[Àedhàn Cassiel]

There seems to be confusion on what a fazor does and what it doesn't do. So here is some more explanation on Fazors and how they work. Fazors mainly work in high Frequencies management and don’t have anything to do with the bass extension. The Bass extension on these headphones are pretty much the same if they are Fazored or Non-Fazored.
Fazors do four things
a. They remove the diffraction around the magnets when sound goes through them. Diffraction effects are related to wavelength and the size of the obstacle. Low frequencies are not affected by this at all.
b. Sound Stage & Imaging - There are two things related to this - How big the sound stage is and how accurate it is. We do a lot of tests and recordings ourselves to determine where instruments are placed and how accurate the sound stage and imaging are.
The fazors make the audio wavefronts more coherent. This in turn makes the sound stage more accurate.
c. Efficiency. The fazors increase acoustic impedance in the space between the ear and the driver. This gets us a bit more efficiency.
d. Phase coherency. This is why we named it fazor.

The original LCD2 had a slighlty darker sound which many people loved. The LCD2C without fazor is pretty much similar design.

I don’t mean this to sound critical in any way. I’m genuinely curious… I’m new to this stuff, but I’ve heard several upper-mid-fi and hi-fi headphones now and for my personal tastes the LCD2’s I’ve heard without the fazor blow away anything else I’ve heard so far besides the HD800’s (which are made for something entirely different). If the LCD2’s with fazor were just LCD2’s with all the improvements that come with the fazor listed here, and there were no other downsides to the fazor at all, then why would Audeze be selling the LCD2C without fazor at all? Why not just tweak the sound signature on the current models?

 

[Zoom25]

If the LCD2’s with fazor were just LCD2’s with all the improvements that come with the fazor listed here, and there were no other downsides to the fazor at all, then why would Audeze be selling the LCD2C without fazor at all? Why not just tweak the sound signature on the current models?

Or the new MX4 without the fazor. BTW is the MX4 the LCD-Pro from awhile back?

 

[macky112]

I don’t mean this to sound critical in any way. I’m genuinely curious… I’m new to this stuff, but I’ve heard several upper-mid-fi and hi-fi headphones now and for my personal tastes the LCD2’s I’ve heard without the fazor blow away anything else I’ve heard so far besides the HD800’s (which are made for something entirely different). If the LCD2’s with fazor were just LCD2’s with all the improvements that come with the fazor listed here, and there were no other downsides to the fazor at all, then why would Audeze be selling the LCD2C without fazor at all? Why not just tweak the sound signature on the current models?

@Audeze, what quoted above are my thoughts/curiosity as well, please help us understand

 

[Audeze]

I don’t mean this to sound critical in any way. I’m genuinely curious… I’m new to this stuff, but I’ve heard several upper-mid-fi and hi-fi headphones now and for my personal tastes the LCD2’s I’ve heard without the fazor blow away anything else I’ve heard so far besides the HD800’s (which are made for something entirely different). If the LCD2’s with fazor were just LCD2’s with all the improvements that come with the fazor listed here, and there were no other downsides to the fazor at all, then why would Audeze be selling the LCD2C without fazor at all? Why not just tweak the sound signature on the current models?

The LCD2C harkens back to our original LCD2, which pretty much started the whole planar magnetic renaissance and pretty much Audeze. People still love the sound of the original and have been asking us if we would bring it back. The fazor brings refinement to the sound, but we think of it as a slightly different flavor. it is not possible to tweak the freq. response alone to get what fazor does.

 

[Audeze]

Or the new MX4 without the fazor. BTW is the MX4 the LCD-Pro from awhile back?

No. They are very different. LCD Pro used single sided design. The MX4 is push-pull (double fluxor array)

 

[Àedhàn Cassiel]

The LCD2C harkens back to our original LCD2, which pretty much started the whole planar magnetic renaissance and pretty much Audeze. People still love the sound of the original and have been asking us if we would bring it back. The fazor brings refinement to the sound, but we think of it as a slightly different flavor. it is not possible to tweak the freq. response alone to get what fazor does.

I'm not sure this precisely answers the question I'm wondering about, but maybe I did a poor job of wording it, so bear with me as I try again:

The comment I responded to made it sound as if the fazor is all improvement with no tradeoffs, all pros and no cons. I'm wondering is whether this is really true.

If this were the case, then it seems odd that Audeze would return to offering the LCD2 without the fazor. Now, the fazor obviously isn't the only difference between all the variations of the headphone, so we can't say the fazor is the only thing distinguishing earlier from later models.

Thus, if our opening premise that adding the fazor is all upside and no downside were true, it seems it should be possible to make a headohone that brings back what people loved about the earliest models while also improving the soundstaging, imaging etc. with the fazor.

On the other hand, if this is not possible, then it would seem as though this must by definition be because the fazor does in fact bring a collection of tradeoffs, some improvements that may be to some peoples' tastes in exchange for some changes that may not be to others'. But the comment I replied to exclusively listed upsides to the fazor, so if there are indeed any tradeoffs involved in using the fazor to obtain those I'm very curious to understand what they are.

 

[gLer]

I'm not sure this precisely answers the question I'm wondering about, but maybe I did a poor job of wording it, so bear with me as I try again:

The comment I responded to made it sound as if the fazor is all improvement with no tradeoffs, all pros and no cons. I'm wondering is whether this is really true.

