[sokolov91]

Quote:

No, passing a rigorous blind test with enough trials can reveal whether the differences are actually audible.  Sighted listening can't eliminate bias and placebo.
 
Not to say that sighted tests aren't useful.  For most of us, and in most circumstances, blind testing is infeasible - and as the whole Swedish radio codec thing showed that blind tests aren't entirely infallible (or at least the listeners aren't).

 
Quote:

That's just an assumption of yours.  Listening can reveal whether the differences are actually audible. Reality is always what to measure against, not what you think would be reasonable or sensible.
 
Quote:

And don't even get me started on the audible differences between cables. 
 

 

 

Yeah and a human who thinks their sensory interpretations are the final word on reality are really in no position to be measuring anything themselves.
 
It would seem once the bias and placebo are eliminated all we are left with is bitter people who cry foul and refuse to believe results... ones that happen time and time again... but this is a topic for another forum, people get legitimately offended when they are made aware of their own logical fallacies and human bilogical shortcomings. The "Ostrich Defense" is used and you don't get anywhere. Like I have said before: Experience, experiencing nothing/placebo, is really not experience at all.
 
Either way people just need to pick which ones they like best, and not worry about justifying it, and just enjoy the damned headphones. How one feels doesn't change numbers or measurements so people can save a lot of time and energy just enjoying their gear.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Could you explain "slow" and "fast" sounding?  Are we talking transient response, or what?

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

Could you explain "slow" and "fast" sounding?  Are we talking transient response, or what?

Yep that's what I would imagine.
 
I hear the HD 600 as "slow" (not claiming to have super hearing, just something I feel like I am hearing) and MANY people post the same but love the tonality and soundstage... the imaging is also pretty week (although it was a great headphone and I loved my time with it).
 
A lot of this does indeed seem point to poorer response and linearity and higher distortion.
 
and again I am not stating anything as absolute fact (other than the older headphones are indeed slower) but it just a common thing people seem to notice with the HD 6/50 series and I haven't heard anyone mention anything like that about the new headphones. So if you were to go on impressions alone, that is some "evidence" for the new headphones being superior. As well as how well the new headphones seem to image over the last generations.

 

[Currawong]

 
Quote:

[size=medium]  [/size]
[size=medium] [size=medium]However as you must know, these measurements though useful, cannot reproduce the complex relationship between the headphone, pinna and ear canal. They do not show for example, that some listeners find the LCD-2 to have a rather dark sound signature with detailed but "shelved down" treble presentation. They also do not show that there are others who find the soundstaging smaller than they would like and the bass presence too strong. The LCD-2 may well be an improvement over the LCD-1 and the HiFiMan HE-6 superior to the HE-5 but it is not a fact that they are "better" than the Sony MDR-R10 or Grado HP1000. This is a matter of opinion, not fact.[/size][/size]
[size=medium]  [/size]
[size=medium]  [/size]

 
Everything you say here has been addressed previously. How can a FR graph, especially when compared with that of a person's preferred headphones, NOT show the "shelved down" treble, or the "too strong" bass presence?  How can a waterfall plot derived from well-thought-out measurements NOT show the speed at which a diaphragm is capable of moving at frequency?
 
Until, say, Tyll Hertsens measures all the above headphones in his rig, we wont have any measurements to compare all of those. However, regardless, I don't see much basis for your rant (and de-railing of this thread), as you're comparing headphones which are scarcely available (and at only vast expense) with those currently in production, subjectively, while in the next breath accusing people for being deluded making subjective assessments about what they hear.
 
While people should, arguably, be more humble about their own listening capabilities (saying "I felt/In my opinion/I had the impression that XYZ headphones when used in my rig/with such-and-such set up were whatever..." instead of claiming their thoughts as absolutely true statements) calling them delusional is over the line, just as much, if not MORE so than saying they should have objective evidence to back up their opinions.
 
