Finally, about two months after it was promised, the Innerfidelity review gets posted (links above or here:
https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/audeze-lcd2-classic-open-over-ear-planar-magnetic-headphones). And after all that, the ONE question I was most wanting it to answer - how the LCD-2C compares to the current LCD-2F - is the one thing it spectacularly fails to do!
That said, the review provides plenty of in-depth information and very accurate measurements, so I decided to try figure out for myself how these two headphones compare (subjectively and objectively) without actually getting to hear the 2C myself (they're not available in my country and shipping/taxes currently make importing them prohibitive). Added to that the fact that neither here or over on the "other" forum has anyone done a side-by-side comparison between the two, I hope that this summary at least starts to provide some clarity for those of us still on the fence on which LCD-2 variant to choose, given that now they're almost at price parity if you include the accessories (which Tyll goes to some lengths to mention).
I'm not by any means an expert when it comes to graphs and charts, but I know my way around Photoshop, so came up with a more-or-less representative view of the LCD-2C FR graph from the IF review, and one of the only graphs of the 2016 LCD-2F I could find (courtesy of DIY Audio Heaven). If my using these graphs breaks any forum rules, I apologise in advance. I don't claim any of these as my own, and they are completely proprietary to the original posters. Still, I thought it useful to show them here so others more knowledgable than me can come in and comment directly on what they see in the graphs, and how it tallies with what they hear from their own headphones.
Forgive me if I'm reading these completely wrong, and indeed the vertical scales seem to be different (if anyone can tell me the difference between the -dB and +dB measurements shown here, I'm all ears), but to my eyes these graphs are far more similar than different. Anecdotally, I've been saying for a while that descriptions of the sound of the 2C by users on this thread are suspiciously similar to what I'm hearing from my 2016 aluminium LCD-2F. If anything, Tyll's own descriptions of the 2C sound are like an echo of how I'd describe mine. For example, he writes "midrange balance is spot on until it begins a long roll-off starting at 1kHz. This tends to make the fundamental of vocals and instruments a bit more prominent than the overtones, which can make them sound a bit shouty at times." That's almost on point how I'd describe the mids of the 2016 2F. I've intermittently used the words "shouty", "glary" and "ringing" to describe a subtle characteristic of some higher-register (upper mid/lower treble) female vocals and instruments, and Tyll seems to find the same characteristic prevalent in the 2C. In fact, in some discussions with the very knowledgable
@givemetacos, he describes a similar character in the 2016 2F's he used to own, and 2Cs he owns now, saying the 2C improves slightly on the 2F in this regard but it's hardly night and day. That seems to be supported by the graphs.
Another interesting characteristic Tyll finds in the 2C is the livelier - albeit grainy, to his ears - treble region. He writes: "Coupled with the slightly grainy sound and strong dynamics, I find them just a tad more aggressive than I like." When I first bought my LCD-2F, I expected it to follow a similar sound to the LCD-2 family, but with a bit more energy in the highs and more control in the lows from the Fazors. I did find more energy in the highs than I expected (I remember thinking on first listen "why are these so clear and not dark?"), but the more I listened and the more I read, the more I believe this change is more due to the new driver material in the 2016 revision (designed to make them stronger, more consistent and less prone to failure) than the actual fazors. From what I understand, the drivers in the 2C are similar if not identical to those in the 2016 2F, so it makes sense that the sound signatures of the two headphones would likewise be similar. If anything, the lack of fazors in the 2C has more effect on the mids than the treble or bass, which follows on from what Audeze support emailed me a while back when I asked about what differences in sound will be: (and I quote) "The LCD-2C does not have Fazors, which means you will hear a bit of a difference in the midrange. Essentially, it should recapture some of that classic pre-Fazor LCD-2 sound while still retaining all of the benefits that came from our 2016 driver revisions. You should not notice any significant differences in the bass or high frequencies."
Which brings me back to the point I've been making (and suspecting) for some time: the LCD-2C is essentially a fazorless 2016 LCD-2F, giving it a slightly different midrange presentation, but otherwise presenting a very similar sound signature much closer to the latest fazored model than the older fazorless LCD-2. Both are very different to the various pre-2016 fazor revisions that are both praised and criticised in equal measure (seemingly due to their inconsistency of sound and failure rates, both of which, touch wood, have been addressed by the latest fazor and now the 2C). Interestingly, I've seen very few comment on the LCD-2C as having "recaptured the original fazorless sound". The fact that Tyll ends the review by suggesting that: "The LCD2 Classic will make the Wall of Fame as a more snappy alternative to the romantic and warm sound of the MrSpeakers Aeon Flow Open," had me going 'what, I thought the LCD-2C was meant to recapture the "romantic and warm" sound of the original', but again, based on the descriptions from LCD-2C users here and elsewhere, my own experience with the new fazors, and now the graph comparisons, I'd say the LCD-2C is still a warm of neutral headphone, possibly slightly warmer in the mids than the 2F, but both being far closer to neutral than the original LCD-2. If that's what some here meant when they said the fazors lost some of the lush sound of the originals, I'm surprised the same isn't being said of the new Classics.
Oh, and speaking of the "warm sound" of the Aeon Flow Open, I guess by that Tyll refers to the greater treble roll off and slightly emphasised mid-bass. Which makes the Aeon sound suspiciously close to the sound signature of my Atticus, and - as he notes - different but complementary to the more sub-bass focused, warm-to-neutral sound of the LCD-2C. And suspiciously close to what I've been saying about the love affair I've developed with the complementary sound of the two headphones I happen to own and use every day - bought without first hearing either may I add, on the strength of information and experience garnered from the great community on this forum. Hopefully the above wasn't TL;DR and added some useful insight to the conversation. And just in case, I also made a graphic comparing the FR of the LCD-2C, Aeon Flow Open and ZMF Atticus based on Tyll's expert measurements (see below). Feel free to add comments one what you see.
