[jmills8]

I could have brought these sort of examples to the mix too, but thought it is not that useful to compare TOTL 5K headphones to low/mid fi range of Fidelios and 2Cs.

Understood , Im just focusing on the big picture.

 

[gargani]

would the lcd x be an upgrade from my lcd2 classics iyo? would be natural step up if want a better version os the lcd2 classics?

i am not looking for a major sound change as i love my lcd2 classics, but i want around the same or a bit more bass amount, while with having a tiny bit more treble, and i dont really have a preference for the mids, so around the same would be fine, and better sound stage and imaging if possible

i use my headphones as my primary and only audio source, so for music like edm (like the group above and beyond mostly for that type of edm) and all media from movies/shows/anime, to video games as video games is my biggest hobby

i am also considering the zmf auteur, as i have read a bunch on that already and i think i would like that a lot, but i have not read much about the lcd x yet so thats why i am asking here

My 2 cents worth.
A number of audiophiles view using eq as a sin. As if there were a commandment from God " thow shalt not use eq"
Eq works for some people, others don't like the effects.
If It's not going to cost money , give it a try. See if you like the effects or not.
"

 

[gargani]

My 2 cents worth.
A number of audiophiles view using eq as a sin. As if there were a commandment from God " thow shalt not use eq"
Eq works for some people, others don't like the effects.
If It's not going to cost money , give it a try. See if you like the effects or not.

 

[betula]

My 2 cents worth.
A number of audiophiles view using eq as a sin. As if there were a commandment from God " thow shalt not use eq"
Eq works for some people, others don't like the effects.
If It's not going to cost money , give it a try. See if you like the effects or not.
"

This is true, but the whole picture is more complicated, as usual.

I am not a fan of EQ-ing, but I can see small adjustments might be necessary. IMO the difference in our ear structure and hearing is underestimated. This hearing difference is the reason for a lot of controversial opinions on Head-Fi. I can see this individual hearing difference as the main reason for using EQ. A secondary reason could be playing around, like adding 2db to bass heavy genres for fun.

EQ has a bad reputation in audiophile circles because of a couple of reasons:
1, the higher-end gear you have, the less need you feel for adjustments. This is my experience as well.
2, a lot of people misuse or overuse EQ basically destroying the originally intended sound signature instead of buying something else or just giving time to getting used to a more neutral and more balanced sound which is educating your hearing (it is the same with 'educating' your taste buds and Michelin star restaurants. you don't put ketchup on everything in a Michelin star place.)

If EQ is used as intended: small adjustments to correct certain frequencies due to hearing differences or slight adjustment of the headphones to your perfect liking, I can't see anything wrong with EQ-ing.
What's wrong is, to think using EQ can change a headphone you don't like into something you will like.

 

[angelus55]

thanks everyone! maybe it was not really clear in my post as even in irl i have trouble conveying what i mean sometimes, but i do love the way my lcd2 classics sound, so i dont really want to eq them, i was just looking for an overall quality improvement not necessarily vomlume/db changes like my post might of sounded like

so based on that, would you say the lcd x is a higher quality headphone? would say the slight increase in weight from the lcd x is noticeable? i dont have a problem with the lcd 2 weight from what i can tell but i dont want anything that would be noticeably heavier

i am also considering hd 800 s and while i realize the bass is not planar level, that is ok with me as i owned the hd 650/6xx and that was just fine for me also even tho i listen to edm which some would call bass centric music, and the hd 6xx/50 sounded great in everything i listen too in terms of the bass amount, and from what i read the hd 800 s would have the same amount or slightly more bass then the hd 6xx/650 and would be a lot lighter and more comfortable the the lcd series which would be plus and are regarded as one of the top headphones for gaming which i primarily do every day in addition to listening to me music and watching anime/movies

 