Now, once again, I don't recall you having owned a pair of LCD-2s, and you don't list any in your profile.  If you have an issue with the discussion of these headphones, yet don't own them (and thus are incapable of providing any useful point of view) then I have trouble seeing why you are bothering to discuss them. You called some of the posts in this thread ridiculous, yet discussing arguing about something you have never owned is, I think far more [size=large]ridiculous.  If you're trying to decide whether or not to buy a pair, ignore the posts that don't help and focus on the ones that have information you are interested in.[/size]
 
A few thousand other people can make posts on Head-Fi without destroying the conversation.  Why can't you?

 

[kwkarth]

 
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSpenkelink /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I am not disputing that the latest headphones from the three companies you mentioned are not an improvement over their previous models. However, there are a number of Head-Fi'ers who have heard the HD650 and HD800 and find themselves preferring the former, despite the technical merits of the latter. You also appear to have overlooked the Sennheiser Orpheus HE-90 electrostat, which is still widely regarded as the benchmark headphone from that company.

So what, if there are headfiers who prefer the 650 over the 800?  I happen to be one (actually, I prefer the 600s over the 650s, but so what?  What's your point?  I specifically was talking about dynamic cans and never mentioned stats on purpose.  Please reread what I wrote to make sure I'm not telling you a story.  Again, what's your point?  We were discussing dynamic cans, not stats.  This thread is about two dynamic cans.
 
 
Quote:

[size=medium] [size=medium]Be that as it may, the headphones that I referred to were not manufactured by the companies that you mentioned. I am familiar with your enthusiastic posts extolling the technical merits of the the Audeze LCD-2. You often cite the impressive frequency response and square wave response graphs in support of your obvious belief that the LCD-2 is the "best" dynamic headphone currently available.[/size][/size]

This was not the topic of our discussion and it was specifically not confined to the LCD-2.  Again, what's your point?
 
 
Quote:

However as you must know, these measurements though useful, cannot reproduce the complex relationship between the headphone, pinna and ear canal. They do not show for example, that some listeners find the LCD-2 to have a rather dark sound signature with detailed but "shelved down" treble presentation. They also do not show that there are others who find the soundstaging smaller than they would like and the bass presence too strong. The LCD-2 may well be an improvement over the LCD-1 and the HiFiMan HE-6 superior to the HE-5 but it is not a fact that they are "better" than the Sony MDR-R10 or Grado HP1000. This is a matter of opinion, not fact.

I never referred to anyone's subjective "perception" of performance, in fact, I specifically said I was not discussing that, and that everyone's perception is their own and they're fully entitled to it whether on not you like it.  So what's your point?  Regardless of your perception of the sound, the new generation of all the dynamic cans I mentioned are in fact, by measurement capable of performance in some areas far exceeding anything aspired to by previous generations of dynamic cans. 
 
Quote:

I trust that your valediction was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek because your opinion is subjective by any measure.

Sorry, I wasn't bidding farewell to anything but your subjective opinions.  My statements were objective.  What's your point?

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

As for the HD650, there are those who, like you, assure us they've been completely superceeded and others who reassure us that they're still competitive. I'm still enjoying mine, and to me that's all that matters.
 

You're absolutely right!!  That IS all that matters.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

No offence but, "The LCD-2 sounds like real life." makes no sense at all.
 
Any recoding is edited and put together by the recording engineer.
 
He/she is the only one who knows what real life sounds like for a given piece of music.
 
The end use listener can only hear what the recording engineer meant for them to hear and nothing more, at best.
 
Unless we are recording engineers, we do not know what the original instruments sounded like since we were not there.
 
We can compare the same music from two sources and proclaim which one sounds better to us, but references to reality is moot and not possible.
 
 
 
 
 

Not really... as potentially irrelevant a reference as it is, comparing something to "real life" - especially if one is a musician or sound engineer indicates that to them the headphones are very neutral.
 
