[Skylab]

Quote:

Transparent, that's the word, cheers Frank.
 
If I'm not mistaken, most owners of both cans would agree with your observations.

It is interesting that it seems to me that, as you point out, people who actually own or have owned both cans at the same time seem to feel this way, and people who listened to the LCD-2 at a meet are most often the ones who find the LCD-2 lacking versus the HD800.  This is just an anecdotal observation - but I would like to have someone who actually owned both at the SAME TIME and compared them DIRECTLY to chime in and report that they found the HD800 to be better at low-level detail retrieval, or higher in transparency, than the LCD-2.  This is ONLY an invitation to people who owned both at the same time.  For others who heard them at meets and disliked one or the other, no need to re-state your preferences in response to this post, please.

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

It is interesting that it seems to me that, as you point out, people who actually own or have owned both cans at the same time seem to feel this way, and people who listened to the LCD-2 at a meet are most often the ones who find the LCD-2 lacking versus the HD800.  This is just an anecdotal observation - but I would like to have someone who actually owned both at the SAME TIME and compared them DIRECTLY to chime in and report that they found the HD800 to be better at low-level detail retrieval, or higher in transparency, than the LCD-2.  This is ONLY an invitation to people who owned both at the same time.  For others who heard them at meets and disliked one or the other, no need to re-state your preferences in response to this post, please.

When the LCD-2s first came to market, as soon as the T1s became available, I spent a fair amount of time with the LCD-2s, HD800s and the T1s, all three together and a variety of amps and sources.  My conclusions were reached after listening to and comparing all three, side by side with the same material. FWIW.  In all cases, I found one of the differentiating characteristics of the LCD-2 was superior low level detail retrieval.  The relative FR anomalies of the HD800s and T1s also became apparent in the three way sessions.  If the listening had been done with the cans isolated from one another, at different times and sessions, I'm sure that the differences between them would not have been as apparent.
 

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

It is interesting that it seems to me that, as you point out, people who actually own or have owned both cans at the same time seem to feel this way, and people who listened to the LCD-2 at a meet are most often the ones who find the LCD-2 lacking versus the HD800.  This is just an anecdotal observation - but I would like to have someone who actually owned both at the SAME TIME and compared them DIRECTLY to chime in and report that they found the HD800 to be better at low-level detail retrieval, or higher in transparency, than the LCD-2.  This is ONLY an invitation to people who owned both at the same time.  For others who heard them at meets and disliked one or the other, no need to re-state your preferences in response to this post, please.

 
I think it makes perfect sense why the LCD-2 would not "wow" people at meets (which is probably a good thing).
 
And as someone who currently owns both I think it is ridiculous to say each headphone is "on another level" because they are both fantastic. That being said, the LCD-2 seem more transparent to me, probably due to the lack of crazy spikes to my ear.
 
Even to someone like me who has owned both for quite some time direct A/B gets me second guessing sometimes because the signatures really are that different from the mids up.
 
The HD 800 sound leaner and brighter which I think in and of itself makes them sound "airy" which is nice but not necessarily what I believe is actually there.
 
The LCD-2 sound fuller, more natural organic. They sound congested in part due to the equal presentation of detail, or that is my theory and it makes sense. If everything is competing for attention, instead of being thrust at you via dB peak it will sound more crowded.
 
And if anything, IMO the LCD-2 slightly outdoes the HD 800 in low level detail because things don't sound unnaturaly lively and bright.
 
 
 
Both are great and will appeal to some. I really do think lack of low level detail is a perceptual thing due to peaks that simply are not their to aid the listener, the very same detail should be there if not more.
 

 

[purrin]

 
Quote:

C'mon, be fair.  The netz isn't always the best medium for communication and the word "fuzzy" wasn't exactly the best word to use on your behalf - as most will think fuzzy as I would have interpreted the word.  I didn't mean to tell you what you hear and I did express what I hear, I kinda thought that my experience mirrored yours in that indeed the HD800 might be construed as "fuzzier" or the LCD2 had like a sharper definition, like the sharpness control on a TV, regardless of color settings.  I guess neither of our communication in this instance there was quite effective at portraying our true meanings.  Perhaps my communications need to be a little more sharp hehehe.

Yes, definitely poor word choice on my part. Doh!
 
Quote:

Purrin, am I correct in saying that you've only heard the LCD-2's in meet conditions?

Yes, meet conditions. I did get to listen to them early ~ 8:30ish when no one was there yet, but these were on the less than optimal setups from with the LCD2 fed from Lyr (JJ tubes) and DNA Sonnett. I got another chance during much and in the late afternoon when things were about to close better rigs and on my own. My comparisons with the HD800 were not direct and the results were closer than with the others - this needs a proper re-assessment.