[betula]

thanks everyone! maybe it was not really clear in my post as even in irl i have trouble conveying what i mean sometimes, but i do love the way my lcd2 classics sound, so i dont really want to eq them, i was just looking for an overall quality improvement not necessarily vomlume/db changes like my post might of sounded like

so based on that, would you say the lcd x is a higher quality headphone? would say the slight increase in weight from the lcd x is noticeable? i dont have a problem with the lcd 2 weight from what i can tell but i dont want anything that would be noticeably heavier

i am also considering hd 800 s and while i realize the bass is not planar level, that is ok with me as i owned the hd 650/6xx and that was just fine for me also even tho i listen to edm which some would call bass centric music, and the hd 6xx/50 sounded great in everything i listen too in terms of the bass amount, and from what i read the hd 800 s would have the same amount or slightly more bass then the hd 6xx/650 and would be a lot lighter and more comfortable the the lcd series which would be plus and are regarded as one of the top headphones for gaming which i primarily do every day in addition to listening to me music and watching anime/movies

The LCD2C is pretty much the upper weight limit that I still find comfortable (550g) thanks to those enormous and comfortably hugging memory foam pads. I couldn't live with the LCD4 weight (710g) and I don't think I could live with the LCD-X long term (610g) but this differs by individuals.
I wouldn't say the LCD X is necessarily more enjoyable than the 2C from a music listening perspective. The X is slighty more neutral, more treble, more resolution, more details. More weight. Not necessarily more fun when it comes to music listening. The X is definitely better for monitoring though.

HD800S is much more spacious than any of the LCD series.This spaciousness is actually quite fun and I think the 800S is an underestimated headphone in this hobby. Although it is true, the bass doesn't come close to planar performance. If you are happy with HD650 bass, you will love the 800S bass but in all fairness, for bass perfection only the 2C is much better than the 800S.

 

[silvahr]

Can someone please share some impressions between this one and Aeon Flow Open (original) regarding timbre and textures?

 

[gargani]

This is true, but the whole picture is more complicated, as usual.

I am not a fan of EQ-ing, but I can see small adjustments might be necessary. IMO the difference in our ear structure and hearing is underestimated. This hearing difference is the reason for a lot of controversial opinions on Head-Fi. I can see this individual hearing difference as the main reason for using EQ. A secondary reason could be playing around, like adding 2db to bass heavy genres for fun.

EQ has a bad reputation in audiophile circles because of a couple of reasons:
1, the higher-end gear you have, the less need you feel for adjustments. This is my experience as well.
2, a lot of people misuse or overuse EQ basically destroying the originally intended sound signature instead of buying something else or just giving time to getting used to a more neutral and more balanced sound which is educating your hearing (it is the same with 'educating' your taste buds and Michelin star restaurants. you don't put ketchup on everything in a Michelin star place.)

If EQ is used as intended: small adjustments to correct certain frequencies due to hearing differences or slight adjustment of the headphones to your perfect liking, I can't see anything wrong with EQ-ing.
What's wrong is, to think using EQ can change a headphone you don't like into something you will like.

Yes, some good points.
Sometimes some judicious adjustments to a headphone one likes can improve the enjoyment of the headphone.
However,
I agree, thinking you can turn a headphone you don't like into a headphone you do like with eq, just isn't going to succeed.

 

[betula]

Can someone please share some impressions between this one and Aeon Flow Open (original) regarding timbre and textures?

2C: cleaner and more spacious, more detailed texture and more impactful sound, more dynamic.
AFO: a more mellow and warmer, less detailed but very liquid presentation with smaller sound stage.

I personally didn't like the AFO but I can imagine someone prefers it to the 2C with intimate jazz recordings. The 2C is more spacious, cleaner, punchier, more fun. AFO is polite and romantic.

 

[silvahr]

2C: cleaner and more spacious, more detailed texture and more impactful sound, more dynamic.
AFO: a more mellow and warmer, less detailed but very liquid presentation with smaller sound stage.

