Separate names with a comma.
Yeah, that make sense in a way.
I would consider these as higher-middle class headphones. Perhaps the very entry level to higher-end cans.
They just do everything pretty well but excel with bassy contemporary music. They also benefit a LOT from better gear. It is a big mistake to judge them out of a basic Schiit gear.
If someone is into bassy modern music these are hard to beat unless spending 3-4 times more on a headphone. And there you will find yourself in TOTL category.
If you like the sound of the LCD2C but you don't have another $1500-2000 to upgrade your headphones you might want to spend that $1000 for amp/DAC to bring out the best of the 2C until you can afford a worthwhile headphone upgrade like the Empyrean or the LCD4Z.
For bassy contemporary music the 2C kills most if not all cans under $1500 when it is run out of some decent gear.
I hope a 799 headphone doesn’t need a 1000 amp to sound good. I can appreciate your point about scaling but it’s not realistic for most of us. I can’t say I know what the classic sounds like out of high end gear but thankfully it sounds pretty damn good to me out of my basic magni stack.
It is about priorities and potential upgrade routes.
This depends a lot on individual circumstances: size of wallet, level of hearing, preferred music genres...
What I am saying is that the 2C is a great value for money headphone beating some others for twice the price.
For this reason one might want to explore 1000 amps instead of striving for a 1500 headphone as an upgrade. Upgrade route depends on many things.
I think the BMFlyer DIY fazor would fix that imaging, but it would also make the tonality cooler...the slightly diffuse image adds to the mellowness.
I was surprised it was same driver as the LCD2 as reported on this or the 2 thread, due to the different temperatures/tone...=fazor.
I would say that's an important part about why I don't find cross-feed important. Most times I find cross-feed is subtle and actually cuts down on frequency response. My main HP amp is now the iCan, which has a lot of adjustments (most detail oriented being no settings and SE output). Apart from reference solid state, the main signature I find best is a blend of most transparent and extended frequency range (for me, it's tending to be planar headphones now).
I've been borrowing my friends HD650 for a few days as it's been a while since I've had a HD650 on my head. This is a grey box HD650 before they ended up having more harsh upper mids with the black box.
First thing I noticed was the treble smoothness. The HD650 is fantastic in how smooth in the treble it is, it beats all headphones in this regard. The LCD-2C is dark but rough in the treble as it dips and rises and peaks. This comes across as grain or unrefinement on the 2 classic.
The HD650 has a kind of foggy cloud to its sound similar to the LCD-2C but has more solid body, vocals have more emotion and openness. The Classic does do vocals just about as good as any headphone with its unique speaker like presentation but the HD650 has a magic to voices.
Bass on the 2C still as textured, deep as ever and the HD650 is still a HD650, rilled off like all open dynamics but with good bass impact.
The detail on the HD650 is less obvious but I find it to still have better micro detail than the 2C but both are close when it comes to general detail and resolution but the HD650 does scale with higher end gear more. I dont fidn the LCD-2C to scale much at all from mid tier rahipment to TOTL but it depends more on the individual equipment.
I did notice in direct comparison the LCD-2C has a steely timbre, slightly metallic tinge to the timbre where as the HD650 has a more natural timbre, they're timber masters.
I did notice the HD650 slams as hard if not harder but the Classics destroys the HD650 when it comes to bass control, pitch differention, cleanliness and speed.
It's the fuller upper-mids on the 650 vs the 2C's recession. This is such an important part of the response that at minimum every headphone should have at least decent upper-mids. As there are lots of information in that area that should not be buried. 650 is smooth with a blacker background, but I notice 600 outputs certain sounds where the 650 has black background, creating perception of higher transparency. 600 is upper-mids forward in comparison. Wondering what region of the upper-mids is causing this difference?
Oh really? Why should we bother then and spend more money for better gear? How stupid would that be? Let's all plug a 20$ junky headphone into our phones and wait for the brain to adjust...
While your brain can adapt to the frequency response there are other specs where your brain can't: - distortion, transient, precision, speed, slew rate,, ... and pre/post ringing introduced by eq...
So using eq you try to compensate something your brain can adjust and you add ringing where your brain will never adjust...
I know there is no 100% agreement regarding the level of scalability of the 2C. I think they scale extremely well, others think they don't.
In this discussion the music you listen to plays a significant role. The 2C excels with bassy contemporary music. However admittedly they wouldn't be my first choice for classical or jazz or acoustic instrumental music.
I tried the 2C from several different sources. Mojo, CMA600i alone, CMA600i+Mojo, CMA600i+Qutest, Taurus MKII+Qutest. Each of these steps were a significant improvement to my ears.
At each of these steps I thought I would never be able to go back to the previous one. That said each stations are great value for money but there is always a next step.
Looking back at my journey I can't see how anyone can say the 2C doesn't scale very well.
To me from average mid-fi headphones they have improved into an entry level TOTL 'taste' can. Improved into 'my taste' which is bassy and punchy and easy and fun. To my experience they improve quite a lot with better DACs and amps.
Sure, the post ringing... I'd forgotten about that. You say your brain can't adjust to it and I surely believe you.
It would be extremely interesting to hear a scientific explanation for the claim I quoted above though, especially in light of the fact that I know brains can adjust to errors and nuisances from all senses that are way more evident and annoying than slew rate after a bit of EQ...
While I'll keep reflecting on this hoping to be able to understand why brains would adjust to FR only, I can only say that maybe I'm a lucky guy, or so it seems. I use a tone control to throw a couple of dBs here and there when the record I'm listening to requires so. And I do it purely for enhancing my listening experience, for enjoying music more. It goes without saying that by finely tuning my headphones I don't hear any pre or post ringing or any detrimental impact on the stuff you mention, as this evidently would not constitute enhancement, so my brain has nothing really to adjust to. Lucky I know...
But I would like to ask you a couple of questions to better understand your intransigence on the matter, if I may: Among all the people you know in this hobby, how many in percentage experience the same problems with distortion, transient, precision, speed, slew rate and pre/post ringing that you do? And if, for hypothesis, the 99.9% of people in this hobby did not hear any detrimental impact from using a little bit of EQ, would you still consider it wrong?
Why does it matter if the amp is push pull or single ended if its using output transformers? The modwright 300b tube amp put out 8 watts and is a single end amp. Do you really need 15 watts (push pull 2a3/300b) to drive a headphone?
Is there a headphone with 2c bass but less recessed upper mids? Probably going to look into picking up zmf oris
The Aeon open has some upper mid presence but the bass isn't as clean or fast as the 2C. You could try grabbing some Vegan pads they lift the upper mids and bring it close to say a HD650 and it improves the timbre quite a bit.