Many headphones are peaky, and play with the FR especially in the treble to make them sound more revealing... the LCD-2 sound revealing through their sheer speed and technical prowess. They have lower treble rather than relying on it like other headphones.
 
Even with the "shelved down" highs they still don't sound like a headphone to me, they sound like the real deal. Doesn't mean it will and should to everyone else... just an impression like any other.
 
Also, most recording don't "sound like real life" either because they are processed, pampered, and played with. The recording engineer has a great idea of what it sounds like, probably was there when they recorded it... but that is not what he put on the CD.
 
To these ears the newer headphones, the HD 800 and LCD-2 with their great imaging really help to delve deeper into a recording and find the lines where reality, and retouching interchange.
 
 
 
 
FWIW one of big reasons the LCD-2 sound so "life like" to me over say the HD 800 is because of the bass. I am not necessarily a basshead... but (I am into rock/alternative) a real bass drum has heft, and a decay and huge presence in a recording. The LCD-2 capture this among many things perfectly whereas on many other headphones it dies off much to quickly and/or is rolled off (yes it is also recording dependent). Now this is crossing into objective territory to a degree because I am advocating this is how things "should " sound and I can only speak for myself... but when a headphone makes such perfect sense sonically when put up against real life experiences (profound and over courses of many years) that is a big thing to me. The HD 800 sound amazing sure, and I enjoy them more for some recordings... but the LCD-2 always sound "real" to my ears.
 
And... if someones ears are anything like mine... they might sound the same way.
 
All impressions are essentially worthless when you put it like the way you did... they are not supposed to be fact as some people put it... just impressions of an individual that is it -take them or leave them.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Quote:

Could you explain "slow" and "fast" sounding?  Are we talking transient response, or what?

Yep that's what I would imagine.
 
I hear the HD 600 as "slow" (not claiming to have super hearing, just something I feel like I am hearing) and MANY people post the same but love the tonality and soundstage... the imaging is also pretty week (although it was a great headphone and I loved my time with it).
 
A lot of this does indeed seem point to poorer response and linearity and higher distortion.
 
and again I am not stating anything as absolute fact (other than the older headphones are indeed slower) but it just a common thing people seem to notice with the HD 6/50 series and I haven't heard anyone mention anything like that about the new headphones. So if you were to go on impressions alone, that is some "evidence" for the new headphones being superior. As well as how well the new headphones seem to image over the last generations.

 
I think this is where the fallacies of "audiophile" words/language are apparent in their ambiguousness with relation to actual measurements of performance.
 
I'm not sure what exactly you mean about "imaging" in relation to soundstage - I thought the terms were almost interchangeable.  Guess not... Am I correct in guessing that by "imaging" you mean how precise instruments and other sounds sound, both in depth, width, and (God forbid) height?  (I generally visualize high sounds higher and low sounds lower.)  What does that leave as soundstage - the ambience or so-called "air" (reverb of high tones?) and the overall width of what is left?  I'm not really sure, as everyone uses different words to describe what they hear (or think they hear, anyway).
 
I myself wouldn't describe faster and slower transient response as manifesting as "fast sounding" and "slow sounding" - perhaps my upbringing in jazz, where I envisioned/was taught a "fast" note would precede the beat (or the note's written spot in time) by a fraction of a time unit, and a "slow" note would drag behind the beat by a small amount.
 
I would say that fast transient response manifests as much sharper and cleaner sounding  - cymbal crashes that sound immediate and sharp (not harsh) as intended, not blurred by too long of a rise time.  Boosted treble can give the false impression of faster transient response, but it just ends up making the sound harsh instead.  Anyway, transient response definitely has a huge impact on the realism of the sound - planar driver fans would agree, I'm sure, as I'm one myself.  I haven't had the chance to hear any planar magnetic or electrostatic headphones, although I have spent a few hours with the HD 800 and T1.  Without having test charts or the ability to create them to compare, I can't say for sure, but I'm willing to bet that my speakers (Infinity Renaissance 90s) have faster transient response for the mids and highs (both of those being among the best planar magnetic drivers made so far) than either of those headphones.  As good as those headphones sound, the attack of cymbals, snares, horn instruments, vocals, etc. sounds much sharper on my speakers.  (Maybe it's just bias towards something I already own...)
 
