I'm like the guys that Dallan mentions who have disappeared from Head-Fi discussions that pit the HD800 against a never-ending stream of contenders: Edition 8, the PS1000, the T1, the LCD2, and now the HE-6.
I'm sincerely interested in learning all I can about the best 'phones out there so I make it a point to drop in to Head-Fi once in a while to see if there's anything new. Tonight, I started to catch up on this thread from the point where I left off months ago, and I found myself reading to the last post.
I own the HD800 and am interested in the LCD2 so a discussion on the comparative merits and demerits of each is fascinating. I haven't heard the LCD2 so I've been paying close attention to the opinions and observations, especially to those from owners of both or from individuals who have extensively tested both.
As a contented owner of the HD800, I find myself agreeing with comments made by IPodPJ, Dallan, pp312, and rgs9200m -- especially when the issue is the HD800's bass. There's been quite a discussion on how the HD800's bass is not as good as the LCD2's, and in the name of scientific proof, some have presented charts and numbers. However, some basic facts about bass remind us that numbers don't tell us very much. For example, the lowest pitch that a bass guitar can reach is 41 Hz. Also, when listeners talk about bass, they're really talking about the 90-250 Hz range. Thus, "good bass" isn't like a limbo competition. It's not a matter of "how low can you go" but how good does it sound.
Also, as some have mentioned, the quality of bass isn't a matter of volume. Again, it's quality. I think it was rgs9200m who described it best. I can't describe it as well as he does, but I look for dynamics: speed, tightness, definition (yeah, like abs), control, and a kind of bounce that comes off the bass strings. And I'm most aware of the quality of the bass dynamics in passages that are low in volume.
But as IPodPJ, Dallan, and others have been saying, you need the right equipment to get these dynamics. In the HD800 lineup, the amp is especially critical. It has to be able to respond with clean, dark, explosive power, and it needs to do so at lightning speed. If you're finding the HD800 bass non-dynamic -- veiled, flabby, diffused, vague -- then more than likely the amp isn't delivering.
Some have criticized the HD800 for weakness in the mids yet they've conceded that the HD800 is strong or even superior in articulating individual instruments and voices. This is contradictory when we consider that articulation is a primary function of the mids. And accurate separation and articulation is, I believe, an HD800 strength that most can agree on.
Perhaps the loudest and most persistent criticism is the HD800's highs in the frequency response charts provided by Sennheiser with each set. Most point to the "peak" at the 6-8 kHz range as proof that the HD800 has been poorly engineered in the highs. But this is actually an optical illusion. There really is no peak. We think we see one because of the dip in the 2-6 kHz range. When the dip gradually rises and returns to the flat baseline at 6-8 kHz, it creates the illusion of a peak. If you hold a straight edge on the flat line, you'll see what I'm talking about. The so-called peak is really just a continuation of the flat line.
Why, then, the dip? Is this an error? As at least one person pointed out, engineers intentionally create deviations from the flat at certain points in the highs to offset the impact on listeners at about the the 3 kHz range, which is associated with listening fatigue. The strategic placement of dips prevents fatigue and gives the reader an impression of flatness.
Re those who complain that the HD800 is shrill in the highs and, thus, fatiguing, my guess is that they may have had the volume up too high. The HD800 is, for all practical purposes, flat to the ears. Thus, no frequency along the spectrum should be irritating and, thus, fatiguing. When I first got my set, I found myself turning the volume up to reach more of the music in the quiet passages. With the HD800, the increase in volume is subtle, and the only way I could detect that it was too high was fatigue. Turning the volume down to a comfortable level quickly fixed that, and I could then listen for hours on end with zero listening fatigue.
The problem is that most of us are used to listening at high volumes, mistaking loudness for dynamics. When we do this with the HD800, we quickly experience the shrillness that translates to fatigue.
Dallan points out that the equipment lineup for the HD800 is critical. It is. If you don't get it right, you won't really get the most out of the HD800. There's no one right lineup. Each person has to roll his own. For me, it all begins with high-res lossless tracks on my computer. The settings in Foobar2000 are for Wasapi at 24 bits, and I use the USB out to a Monitor 02, and from that to the DLIII via coaxial. The DLIII is connected via balanced XLRs to a balanced B22, and the HD800 is connected to the amp in a balanced configuration.
I used to have the HD800 in an SE lineup with the Phonitor, but it was never as good as the balanced.
The point is that a weakness in any of these areas will lessen the quality of the listening experience. Poorly recorded or low-res tracks won't sound very good. A lesser amp will diminish dynamics. And balanced is, in my opinion, superior to SE. As others have said, the HD800 will reveal quality when it's there -- but it'll also expose weaknesses, too.
Finally, the music is critical. I use a test track to evaluate my lineups. My favorite is Billy Burnette's "Everything Is Broken" from the HDtracks-Head-Fi album Open Your Ears. I know what the instruments and the composition ought to sound like, and my present HD800 delivers it -- all of it. None of my other equipment can do the same. I've learned that this track will reveal the weak spots in my gear and settings.
When all the pieces are in place, I don't think about the equipment and totally get into the music.
Again, as some posters have said, some or most might find all this complexity and pickiness too much trouble and simply opt for a headphone and setup that consistently delivers good sound over the widest possible range of equipment and tracks. I can understand this. For this reason, I have other setups, too, that I turn to when I just want to listen to music without having to sweat over synergy in recording resolution, amp quality, etc.
Will I get the LCD2? The more I learn, the less I'm inclined to think so. My current take is that it might not represent a quantum or even significant improvement over what I now have. If I weren't happy with my current HD800 setup, I might be tempted. But since I am, I think I can sit on my wallet for a bit longer, that is, until something comes along that has people like IPodPJ, Dallan, pp312, and rgs9200m drooling.
