[visualguy]

 
Quote:

What deficiency did Audeze concede to and how is it suddenly accepted that the rev.1 left something to be desired with classical and other music? 
 

Read:
 
http://www.audeze.com/more-updates 
 
New thinner diaphragm addresses the exact issues that I raised here before as areas of weakness for the LCD-2 when compared to other high-end headphones. Those weaknesses (such as subpar detail) were particularly evident on classical and other acoustic music.
 
I don't know if rev. 2 is finally a good transducer for acoustic music (only heard the rev. 1), but there seem to be a number of posts here now (such as the one I quoted) saying that the rev. 2 is better than the rev. 1 in that respect.

 
 

 

[ianmedium]

 

Read:
 
http://www.audeze.com/more-updates 
 
New thinner diaphragm addresses the exact issues that I raised here before as areas of weakness for the LCD-2 when compared to other high-end headphones. Those weaknesses (such as subpar detail) were particularly evident on classical and other acoustic music.
 
I don't know if rev. 2 is finally a good transducer for acoustic music (only heard the rev. 1), but there seem to be a number of posts here now (such as the one I quoted) saying that the rev. 2 is better than the rev. 1 in that respect.

 
 

I really wish you would go somewhere else and grind your various axes, we know you don't like these, we know you think basically everything else out there is better. perhaps you could leave us to our delusions that we actually have different findings to you and like to discuss them.

Frankly who died and made your opinion the only valid one on the planet!

 

[KingStyles]

Personally speaking, I didnt like the rev1 lcd2 on a lot of classical. Especially piano. There wasnt enough treble energy to balance out the mids and bass. Also the narrow soundstage also didnt help with the piano since a lot of it is recorded using the full left to right stage.I really like the he500 when it comes to the piano.

 

[jude]

 
Quote:

...I don't know if rev. 2 is finally a good transducer for acoustic music (only heard the rev. 1), but there seem to be a number of posts here now (such as the one I quoted) saying that the rev. 2 is better than the rev. 1 in that respect.

I have no doubt that the LCD-2 didn't suit you, so what I'm about to say isn't intended to argue or try to change your mind.
 
But, to my ears, the LCD-2 (and I currently only have experience with the Rev 1 version, of which I bought two sets of) is absolutely outstanding for acoustic music.  Along with a couple other of my favorite headphone models, I use the LCD-2 for all types of music, and find it entirely versatile.
 
To my ears.

 

[visualguy]

 
Quote:

I really wish you would go somewhere else and grind your various axes, we know you don't like these, we know you think basically everything else out there is better. perhaps you could leave us to our delusions that we actually have different findings to you and like to discuss them.

Frankly who died and made your opinion the only valid one on the planet!

Huh? Where did this hatred come from?
 
I like the planar magnetic technology, and I think it has a lot of potential. I would like to listen to the LCD-2 rev. 2 since I think that the improvements that Audeze made according to their blog update (higher resolution and extension, greater detail, better imaging) may make the new LCD-2 more suitable for the kind of music that I listen to.
 

 

[Alghazanth]

Quote:

Personally speaking, I didnt like the rev1 lcd2 on a lot of classical. Especially piano. There wasnt enough treble energy to balance out the mids and bass. Also the narrow soundstage also didnt help with the piano since a lot of it is recorded using the full left to right stage.I really like the he500 when it comes to the piano.

Agreed, it could definitely use some more treble imo. The HE500 is incredible for piano, the first thing I noticed when I fired up some Classical.

 

[Duckman]

Hooray, the Fedex guy just walked in.

 

[WillHughes]

Quote:

Hooray, the Fedex guy just walked in.

You lucky duck

 

[jeust0999]

Pictures, please.

 

[K3cT]

Quote:

A friend just received the rev2. So I compared the rev1 withe the rev2 today.
 
