1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Audeze LCD-2C Classic - Impressions Thread

Discussion in 'Headphones (full-size)' started by XERO1, Oct 7, 2017.
First
 
Back
234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243
245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254
Next
 
Last
  1. marcan
    I own a LCD2C and a LCD2ev2. I tried the Sin and the sound is way better on the LCD2. More sub, better bass, better mids, better dynamic, more consistant and much more headroom. The Sins was toys for me.
     
    betula likes this.
  2. WildStyle-R11
    That is just the matter of perception and ability to handle highs. As in very personal. To me EDM just sounds good on just about anything. Well I won't argue, that it sound exceptionally good on the 2C. Just saying that, I don't think it is that impressive.
     
  3. bagwell359
    I have an HE-500 w/ fuzzor mod and Ether C Angled pads (find the freq resp chart). I bought a pair of LCD2C's blind (heard the LCD-3 briefy, seemed good) to not replace but be used as main cans along with my HE-500's. I found the LCD2C's to sound so poor that I contacted a friend of a friend to bring his over to test. They sounded the same. I sold mine in a week. He was so impressed with my 500 he went to sell his, and got a HFM HEX2 after deciding he didn't want to mess with used cans.

    My take on LCD2: too much bass, mid bass, upper bass, serious dip in upper mids (female vocals recessed), top octave slops down a lot (lack of sparkle, overtones). Imaging not quite right. The voicing is just wrong.

    Stick with the 500 and do my two mods and run on a 2 watt+ amp.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2018
    FastAndClean and posedown like this.
  4. endlesswaves
    Agree with the upper mids dip.

    As for imaging, thin sounding/airier headphones usually have better imaging. For myself, sacrificing some imaging technicalities for meatier, smooth sounding signature is better for my usage. After a long day at work, LCD2C is just perfect for me to unwind and just lose myself in the music.

    It's not poor sounding. It's just made and tuned to produce the sound which many of us like and enjoy.
     
    omniweltall, Lohb and betula like this.
  5. joeexp
    Nothing wrong with the voicing. Just not to your liking.
     
  6. bagwell359
    I'm glad that you can unwind with them, that's huge.

    However being a serious music listener since the early 70's and having owned a lot of near SOTA eqipment, and grown up on the BSO live - I disagree on the voicing of the LCD-2 '14 fazor model. None of my past speakers - Verity Parsifals, ML CLS IIz w/ Gradient subs, DQ-10, Quad ESL-57, ProAc EBS, Triangle 202's w/ ribbon tweet, ProAc Tablette, KLH 5's, DCM Time Windows, Maggie MG-2, Cizek Model 1, ML SL-3, etc. driven by great amps and not such great amps, Koetsu and lesser cartridges - and never did I hear any of these speakers issue sound the way that the LCD-2 does. That goes for the HFM HE-500, MD 4XX, Fostex FH500, Senn 600, 650, 800, HFM HEX V2. So either they are all wrong or the LCD-2 is.

    I can't possibly critique them from a subjective/enjoyment angle - but from a true voicing standpoint - I do.
     
    endlesswaves likes this.
  7. bagwell359
    See the post above. I stand by the claim. I don't like them because they are wrong. Some of what I listen to I've heard live in terrific venues, or have heard on SOTA equipment above what I own(owned).

    The HD-600 stock outside of lack of bass under 65 Hz voice far better for far less (but the feeling is light from them). In my own home the HFM HE-500 with the fuzzor mod and MR Speakers Ether C pads is as flat as the 600 but more cohesive, warmer, more subtle, with an appropriate amount of low bass. the 500 vs the LCD-2: LCD-2 upper bass and lower mids are frankly muddy vs the 500. The upper mids are distant which sometimes gives a sense of depth to the LCD, but female vocals are a strong suit of the 500. The highest octave finds the LCD declining, leading to a lack of overtones, less subtle details, and lack of sparkle (which to be fair the 500 might have a bit too much of).

    A friend of a friend brought his over because I suspected something was wrong with them. They sounded very similar. I ditched my pair right away. I hear the LCD4 is a great can, it's far out of my budget, but I'll listen to it this winter, and I have not heard the latest LCD-2 - I'm just talking about the one I have heard and owned.
     
  8. endlesswaves
    Only started discovering this unique world of headfi a few years ago.

    I agree the voicing could be better. For vocals I have my ZMF Eikon.

    Most of the stuff I listens to now are mostly downtempo music with little or no vocal. So this upper midrange dip doesn't not affect my enjoyment.

    This upper midrange dip and the weight are the only fly in the ointment to me. For $599 during pre-order, it's a steal. At $799 it's still good value. For my needs, nothing else at this price range beats the LCD2C.

    Now, just to share not start an argument on cable myth or something. The stock cables that comes with it is a bottleneck to me. If you can get a better cable, it can really helps with the imaging, soundstage and details. Not day and night, but it helps.
     
  9. bagwell359
    Cool, thanks for the nice response. I'm not a big cable guy, I usually just chop the stocks short and put an XLR on. I bought my LCD2 used which had a custom XLR on it (cant remember name) which I assume was somewhat better than stock.

    Ones musical choice and enjoyment do tend to trump other peoples musical choice and opinions. I do get that.

    I was just blown away by how far out of the norm of everything I have heard over the years they were. Look ar reality shows. Some people love them, I don't - an opinion that can easily be dropped while people follow their own taste. But audio is big money, and truth of the recording and other things that seem to be a serious search over time - more important than some TV show, that's why I write with seriousness, and mean what I say.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2018
  10. SilverEars
    I agree with Bagwell on the upper-mids. It's a bit recessed and probably not a purposed tuning, but it's the driver response. Even with their iSines, mids doesn't sound normal, a bit off, that why they provide the cipher cable to EQ it.

    At the pricepoint, it should at least be tonally balanced. This is why I find Audeze to be a bit roll the dice chancing.

    I don't find the bass heavy, at least not a slamming bass, but diffused sounding, not thick sounding in warm sense.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2018
  11. tracyrick
    What about the treble area? The Sine are tuned for a lot of energy in the high end. Possibly because they are designed to be portable and cut through ambient noise better. Do the LCD2C sound more balanced?
     
  12. Zoom25
    So far I've been using the Audeze preset in Roon. In Roon I have the option to select between minimum phase and linear phase.

    Today I downloaded the Reveal plug-in for use with Audirvana. Everything loads perfectly and works fine. I see the option for wet/dry and gain, but no option for selecting between minimum and linear phase. When I hit play on Audirvana, the music starts right away. Anybody know how to do select between minimum and linear phase on Audirvana Plus? Thanks.
     
  13. marcan
    The Sine has more enregy in the treble IIRC.
     
  14. marcan
    I would say lots of HPs are wrong in the bass/sub bass except the LCD's. The upper mids dip depends on your listening level.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2018
  15. bagwell359
    Actually the major issue with the upper bass is that it makes low strings and voices sound deeper and thicker than they should.

    The other issue which is shared by many cans is that quick percussion such as rototoms and low register piano can be smeared when bass instruments with a lot of sustain (or played that way) come in together. Any can with a "Q" above the ideal .707 is going to have problems with this. The most damped can I know is the HD-600 which has a very tight damping - probably about .57, and that can has less issues that I'm talking about. My 500 as modified probably is about .75 (assuming that we can translate box woofer Q to a can). I think the LCD-2's with fazor '14 cans I heard are higher than that - .85 at least. Guess what, those bass signals modulate each other, the more complex, the worse.
     
First
 
Back
234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243
245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254
Next
 
Last

Share This Page