If this were the case, then it seems odd that Audeze would return to offering the LCD2 without the fazor. Now, the fazor obviously isn't the only difference between all the variations of the headphone, so we can't say the fazor is the only thing distinguishing earlier from later models.

Thus, if our opening premise that adding the fazor is all upside and no downside were true, it seems it should be possible to make a headohone that brings back what people loved about the earliest models while also improving the soundstaging, imaging etc. with the fazor.

On the other hand, if this is not possible, then it would seem as though this must by definition be because the fazor does in fact bring a collection of tradeoffs, some improvements that may be to some peoples' tastes in exchange for some changes that may not be to others'. But the comment I replied to exclusively listed upsides to the fazor, so if there are indeed any tradeoffs involved in using the fazor to obtain those I'm very curious to understand what they are.

From what I understand (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) you have your question in reverse: what are the tradeoffs of NOT having the fazor. Again only from what I’ve read and heard, the fazor adds more control and accuracy to the midrange and soundstage, so the ‘tradeoff’ of not having fazor is less controlled midrange (and perceived low and high freq) and a more ‘muddied’ or ‘peculiar’ soundstage. It’s this ‘peculiarity’ that gave the pre-fazor that special something that some people loved.

Like I said, I could be wrong, but in ‘fixing’ the LCD-2 with fazor technology, some say it lost some of that ‘wonky’ midrange and soundstage magic it once had. Whether or not the 2C will recapture it remains to be seen.

 

[thighmaster69]

From what I understand (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) you have your question in reverse: what are the tradeoffs of NOT having the fazor. Again only from what I’ve read and heard, the fazor adds more control and accuracy to the midrange and soundstage, so the ‘tradeoff’ of not having fazor is less controlled midrange (and perceived low and high freq) and a more ‘muddied’ or ‘peculiar’ soundstage. It’s this ‘peculiarity’ that gave the pre-fazor that special something that some people loved.

Like I said, I could be wrong, but in ‘fixing’ the LCD-2 with fazor technology, some say it lost some of that ‘wonky’ midrange and soundstage magic it once had. Whether or not the 2C will recapture it remains to be seen.

Yeah, the question didn't make a whole lot of sense. It was - If all the fazor does is improve the sound, why didn't you include it on the 2C? It's like asking if the iPhone X's camera is better than the 8, why doesn't the 8 also have that camera?

The real reason is that you need a feature that differentiates the models and justifies the price difference. It doesn't necessarily cost a whole lot more to build but you need to cover all tiers of the market.

 

[bfreedma]

Yeah, the question didn't make a whole lot of sense. It was - If all the fazor does is improve the sound, why didn't you include it on the 2C? It's like asking if the iPhone X's camera is better than the 8, why doesn't the 8 also have that camera?

The real reason is that you need a feature that differentiates the models and justifies the price difference. It doesn't necessarily cost a whole lot more to build but you need to cover all tiers of the market.

Why not take Audeze's response at face value - they wanted to reintroduce the sound signature of the original 2. Even if technically less proficient than later versions, many people preferred the original sound sig. There are other differences in the 2C classic beyond just the fazor that decrease build cost, not the least of which is replacing the wood ring with another material.

 

[Aliv3]

Hi. I'm currently considering buying a headphone and I'm torn between two models. These Audeze and the sennheiser hd660s. however I have some doubts and I liked that you guys helped me in the choice. do you think that these Audeze can be driven by the Sony's Walkman(Zx300/WM1a) or a smartphone? they are currently at 599 on the Audeze website. does anyone know if they ship to Europe?
Thanks

 

[Àedhàn Cassiel]

Oh, two unrelated questions I meant to ask earlier but didn’t think about at the time:

1. When does the $600 price for the LCD2C end?
2. When in the future is it likely to be sold new at that price again?

 

[Audeze]

Why not take Audeze's response at face value - they wanted to reintroduce the sound signature of the original 2. Even if technically less proficient than later versions, many people preferred the original sound sig. There are other differences in the 2C classic beyond just the fazor that decrease build cost, not the least of which is replacing the wood ring with another material.

This exactly reflects our position. We are still planning to carry the LCD2 with fazor.

 

[Mark Up]

My take. The Fazor corrects the sound in the mids and highs especially so you get a more precise picture. This makes the highs clearer without raising the level of the highs. Some who prefer less clear sound may prefer less details. Also, if their highs are less clear, the bass is more noticeable, also without much of a level difference.

 

[I g o r]

My take. The Fazor corrects the sound in the mids and highs especially so you get a more precise picture. This makes the highs clearer without raising the level of the highs. Some who prefer less clear sound may prefer less details. Also, if their highs are less clear, the bass is more noticeable, also without much of a level difference.

But the highs level does raise. Just compare the frequency response graphics of the pre Fazor with the current Fazors. The 2014 and 2015 versions were even worse.

 

[anoxy]

This is all interesting discussion, and I understand your question and had the same one myself @Àedhàn Cassiel

I thought that response indicated all pros and no cons as well.....but of course this is a company trying to sell products. And most of the time, there is no better or worse, but instead personal preference and different characteristics.

I'll have to stay away from this thread until Christmas as I'm having them delivered to my parents house for the Holidays and won't receive them until Christmas day....hopefully my Walkman has enough juice to give them a first impression until I can get them back home on my desktop rig.