[googleli]

Kudos to Jude. His comments are concise, but creamy. Yes, creamy.

 

[Yoga]

Back from holiday - R2's here. Some quick feedback straight off the bat...
 
- The creaminess is still there, albeit slightly reduced.
- I'm enjoying the increased accuracy of the treble. It's not brighter.
- Bass is indeed a bit tighter. Not lighter, but cleaner.
- Mids are still delicious, but not as forward as the R1s.
- They feel more tonally balanced (to me).
- Soundstage, as WA aptly described it, is smoother at the edges, more open.
- They are slightly quieter than the R1's
 
So, nothing new, just another confirmation of the previous feedback.
 
Second report after 200 hours :¬)

 

[BrainFood]

Quote:

Back from holiday - R2's here. Some quick feedback straight off the bat...
 
- The creaminess is still there, albeit slightly reduced.
- I'm enjoying the increased accuracy of the treble. It's not brighter.
- Bass is indeed a bit tighter. Not lighter, but cleaner.
- Mids are still delicious, but not as forward as the R1s.
- They feel more tonally balanced (to me).
- Soundstage, as WA aptly described it, is smoother at the edges, more open.
- They are slightly quieter than the R1's
 
So, nothing new, just another confirmation of the previous feedback.
 
Second report after 200 hours :¬)

Must say, it's taken over 200 hours of burn in for me to start to really like them.  Straight off the bat, they sounded grainy and and the bass and sound staging somehow unconvincing (and quite frankly disappointing).  Listened again yesterday and so very much better.  It's possible that a lot of the burning in with white noise was done with the volume a bit low.  
 
Yesterday, had them burning a bit louder than my normal volume, to a killer Dennis Bovell dub track, and that seems to have woken them right up!  

 

[sphinxvc]

Quote:

- Soundstage, as WA aptly described it, is smoother at the edges, more open.

 
Any HE-6 + Rev. 2 owners here?  If so, is the Rev. 2's "more open" stage about as open as the HE-6?  Or still closed in comparison (as the Rev. 1 was)?  

 

[Loevhagen]

Impressive graph from the LCD-2, and here's compared to two HiFiMANs. Added DT770 just for fun...
 

 
Quote:

In case anyone is interested, Headroom just posted their LCD-2 (rev. 2) measurements. I know we all have seen them, but now we can overlay them on top of other headphones. How's this for a contrast:

 

 

 

[grokit]

It's too bad they don't have the rev.1 for comparison as well.
 
Here's a couple more:
 

 
Then I took out the T1 and threw in the Ed8, which really strays on the low end:
 

 

[pixelgrunt]

Hello again, I'm the newbie who played hooky waiting for my HA-160D yesterday. I went for a long bike ride in the morning and the parcel was waiting for me on the porch when I returned(!). I immediately took it in and connected it to my iMac via USB (lossless only tyvm) and my r.2 LCD-2s. I knew I should have taken a shower first (3 hour bike ride in 80˚ temperatures). I knew I should have given it some burn-in time. I gave into the temptation and put them on my head anyway. I listened to some Stevie Ray Vaughan, Johnny Cash, Primus, Radiohead, Tool, Tori Amos, Massive Attack- I couldn't stop. The transparency and separation gave me chills (still does).
 
These are amazing. Granted, it's my first high-end pair of headphones, but they are stunning. It's a cliché, but I'm hearing parts of songs that I've never heard before. Instruments have real depth. The subtle ambience sounds that artists include in their studio tracks impart a substantial depth to the music now. And live stuff? Pfft- I feel like I was there for the recording at the best seat in the house.
 
I'm glad to be a part of your club now.

 

[Yoga]

Quote:

Must say, it's taken over 200 hours of burn in for me to start to really like them.  Straight off the bat, they sounded grainy and and the bass and sound staging somehow unconvincing (and quite frankly disappointing).  Listened again yesterday and so very much better.  It's possible that a lot of the burning in with white noise was done with the volume a bit low.  
 
Yesterday, had them burning a bit louder than my normal volume, to a killer Dennis Bovell dub track, and that seems to have woken them right up!  

I'll be burning in with white noise also, didn't expect a louder volume to make a difference, but, worth a pop, thanks.
 