 

[Danz03]

I think that is the problem, for someone who has never heard what neutral and accurate frequency response sounds like, how can he make comments like 'the LCD-2s are dark sounding' or 'the HD800s are neutral sounding'? The LCD-2s don't sound like real life simply because most recordings or CDs don't sound like real life 100%, but the LCD-2s do make a recording sound like what it's supposed to sound like.
 
And for people who made comments like 'I play the piano (or any musical instrument) so I should know what a piano sounds like' is totally pointless because 1. Not all pianos sound the same. 2. Even the very same piano would sound totally different in different spaces. 3. A recording of a certain piano doesn't necessarily sound like that piano, it depends purely on how it was miked-up . 4. The same piano played by a different pianist can sound totally different.
 
Basically, there is no way someone can judge how accurate a sound system is unless he compares that in measurements or with some kind of reference. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that the HD800s are overly bright but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. It's only bad if what one wants is accuracy. 

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SP Wild /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I don't know anymore.  This HRTF issue continues to throw a spanner in the works.  What I hear agrees with you...although I have never heard a calibrated professional monitor.  The only thing one can test is watching DVD movies, these soundtracks are recorded to a calibrated flat frequency (ie THX certifications and microphone calibrations, etc).  The LCD2 matches what I see on screen to what I hear on the headphone.  I then reference the scene to real life sounds, and this is spot on to me, eg a busy city and bustling city metropolis with traffic sounds like a busy metropolis...where I live and hear...everyday.
 
Edit:  I'm just throwing the LCD2s on right now, with fresh ears playing a Hi-Res copy of Meave O Boyle from Lynn Records (I think of you a lot when I listen to this record you gave me).  The only thing that sounds off to me right now, is a slight treble peak at the highest treble extension.  As my ears fatigue if listening at loud levels...I generally start to reach for my K701s.  At lower volumes, I never switch cans.

 

[purrin]

 
Quote:

And for people who made comments like 'I play the piano (or any musical instrument) so I should know what a piano sounds like' is totally pointless because 1. Not all pianos sound the same. 2. Even the very same piano would sound totally different in different spaces. 3. A recording of a certain piano doesn't necessarily sound like that piano, it depends purely on how it was miked-up . 4. The same piano played by a different pianist can sound totally different.

On good recording, you can tell if a piano is a Steinway, Yamaha, or cheap Baldwin. I'm not kidding you on this.
 
But your point is well taken for other reasons. When I play piano or bass, I don't give a crap how it sounds like - it's the music that matters.
 
On the FR response, I find dark or bright are relative and can be adjusted by the brain for as long as the slopes are within reason. However, uneven FR, especially in the fundamental range is bad. Nothing worse than listening to a piano recording where certain notes are louder than others.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

 

On good recording, you can tell if a piano is a Steinway, Yamaha, or cheap Baldwin. I'm not kidding you on this.
 
But your point is well taken for other reasons. When I play piano or bass, I don't give a crap how it sounds like - it's the music that matters.
 
On the FR response, I find dark or bright are relative and can be adjusted by the brain for as long as the slopes are within reason. However, uneven FR, especially in the fundamental range is bad. Nothing worse than listening to a piano recording where certain notes are louder than others.

 
Have me play any of those pianos, record each "performance" and I will have anyone guessing they are all 200$ beginner piano. LOL

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

I think that is the problem, for someone who has never heard what neutral and accurate frequency response sounds like, how can he make comments like 'the LCD-2s are dark sounding' or 'the HD800s are neutral sounding'? The LCD-2s don't sound like real life simply because most recordings or CDs don't sound like real life 100%, but the LCD-2s do make a recording sound like what it's supposed to sound like.
 
And for people who made comments like 'I play the piano (or any musical instrument) so I should know what a piano sounds like' is totally pointless because 1. Not all pianos sound the same. 2. Even the very same piano would sound totally different in different spaces. 3. A recording of a certain piano doesn't necessarily sound like that piano, it depends purely on how it was miked-up . 4. The same piano played by a different pianist can sound totally different.
 
Basically, there is no way someone can judge how accurate a sound system is unless he compares that in measurements or with some kind of reference. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that the HD800s are overly bright but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. It's only bad if what one wants is accuracy. 

 

I'll go back to my old saw...  If one's reference is anything other than real life, one doesn't really have a "reference."
I literally spent over 30 years of my life mixing, miking, and recording real life orchestral instruments, individual singers, and choirs.  Headphones were one of my most valuable tools in that work.  The reason I have such an appreciation for the LCD-2 is for it's faithfulness to real life in my ears.
 
Let me make one other thing clear...  The voicing of the LCD-2 happens to better fit my individual HRTF than that of the T1 or HD-800.  This may be different for other people.   That is why different headphones and companies have different voicing or sonic profiles, because we all hear differently.  On an objective basis, by measurement, all three of these cans are capable of better performance than what came before them.  Subjectively, their respective voicing will appeal to different listeners.  This is neither good nor bad, it just is what it is.
 

