[khaos974]

 
 
 
i didn't know that breed existed, cool! rataplan is a word meaning "drumming or beating sound" it's a handle i adopted for my half-assed music efforts: http://www.purevolume.com/rataplan

Actually, it's a dog from a Belgian comic, Rantanplan, that is tranlated into Rataplan in some languages, I though it may refer to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rantanplan

 

[MacedonianHero]

FR graphs are not reliable for anything over about 10kHz because of standing wave cancellation that takes place in all of the artificial ear couplers used in measurement.  The best couplers are modeled to have the same acoustic character as a human ear canal, including reflections and standing waves.
 
 

Good point Kevin...but still, both FR graphs look pretty darn similar.

 

[johnwmclean]

Quote:

Nah. If he is after that bone-moving bass impact people get used to at clubs and such, then he is right, the LCD2-s don't resemble that at all. Other phones can do much better job at producing a sound similar to that. 
 

 
Quote:

3. Quite possibly, or you aren't listening to the same music as I am with the same expectations.
 
 

Agreed! Not enough is suggested as to personal tastes and expectations from equipment. The basis of my comments in regards to point 3 are for a natural acoustic bass as a benchmark, for example The Ray Brown Trio, Live At The Loa is a terrific example and a great aural massage from the LCD-2 from my experience in terms of bass. Club music, I don’t listen to it, ever, unless forced to at gunpoint, then maybe.
 

 

[rataplan]

 
Quote:

Actually, it's a dog from a Belgian comic, Rantanplan, that is tranlated into Rataplan in some languages, I though it may refer to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rantanplan

funny because I found this in my research: http://www.working-dog.de/dogs_details.php?id=2279&new_lan_en
 
ok, that's enough about dog breeds, these headphones are SICK!
 

 

[goofyvic]

Five pages of posts in about 9 hours! This thread is difficult to keep up.

 

[googleli]

If the curve of the LCD2 is as the sheet states and everyone just uses the graph to deny a statement is made that it is less than perfect, there is really no room for discussion. But why am I listening to so much more details with the SR009 and the Stax sounds so much more transparent than the LCD2?  Are there any other objective factors which may not be taken into account in the almighty graphs? And judging from some of the discussions above, I don't think the graphs explain very well the difference between how the Rev 1 and Rev 2 sound. I love the LCD2 but I don't think all owners of LCD2s are obliged to worship the LCD2 like some of you guys do.

 

[Alghazanth]

 
Quote:

If the curve of the LCD2 is as the sheet states and everyone just flanks it whenever a statement is made that it is less than perfect, there is really no room for discussion. But why am I listening so much more details with the SR009 and the Stax sounds so much more transparent than the LCD2?  Are there any other objective factors which may not be taken into account in the almighty graphs? And judging from some of the discussions above, I don't think the graphs explain very well the difference between how the Rev 1 and Rev 2 sound?
 

Probably because the SR-009 isn't an LCD-2.
 
I honestly have no idea why you find the LCD-2's bass depth lacking, I don't know anyone else that does.

 

[Windsor]

Quote:

If the curve of the LCD2 is as the sheet states and everyone just flanks it whenever a statement is made that it is less than perfect, there is really no room for discussion. But why am I listening so much more details with the SR009 and the Stax sounds so much more transparent than the LCD2?  Are there any other objective factors which may not be taken into account in the almighty graphs? And judging from some of the discussions above, I don't think the graphs explain very well the difference between how the Rev 1 and Rev 2 sound?
 

 
Though the LCD-2 rev1 and rev2 have almost identical frequency response charts, the new drivers change the character of the LCD-2 in a way that the graphs may not reflect i.e. they may not reflect the materials and type of the driver, which could affect the timbre and tone of the sound the headphone creates. 
 
There are good and bad things about everything in life let alone every headphone, and it's OK if the LCD-2 doesn't sound right to you.
 
I wish you health to enjoy the headphones you have, that you find headphones you enjoy, and that you enjoy the process of your life.
 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

If the curve of the LCD2 is as the sheet states and everyone just flanks it whenever a statement is made that it is less than perfect, there is really no room for discussion. But why am I listening so much more details with the SR009 and the Stax sounds so much more transparent than the LCD2?  Are there any other objective factors which may not be taken into account in the almighty graphs? And judging from some of the discussions above, I don't think the graphs explain very well the difference between how the Rev 1 and Rev 2 sound?

We've been discussing the frequency response, which is pretty well understood. If graphs (not just one, but many made by third parties) say there's deep bass, there's deep bass. There's really nothing to discuss. It's fact. A graph can't lie, and it's can't mishear. There could be variations from placement, but I haven't noticed big differences between positions on my ear, and those variations would be covered by the multiple measurements that have been taken. Tyll alone has measured three different LCD-2s. All of our LCD-2s come with graphs, which all look remarkably similar in the bass. There is sub-bass. This is not just my opinion.
 