And yes, certainly in this respect all of the new flagship dynamic and planar magnetic headphones exceed what the previous generation was capable of.  I'll readily admit that - look at this:
 

 
The HD 800 is the best here by far, and the HD 600 (underdamped by a bunch, it seems) the worst by an even bigger margin.  The DT 880 handily outdoes the HD 600, and interestingly it actually looks like it equals or betters the HE-5 here.  But the HD 800 is much, much better than the others.  (If you really want to scare yourself, put in the PortaPro into the comparison - it does extremely well, but is clearly overdamped.)
 
However, I think it's important to note that this is actually in part of the frequency range that many of us love the HD 600 for - despite the HD 800 being much better headphones in nearly every technical respect, I still think that brass instruments, sax, and electric guitar all sound better with the HD 600 than the HD 800 or DT 880.  The texture of the instruments is richer - which certainly has to do with the frequency balance, but perhaps also the level and character of distortion of the vital 200 Hz to 2000 Hz range.  It's not necessarily more realistic - I'd say yet again that my speakers win here - but the HD 600 certainly sounds entirely awesome in a way the HD 800 doesn't in this range.

 

[MrSpenkelink]

Quote:

 
Quote:

[size=medium]  [/size]
[size=medium] [size=medium]However as you must know, these measurements though useful, cannot reproduce the complex relationship between the headphone, pinna and ear canal. They do not show for example, that some listeners find the LCD-2 to have a rather dark sound signature with detailed but "shelved down" treble presentation. They also do not show that there are others who find the soundstaging smaller than they would like and the bass presence too strong. The LCD-2 may well be an improvement over the LCD-1 and the HiFiMan HE-6 superior to the HE-5 but it is not a fact that they are "better" than the Sony MDR-R10 or Grado HP1000. This is a matter of opinion, not fact.[/size][/size]
[size=medium]  [/size]
[size=medium]  [/size]

 
Everything you say here has been addressed previously. How can a FR graph, especially when compared with that of a person's preferred headphones, NOT show the "shelved down" treble, or the "too strong" bass presence?  How can a waterfall plot derived from well-thought-out measurements NOT show the speed at which a diaphragm is capable of moving at frequency?
 
Until, say, Tyll Hertsens measures all the above headphones in his rig, we wont have any measurements to compare all of those. However, regardless, I don't see much basis for your rant (and de-railing of this thread), as you're comparing headphones which are scarcely available (and at only vast expense) with those currently in production, subjectively, while in the next breath accusing people for being deluded making subjective assessments about what they hear.
 
While people should, arguably, be more humble about their own listening capabilities (saying "I felt/In my opinion/I had the impression that XYZ headphones when used in my rig/with such-and-such set up were whatever..." instead of claiming their thoughts as absolutely true statements) calling them delusional is over the line, just as much, if not MORE so than saying they should have objective evidence to back up their opinions.
 
Now, once again, I don't recall you having owned a pair of LCD-2s, and you don't list any in your profile.  If you have an issue with the discussion of these headphones, yet don't own them (and thus are incapable of providing any useful point of view) then I have trouble seeing why you are bothering to discuss them. You called some of the posts in this thread ridiculous, yet discussing arguing about something you have never owned is, I think far more [size=large]ridiculous.  If you're trying to decide whether or not to buy a pair, ignore the posts that don't help and focus on the ones that have information you are interested in.[/size]
 
A few thousand other people can make posts on Head-Fi without destroying the conversation.  Why can't you?

 
With regard to the frequency and square wave graphs, I have said that they are useful. However, they are not conclusive. There is ongoing debate over the merits of these measurement tools as true indicators of what we actually here when we listen to headphones. Some of us find that our listening experiences align with the graphs and others don't. Either way, they only tell part of the story.
 
