard I have better headphones. Otherwise I certainly have no better headphones

I strongly differ on LCD-2 PRaT assessment here. I do not know dance, but drums and rock - O YEAH!!!
 
I had very loud goosebump experience listening to some not so wideband Zeppelin and AC/DC recordings yesterday. Those LCDs kick as a mule!

 

[oqvist]

Thanks will try that. Tried some Tristania, Rammstein and such. It didn´t ignite me but extremely pleasant nonetheless. If I would go into a torture chamber having to listen to one headpone 24/7 it would probably be this

 

[TigzStudio]

Quote:

 
 
(note: my Roc has been modified to let more current to the amps; while stock Roc gives cca. 1,5W@50Ω, mine goes to cca. 3,5W@50Ω)

 
 
Interesting about the low volts, and your mod probably accounts for the different results I get on my Roc....love 13.24v.  

Do you still have the link do doing this modification?

 

[HDMan]

The midrange on my D7000 are a bit weak (flimsy? vibration) at high volumes, you know what I mean, lol. How does the LCD-2 handle some serious volume