Rev1 has more body in the medium, slightly more bass but a bit less controled. High medium is bit more present on the rev1. Top end end is more clear and refined with the rev2. But because of the high mid being slightly recessed, it seems a bit detached from the rest of the spectrum.
 
So in the end I prefer the rev1 (which is the one I owned). The rev2 lakes what I love with the orthos: creamy mids.
Also rev1 seems more consistent in the spectrum and rev2 sound a bit hollow for me.
 
 
 

 
Why does this sound exactly like the O2 MK1 and MK2 comparison?

 

[visualguy]

 
Quote:

I have no doubt that the LCD-2 didn't suit you, so what I'm about to say isn't intended to argue or try to change your mind.
 
But, to my ears, the LCD-2 (and I currently only have experience with the Rev 1 version, of which I bought two sets of) is absolutely outstanding for acoustic music.  Along with a couple other of my favorite headphone models, I use the LCD-2 for all types of music, and find it entirely versatile.
 
To my ears.

I believe you have listened to some of the top headphones out there, so I have to say that I'm surprised and baffled that you find the LCD-2 rev. 1 "absolutely outstanding" for acoustic music. Outstanding when compared to what?
 
Also, if Audeze claims that they improved resolution, extension, detail, and imaging in rev. 2, this means that they believe that rev. 1 was worse in those areas. If A is better than B in something, then B is worse than A in that area.
 
It seems that in the audiophilia business many pretend that this basic logic doesn't hold - not sure how that works. Just a general observation - not directed at you, Jude.
 

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

 

"Conceded the deficiency?"  Really?  I think they simply saw an opportunity--likely based on improvements in materials and/or techniques--to improve the product.
 

My thoughts exactly.
 

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

 

I believe you have listened to some of the top headphones out there, so I have to say that I'm surprised and baffled that you find the LCD-2 rev. 1 "absolutely outstanding" for acoustic music. Outstanding when compared to what?
 
Also, if Audeze claims that they improved resolution, extension, detail, and imaging in rev. 2, this means that they believe that rev. 1 was worse in those areas. If A is better than B in something, then B is worse than A in that area.
 
It seems that in the audiophilia business many pretend that this basic logic doesn't hold - not sure how that works. Just a general observation - not directed at you, Jude.
 

Just because Audeze was able to make improvements doesn't mean what came before the improvements gets tagged with the descriptive "worse". When you improve on something that is good the improvement doesn't necessarily make the what was improved upon "worse".  What was before was good and the improvements make it better. There is a difference in the strength of the definition here.  I would say the LCD r.1 is an excellent headphone and Audeze made improvements on an excellent headphone or at the very least changes to an excellent headphone but the r.1 still remains excellent. There's no worse about it.  Using the logic you've illustrated reduces the descriptive powers of language akin to a blunt instrument.  

 

[K3cT]

Quote:

 

I believe you have listened to some of the top headphones out there, so I have to say that I'm surprised and baffled that you find the LCD-2 rev. 1 "absolutely outstanding" for acoustic music. Outstanding when compared to what?
 
Also, if Audeze claims that they improved resolution, extension, detail, and imaging in rev. 2, this means that they believe that rev. 1 was worse in those areas. If A is better than B in something, then B is worse than A in that area.
 
It seems that in the audiophilia business many pretend that this basic logic doesn't hold - not sure how that works. Just a general observation - not directed at you, Jude.
 

 
You're the only person here as far as I know that claims that the LCD2 is not suitable for acoustic music or at least, the one who comes back to this thread frequently to state your opinion again and again. Therefore, the onus is on you to explain your position a little bit more.
 

 

[Feynman]

Hasn't this discussion gotten out of hand several pages ago? I mean the ppl that dislike the LCD2 to dislike them, let others enjoy them and talk about them. If you are dead set at an opinion no discussion in the world will make you change your mind! 
 
On topic. I currently working my ass of at a summer-job so I can maybe affor these phones, but there are discussion of the LCD3, or is it just that, discussion and no real info?