The scarcity and expense of these out of production headphones has no bearing on their sound quality. I have not heard these headphones but even I am aware of their legendary status as exceptional transducers. To claim that the current crop of flagship headphones has surpassed them without undertaking a comparison is a baseless assertion in my opinion. And my comments regarding what some Head-Fi'ers claim to hear is unrelated to this point and your attempt to connect them is tenuous to say the least. 
 
You see little basis for my "rant" (it was more of a lament really). Well you're entitled to your opinion as am I. I'm not seeking your agreement, approval or support. However, I note that there are others here who seem to share my view regardless of how colourfully it was expressed. 
 
I have heard the LCD-2, do I now need to own a pair in order to express an opinion about it here? My original post was not about the merits of the LCD-2, which I happened to like by the way as stated in my post. And just for the record, I've heard the HD800 but I'm afraid that I don't own that either - sorry. Would it be of assistance to you if I listed the headphones that I've actually heard in my profile?    
 
What you describe as "destroying the conversation" has encouraged robust discussion; including your own response. You chose to add to the carnage when you could have ignored it.

 

 

[pp312]

Quote:

 
 
Originally Posted by pp312

 

Don't want to get into a "tis--tisn't" situation here, but I'm not imagining the posts from people who've said they couldn't live with the treble peak of the HD800 and went back to their 650s, or something else. I'm surprised you've (apparently) not encountered them yourself. The HD800 clearly has something in its treble that bothers quite a few people, and its measured FR (below) would seem to indicate that they're not imagining things. If you like it that's fine; I'm sure it's a very revealing headphone, but perhaps revealing isn't everyone's top priority. I myself have not heard it so I have no axe to grind; I'm simply pointing out that because a headphone has great technical specs and is much more expensive than its manufacturer's previous flagship, it's not necessarily going to please everyone, and this one clearly doesn't. As for the LCD-2, I didn't actually mention them in my post--that was MrSpenkelink--but since you bring them up I must say that if I had to buy a headphone purely on reviews without listening these are the ones I'd choose. However, they clearly don't please you much so there you go--we all hear differently.

 

As for the HD650, there are those who, like you, assure us they've been completely superceeded and others who reassure us that they're still competitive. I'm still enjoying mine, and to me that's all that matters.

 

 
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
I brought up the LCD-2 because that is the topic of this thread.  
 
I don't comment on headphones i haven't heard or base my comments on reviews or what other people have written as you.  I am aware of what people have written and arguing or debating with someone who hasn't even heard them is one reason the people happy with their 800s don't even bother wasting their time.  
 
I generally wouldn't buy based on a review without hearing a pair, and i agree that based on the reviews I may choose the LCD-2.  Good thing that I got a bunch of time with them and found the reviews lacking in some respects.
 
Hope you can find some HD800s to hear with a good amp and copper cable, at that point your comments will carry weight.  We can all read what people who have actually heard them have written or read reviews on many sites.   Until then enjoy your HD650's, I do enjoy mine still and have the luxury of going back and forth between them and the 800s if need be.  Gotta say again though, it is hard to imagine anyone who has both spending much, if any time with the 650's. 

I'm afraid you've got it wrong. Re-read my post(s) again and you'll see that at no time have I commented on the sound quality of the HD800; I've simply stated what is a known fact: that some HD800 buyers have returned to their HD650s due to being botherd by a treble peak. I would never be so foolish as to comment from a personal viewpoint on the sound quality of a phone I've not heard. I can infer its sound from others' comments and possibly determine, as I have, that this phone would not suit me (anything brighter than the 650 would not suit me), but I would not pretend to know something I can't possibly know. I'm afraid you've read into my post something that simply isn't there.