The speed of the drivers is what creates real detail. Faster drivers separate out notes more easily, so more information can be relayed in a passage of music. Electrostatic drivers excel at speed, but are very light and push little air so they typically lack impact. Stax accommodated for that with the SR-007 and beyond. From what I've read, the SR-009 also has a tipped up treble, which increases perceived detail. The treble is where the speed of a headphone will have the most perceived effect because notes are fastest on cymbals and the like. So a tipped up treble makes this more noticeable. It's the reason why almost every high-end headphone is bright. Either they're making up for lack of driver speed and real detail with perceived detail from treble, or they're trying to make their speed seem more impressive.
 
Of course, you claiming you hear more detail from the SR-009 means nothing because it could be a placebo effect. It probably isn't in this case, because Stax are crazy fast.
 
Also, we don't really know what's being taken into account by the almighty graphs if you don't post some of the SR-009 now will we? 

 

Quote:

 
Though the LCD-2 rev1 and rev2 have almost identical frequency response charts, the new drivers change the character of the LCD-2 in a way that the graphs may not reflect i.e. they may not reflect the materials and type of the driver, which could affect the timbre and tone of the sound the headphone creates. That, and other factors*, can contribute to the enjoyment of a headphone.

 
"Tone" and "Timbre" would both be derived from the frequency response, in addition to decay and square wave response probably. Square wave is similar enough to be a non-issue as well. Maybe impulse response? LCD-2 has slightly less ringing, which is a good thing. Not that people don't like colorations. Have you ever seem the DT48 impulse response? It's pretty hilarious, but I think it may have been taken down from Inner Fidelity. Some people claim that headphone sounds just like real life, which I would NOT expect from the frequency response. And some people can't stand it. That's coloration I suppose.
 
I don't even know if the two measurements I posted are Rev. 1 and Rev. 2. I would think from the impulse response and impedance that they are. If they are, I think it shows that the differences between the two revisions are far, far smaller than everyone's claiming. There's no real lost warmth, and really not much change in the treble except for the reduction of a peak (perhaps more extension, but the graphs fail there). There are differences certainly, but blown out of proportion by placebo. Rev. 2 lovers took Audeze's word that they're an improvement a bit too far, and Rev. 1 lovers are perhaps being influenced by nolstagia. There's no doubt they sound spectacularly different to some ears, but there's not much difference objectively.
 
Not to bring too much science talk into this thread. Summit-fi is the worst place for that, besides the Cables section 

​

 

[Alghazanth]

 
Quote:

 
Though the LCD-2 rev1 and rev2 have almost identical frequency response charts, the new drivers change the character of the LCD-2 in a way that the graphs may not reflect i.e. they may not reflect the materials and type of the driver, which could affect the timbre and tone of the sound the headphone creates. That, and other factors*, can contribute to the enjoyment of a headphone.
 
There are good and bad things about everything in life let alone every headphone, and it's OK if the LCD-2 doesn't sound right to you.
 
I wish you health to enjoy the headphones you have, that you find headphones you enjoy, and that you enjoy the process of your life.

Well said.
 
 

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

FR graphs are not reliable for anything over about 10kHz because of standing wave cancellation that takes place in all of the artificial ear couplers used in measurement.  The best couplers are modeled to have the same acoustic character as a human ear canal, including reflections and standing waves.

Does Tyll, or Headroom for that matter, use these types of couplers for their measurements?

 

[googleli]

With the SR009 and the Esoteric K-01, the problem is finding the right software. Any slightest grainiess, be it created during the process of recording to the master tape, or during the process of converting the master to the CD format, is blatantly exposed at the brute force of the Esoteric K-01 and Stax SR-009. Although the LCD2 is no match to the Stax in transparency, details and speed (not even close) sometimes I appreciate its forgiving nature and I like listening to some cheap Canto pop recordings through the LCD2 more than through the Esoteric -> Stax combo.
 
 

 

[googleli]

Thanks Windsor, very well said. The LCD2 sounds right to me, it is just my personal preference that I would like its lower bass to be a bit louder. I apologize for saying that it has no bass extension, which is wrong according to the graphs.
 
Quote:

 
Though the LCD-2 rev1 and rev2 have almost identical frequency response charts, the new drivers change the character of the LCD-2 in a way that the graphs may not reflect i.e. they may not reflect the materials and type of the driver, which could affect the timbre and tone of the sound the headphone creates. 
 
There are good and bad things about everything in life let alone every headphone, and it's OK if the LCD-2 doesn't sound right to you.
 
I wish you health to enjoy the headphones you have, that you find headphones you enjoy, and that you enjoy the process of your life.
 

 

 

[Windsor]

Quote:

Thanks Windsor, very well said. The LCD2 sounds right to me, it is just my personal preference that I would like its lower bass to be a bit louder. I apologize for saying that it has no bass extension, which is wrong according to the graphs.

 
If you want the lower bass of the LCD-2 to be louder, applying EQ is probably the simplest way to achieve that. 
Thanks.

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

 
If you want the lower bass of the LCD-2 to be louder, applying EQ is probably the simplest way to achieve that. 
Thanks.

EQ is a tricky dawg.