Quote:

Hello again, I'm the newbie who played hooky waiting for my HA-160D yesterday. I went for a long bike ride in the morning and the parcel was waiting for me on the porch when I returned(!). I immediately took it in and connected it to my iMac via USB (lossless only tyvm) and my r.2 LCD-2s. I knew I should have taken a shower first (3 hour bike ride in 80˚ temperatures). I knew I should have given it some burn-in time. I gave into the temptation and put them on my head anyway. I listened to some Stevie Ray Vaughan, Johnny Cash, Primus, Radiohead, Tool, Tori Amos, Massive Attack- I couldn't stop. The transparency and separation gave me chills (still does).
 
These are amazing. Granted, it's my first high-end pair of headphones, but they are stunning. It's a cliché, but I'm hearing parts of songs that I've never heard before. Instruments have real depth. The subtle ambience sounds that artists include in their studio tracks impart a substantial depth to the music now. And live stuff? Pfft- I feel like I was there for the recording at the best seat in the house.
 
I'm glad to be a part of your club now.

 
The 160D needs a good 200 hours burn in also. Fantastic combo you have there ;¬)
 
Enjoying Tin Pan Alley as we speak - mesmerising.

 

[googleli]

If you use white noise to burn in give it some rest from time to time, white noise at high volume played non stop may damage drivers.

 

[khaos974]

If you use white noise to burn in give it some rest from time to time, white noise at high volume played non stop may damage drivers.

Or even better, don't use white noise to burn in, use pink noise.
White noise can potentially damage your drivers.

 

[sokolov91]

The other measurements on headphone.com of the Rev 2 are very impressive.
 
Between the HE-6, HD 800 and LCD-2, the LCD-2 has the best square wave plots and was almost as good as the HD 800 in terms of distortion.
 
Would be nice like others said to have Rev-1 measurements on the site for perspective/comparison.

 

[Loevhagen]

WA: What headphones did you use during mixing / your career? 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

The other measurements on headphone.com of the Rev 2 are very impressive.
 
Between the HE-6, HD 800 and LCD-2, the LCD-2 has the best square wave plots and was almost as good as the HD 800 in terms of distortion.
 
Would be nice like others said to have Rev-1 measurements on the site for perspective/comparison.

Careful with the harmonic distortion graph. They only go from 300Hz to 3kHz. I don't know how Tyll did the distortion graphs on Inner Fidelity, but frequencies from 20Hz to 7kHz are shown (THD and noise together though). His graphs show the LCD-2 is quite a bit better than the HD800. Maybe they have similar harmonic distortion and the LCD-2 has less noise?
 
Tyll also has Revision 1 measurements up, both an early version and one of the newest with the new pads but old drivers. The difference between the old and new Rev.1 is considerably larger than new Rev.1 and Rev.2. So much so that I think perhaps it was an error. Bad LCD-2, poor placement on the dummy head, something. Or, perhaps the pads have a bigger impact that you'd think.
 
On the other hand, the measured differences between new Rev.1 and Rev.2 are so similar you might as well call it the same headphone and toss it up to product variation. The only reason I think they're of different headphones (and not two Rev.2 for example) is the big difference in impedance (49 for new Rev.1 and 58 for Rev.2, compared to 47 for old Rev.1).

 

[SemiAudiophile]

Rev1 on left, Rev2 on right.
 
I recovered my original LCD-2 cable (not the ADZ5). I find that the new ribbon cable sounds noticeably better than the original. Everything sounds comparatively loose, blurry, and with sort of a glare on the original cable vs. the ribbon cable, which I find to sound very good with nice tight bass and it presents a clearer picture. I don't find any faults on the ribbon cable, in fact I think it sounds better than my custom aftermarket cable. 
 
I think I understand when people say the Rev1 is creamier, I could sense that creaminess in the mids when I had the Rev1's back on. It looked just like those pictures. Mids more intimate, dense, a touch more seductive. I can see why some people might prefer the Rev1. For now I think I'm still leaning towards the Rev2. We'll have to wait and see. 

 

[Olias of Sunhillow]

My LCD-2 r.2 arrived today! Made "finally Friday" at work all that much sweeter. Right out of the box, the comparisons I've seen here recently seem accurate -- more clarity in the top and the bottom and slightly better soundstaging, but with a touch less of the "magic in the mids" that many folks here seem to relish. Full comparative review to follow after some burn-in...