 

[MrSpenkelink]

 
Quote:

 
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSpenkelink /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I am not disputing that the latest headphones from the three companies you mentioned are not an improvement over their previous models. However, there are a number of Head-Fi'ers who have heard the HD650 and HD800 and find themselves preferring the former, despite the technical merits of the latter. You also appear to have overlooked the Sennheiser Orpheus HE-90 electrostat, which is still widely regarded as the benchmark headphone from that company.

So what, if there are headfiers who prefer the 650 over the 800?  I happen to be one (actually, I prefer the 600s over the 650s, but so what?  What's your point?  I specifically was talking about dynamic cans and never mentioned stats on purpose.  Please reread what I wrote to make sure I'm not telling you a story.  Again, what's your point?  We were discussing dynamic cans, not stats.  This thread is about two dynamic cans.
 
With respect, I suggest that you read over the first sentence of my paragraph again. With regard to the second and third sentences they are additional points that relate to my original post and your response to it. The inclusion of the HE-90 is relevant to my original post, even if it exceeds what you assumed to be the parameters of the discussion. 
 
Quote:

[size=medium] [size=medium]Be that as it may, the headphones that I referred to were not manufactured by the companies that you mentioned. I am familiar with your enthusiastic posts extolling the technical merits of the the Audeze LCD-2. You often cite the impressive frequency response and square wave response graphs in support of your obvious belief that the LCD-2 is the "best" dynamic headphone currently available.[/size][/size]

This was not the topic of our discussion and it was specifically not confined to the LCD-2.  Again, what's your point?
 
The first sentence relates to my original post and your reply to it. My point is simply that I think you are biased in favour of the LCD-2, which is fine as long as you're not claiming to be objective.
 
 
Quote:

However as you must know, these measurements though useful, cannot reproduce the complex relationship between the headphone, pinna and ear canal. They do not show for example, that some listeners find the LCD-2 to have a rather dark sound signature with detailed but "shelved down" treble presentation. They also do not show that there are others who find the soundstaging smaller than they would like and the bass presence too strong. The LCD-2 may well be an improvement over the LCD-1 and the HiFiMan HE-6 superior to the HE-5 but it is not a fact that they are "better" than the Sony MDR-R10 or Grado HP1000. This is a matter of opinion, not fact.

I never referred to anyone's subjective "perception" of performance, in fact, I specifically said I was not discussing that, and that everyone's perception is their own and they're fully entitled to it whether on not you like it.  So what's your point?  Regardless of your perception of the sound, the new generation of all the dynamic cans I mentioned are in fact, by measurement capable of performance in some areas far exceeding anything aspired to by previous generations of dynamic cans. 
 
Did you? I didn't notice. Regardless of what you chose to discuss, I chose to touch upon the limitations of frequency response and square wave graphs as accurate indicators of actual listening experiences. 
Quote:

I trust that your valediction was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek because your opinion is subjective by any measure.

Sorry, I wasn't bidding farewell to anything but your subjective opinions.  My statements were objective.  What's your point?
 
Of course I was expressing my subjective opinion; as were you. That's my point.

 
My responses to your points are in bold print.

 

[Currawong]

 
Quote:

With regard to the frequency and square wave graphs, I said in my original post that they are useful. However, they are not conclusive. There is ongoing debate over the merits of these measurement tools as true indicators of what we actually here when we listen to headphones. Some of us find that our listening experiences align with the graphs and others don't. Either way, they only tell part of the story.
 
You see little basis for my "rant". Well you're entitled to your opinion as am I. I'm not seeking your agreement, approval or support. However, I note that there are some others here who seem to share my view regardless of how colourfully it was expressed. 
 
I have heard the LCD-2, do I now need to own a pair in order to express an opinion about it here? My original post was not about the merits of the LCD-2, which I happened to like by the way as stated in my post.  
 
What you describe as "destroying the conversation" has triggered some robust discussion, including your own response. 