I personally didn't like the AFO but I can imagine someone prefers it to the 2C with intimate jazz recordings. The 2C is more spacious, cleaner, punchier, more fun. AFO is polite and romantic.

Thank you very much. I really like your posts here in Head-Fi because they are very weighted.
I also believe we have similar tastes regarding "sound type" (I also like Chord stuff).
I had AFO for about an year. I also had Audioquest NH (wood cup). IMO, between the two, timbre and textures are better in AFO.
In your opinion LCD-2c can be an improvement over AFO regarding these aspects.
The word I fear most in your impressions is "impactful". I like "bold" sound but with some "air" (hard to find the words and English is not my native language).
I believe I have to try before I buy but right now not possible because of the virus.
Thank you again.

 

[betula]

Thank you very much. I really like your posts here in Head-Fi because they are very weighted.
I also believe we have similar tastes regarding "sound type" (I also like Chord stuff).
I had AFO for about an year. I also had Audioquest NH (wood cup). IMO, between the two, timbre and textures are better in AFO.
In your opinion LCD-2c can be an improvement over AFO regarding these aspects.
The word I fear most in your impressions is "impactful". I like "bold" sound but with some "air" (hard to find the words and English is not my native language).
I believe I have to try before I buy but right now not possible because of the virus.
Thank you again.

I also liked and owned the original Nighthawk. NH is very dark but definitely undervalued and superficially judged in the wider community.
IMO AFO is a straight and clear improvement over the Nighthawk in every way. And IMO the LCD2C is a better headphone than the AFO in general.
The 2C is cleaner, bolder, airier, punchier. AFO is great but to me the soundstage was small, the sound was too warm and mellow with not enough punch and detail.
This can be a matter of preference though.
IMO AFO is definitely a higher quality NH, but the 2C is even more than that. 2C is clearer and has a stronger dynamic punch versus the NH or AFO.
(English is not my first language either.)

 

[silvahr]

I also liked and owned the original Nighthawk. NH is very dark but definitely undervalued and superficially judged in the wider community.
IMO AFO is a straight and clear improvement over the Nighthawk in every way. And IMO the LCD2C is a better headphone than the AFO in general.
The 2C is cleaner, bolder, airier, punchier. AFO is great but to me the soundstage was small, the sound was too warm and mellow with not enough punch and detail.
This can be a matter of preference though.
IMO AFO is definitely a higher quality NH, but the 2C is even more than that. 2C is clearer and has a stronger dynamic punch versus the NH or AFO.
(English is not my first language either.)

Thank you again.
I agree with you. NH are better than the community judge them. Rob Watts likes NH a lot.
I believe the 2c can be what I'm looking for.
Just a last question: no problems for RME ADI-2 to drive them?

 

[betula]

Thank you again.
I agree with you. NH are better than the community judge them. Rob Watts likes NH a lot.
I believe the 2c can be what I'm looking for.
Just a last question: no problems for RME ADI-2 to drive them?

ADI2 drives the 2C very well. You might have to play with the plethora of adjustments initially, but you will get there.
I use 'loudness' function with the ADI2 which makes bass and treble more emphasised at lower volumes and with this setting I enjoy the 2C out of the ADI2 quite a lot.

 

[freq351]

I'm not familiar with the dt1990, never seen them with "warm bass" in one sentence before tho.

Where did you see it in one sentence? I have the DT-990 Pro's, which have a nice cushioning warm bass.

I've since listened to more electronic with the 2C's and I'll be keeping this pair for sure. The sound from these headphones is fascinating. Nice spacious bass mostly. Perhaps I'll get EQ and leave it off most of the time except for certain times I need/want it. Comfort is good too, that was one thing I was worried about before buying these without trying first... but all good. Clamp force might even be less than the dt-990's, at least that's my perception.

 

[Vvnz100]

I use a really good EQ, done on a French forum: http://www.tellementnomade.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=92&t=21753&start=840#p736495