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

 

On good recording, you can tell if a piano is a Steinway, Yamaha, or cheap Baldwin. I'm not kidding you on this.
 
But your point is well taken for other reasons. When I play piano or bass, I don't give a crap how it sounds like - it's the music that matters.
 
On the FR response, I find dark or bright are relative and can be adjusted by the brain for as long as the slopes are within reason. However, uneven FR, especially in the fundamental range is bad. Nothing worse than listening to a piano recording where certain notes are louder than others.

Absolutely, it's trivial to be able to identify the piano that was recorded.  The sonority, the interplay of harmonics from the other strings, the sound of the hammers / felts, sounding board, case,  and harp, the sound of the action, all is very distinctive in pianos.

 

[purrin]

Quote:

Have me play any of those pianos, record each "performance" and I will have anyone guessing they are all 200$ beginner piano. LOL

ROFL. Same goes for me.

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

When the LCD-2s first came to market, as soon as the T1s became available, I spent a fair amount of time with the LCD-2s, HD800s and the T1s, all three together and a variety of amps and sources.  My conclusions were reached after listening to and comparing all three, side by side with the same material. FWIW.  In all cases, I found one of the differentiating characteristics of the LCD-2 was superior low level detail retrieval.  The relative FR anomalies of the HD800s and T1s also became apparent in the three way sessions.  If the listening had been done with the cans isolated from one another, at different times and sessions, I'm sure that the differences between them would not have been as apparent.
 

YUP.  Unless you can compare in the exact way you did, with matched levels, I think it's REALLY tough to judge many aspects of headphone performance effectively.
 


Quote:

 
I think it makes perfect sense why the LCD-2 would not "wow" people at meets (which is probably a good thing).
 
And as someone who currently owns both I think it is ridiculous to say each headphone is "on another level" because they are both fantastic. That being said, the LCD-2 seem more transparent to me, probably due to the lack of crazy spikes to my ear.
 
Even to someone like me who has owned both for quite some time direct A/B gets me second guessing sometimes because the signatures really are that different from the mids up.
 
The HD 800 sound leaner and brighter which I think in and of itself makes them sound "airy" which is nice but not necessarily what I believe is actually there.
 
The LCD-2 sound fuller, more natural organic. They sound congested in part due to the equal presentation of detail, or that is my theory and it makes sense. If everything is competing for attention, instead of being thrust at you via dB peak it will sound more crowded.
 
And if anything, IMO the LCD-2 slightly outdoes the HD 800 in low level detail because things don't sound unnaturaly lively and bright.
 
 
 
Both are great and will appeal to some. I really do think lack of low level detail is a perceptual thing due to peaks that simply are not their to aid the listener, the very same detail should be there if not more.
 

Well put.

 

[grokit]

Each headphone on their own sounded fantastic. It's only when I contrasted them against each other that their weaknesses became apparent. The LCD-2's "fuller" sound can become closed in and congested with a certain type of recording if it is listened to right after listening to the HD800. Conversely, the HD800 sounded thin and spiky with certain recordings when listened to after listening to the LCD-2. The human brain has a marvelous ability to adapt, and there is certainly something to love about both headphones. Alone, they both come close to perfection, but together they tend to expose flaws in each other.
 
On another note: As someone who was in the musical equipment business in the late 1980s, I can testify that piano is one of the hardest, if not the hardest of all the musical instruments to sample correctly. The synthesizer world was evolving from 12-bit to 16-bit waveforms at the time, and Emu was the first to get it right and had good success with their piano-only Proformance 1/1+ MIDI waveform generator module. They went for a quality grand piano sound and theirs became the standard for a while, while their competitors went for as many different sounds as possible with mixed success.

 

[Danz03]

Then you should have a listen to Synthogy's Ivory II, comparing to Ivory II, PRO/Formance sounds like a toy piano, I used to love it a lot but sampling has come a long way since the 80s because of cheap RAM and Hard Disks. 

 
Quote:

 The synthesizer world was evolving from 12-bit to 16-bit waveforms at the time, and Emu was the first to get it right and had good success with their piano-only Proformance 1/1+ MIDI waveform generator module. They went for a quality grand piano sound and theirs became the standard for a while, while their competitors went for as many different sounds as possible with mixed success.

 

[Phasey]

I think the the LCD2 zigs the Hd800 zags. Just my opinion.

 

[ast]

Quote:

...... However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that the HD800s are overly bright but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing. It's only bad if what one wants is accuracy. 

 

 

 
between HD800 and T1, which one do you think sounds brighter?
 
 
 
 
.