 

Your "rant" was to call people deluded. That is not on. Whatever merits your arguments may have was negated by that, as arguing in such a manner trashes the thread, resulting in people who want to have a good discussion simply leaving. It's not the argument, it's the presentation.
 
For an intelligent reply, however: More than likely the music one prefers will be more relevant than the frequency response of one's pinna.  I say this as we know the range of notes instruments can play and we can see where different types of music have emphasis at different ranges of frequencies due to the instruments used and way the music was recorded and mastered. If one prefers one headphone over another due to the tonal balance (frequency response), comparing the differences in the FR graphs of both headphones will give one a relative idea of what is going on, regardless of how precise that graph is. It doesn't require an analysis of the FR of one's ears to see the differences between the FR of two pairs of headphones and correlate that to one's experiences and feelings. In the case of the LCD-2s it doesn't require rocket science to see that they have less emphasis in the 2-3k range which some people find very disagreeable. Likewise it was easy to see, once we had the FR graphs from Sennheiser, that sibilance in music was emphasised with the HD-800s, as many pairs had a big peak about 6k. Nor is it hard to consider the music one listens to and where it has emphasis either.  Lunatique beautifully analysed the LCD-2s and their frequency response in his review and he didn't have to resort to being abusive about it. 
 
My point, ultimately, is that most people seem to be able to say something like "I don't like the overall tone of the LCD-2s because of the 2-3k drop." or "I like the LCD-2s because they aren't bright like the HD-800s".  Personally in my case I find the LCD-2s less ideal for jazz than my Symphones Magnums and more ideal for vocal music, pop and rock, for the very reason you are arguing about -- reasons people have already agreed about repeatedly. I think the problem in these discussions is people being incapable of distinguising what is objective and subjective. Not to mention, people not being clear when they say, for example, a pair of headphones are "good" or "better".
 
Blackbeardben's post is the kind of thing we need to see more of here IMO.

 

[pp312]

Seems a shame to see two intelligent and lucid posters at loggerheads over so little, especially as no one's really been impolite. How about we all go back to square one, wherever that was.

 

[MrSpenkelink]

With respect Currawong, you have seized upon a topic that I didn't even mention in my original post. Have I not already said that frequency response and square wave graphs are useful but not conclusive as predictors for actual listening experiences? I don't follow the sound science forum but I am aware of debate regarding the methodologies employed in measuring frequency responses. I am also aware of the variables that may affect the accuracy of these measurements. And I am also aware that there are some who regard these methodologies as too simplistic to adequately represent the complex interaction between the transducer and the human ear.
 
Surely you must be aware of posts from Head-Fi'ers who found that the sound of the headphone produced some surprises that were not represented in the frequency response graphs. These can relate to the overall brightness or darkness of a headphone's sound signature, the timbre of instruments, imaging, instrument placement, soundstage, sibilance, etc. Maybe they just read them wrong. And would you please tell me where I was abusive in my posts when I addressed this topic?
 
If you read over my posts in this thread, you will see that I never expressed an opinion about the LCD-2 other than to say that I liked it. However, in one of my posts I did mention how other Head-Fi'ers have commented upon its sound signature. The LCD-2 was incidental to the main point of my post, which was to question the notion that the current crop of flagship headphones are "better" than the top headphones from "yesteryear".
 
Frankly, I think that your response to my posting style is a bit precious. I've been on the receiving end of some pretty abusive posts here that were completely unwarranted. I have not singled anyone out for abuse in my posts but yes, I've made some provocative general remarks that might offend the sensibilities of some Head-Fi'ers. Well it wouldn't be the first time that's happened in a forum thread. I've also seen posts here that are far more abusive than anything that I've written or will ever write, which have not been censored or critiqued.  

 

[DefectiveAudioComponent]

Mr Spenkelink, your posts have nothing to do with the comparison between the HD800 and the LCD2. As you write, you have not even posted an opinion about the LCD2. Also, the conversation that has resulted from your posts is unusually boring and pointless, and I feel sorry that I contributed to this tiresome mess.