[chronomitch]

Quote:

I think both headphones are flawed.  The HD800 has too much treble and a cold tone that is unnatural, and the LCD-2 has what I believe to be an unresolved backwave issue that sounds like resonance (though I don't think it's actual resonance from the housing or anything because they have tested for that). 
 
But if we are leaving this thread to the tune that the HD800 and LCD-2 are technically equal, but different flavors, than I think Audeze wins hands down simply because they are a 2 man operation.  For them to even come close to Sennheiser with its' long history and experience, resources and man-power would be an achievement, but to make something that many people feel is superior is really something. 

 
Just to echo what everyone else seems to be implying...
 
This assumes that there is one, and one alone, sound signature that everyone is striving for, which is simply untrue. For some audiophiles, a completely neutral frequency response is the goal, allowing them to hear a recording as it was intended. For others, a warmer, more lively sound is the ideal. Which is correct? Neither. This is a hobby, not an Olympic contest. Different people have different preferences and expectations.
 
Both the HD800 and LCD-2 are excellent headphones, but they excel in different areas and offer very different sonic experiences. The HD800 delivers an amazing (for a headphone) sound stage while emphasizing small details in high frequencies. The LCD-2, on the other hand, offers a much more intimate sound stage with natural instrument tones and rolled off highs. Which is the best? That can only be decided on an individual basis. For me, it's the HD800. For others, it's the LCD-2.

 

[grokit]

I was listening to Mining for Gold from the Trinity Session Revisited album with the LCD-2 last night. This is a short acapella recording that makes use of the natural reverb provided by the venue, which is a large church with interesting acoustic properties. The soundstage in this recording is positively surreal, and the LCD-2 reproduced it faithfully. What the LCD-2 does not do is impart an artificial soundstage (like the HD800 does), but it is very capable of reproducing the soundstage already in the recording. On this particular recording the soundstage is positively cavernous. I'm not knocking the HD800, just pointing out a difference between these two headphones. Sometimes an artificially-generated soundstage is preferable, like with flat-sounding recordings for instance.

 

[dallan]

All headphones impart an artificial soundstage.  It is part of their presentation to give the illusion of space.  
 
As far as natural goes, plantars in general don't sound natural to me at all though the LCD-2 does a better job than the HE-6 to my ears.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Quote:
 
Just to echo what everyone else seems to be implying...
 
This assumes that there is one, and one alone, sound signature that everyone is striving for, which is simply untrue. For some audiophiles, a completely neutral frequency response is the goal, allowing them to hear a recording as it was intended. For others, a warmer, more lively sound is the ideal. Which is correct? Neither. This is a hobby, not an Olympic contest. Different people have different preferences and expectations.
 
Both the HD800 and LCD-2 are excellent headphones, but they excel in different areas and offer very different sonic experiences. The HD800 delivers an amazing (for a headphone) sound stage while emphasizing small details in high frequencies. The LCD-2, on the other hand, offers a much more intimate sound stage with natural instrument tones and rolled off highs. Which is the best? That can only be decided on an individual basis. For me, it's the HD800. For others, it's the LCD-2.

Did you read my post?  I wasn't talking about the sound.  But even if I was, this is a VS. thread, so isn't the intent is to compare the two?  The general consensus in this thread seems to be that they sound equally good but different (I think they are both flawed, as I said in my previous post...).  My point is just that the companies behind the headphone couldn't be more different.  Audeze is a 2 man operation, and IMO it is more impressive for such a small company to create a headphone that reaches this high level of technical and sonic ability. 
 
That may not matter to some people, but I do think that even if the LCD-2 is not to your liking you have to give it up for the 2 guys at Audeze who have taken on the biggest headphone company in the world, and with less resources, less man power and less experience, created a product that something like half the customer base thinks is better.  It's also much cheaper, which is also impressive considering their more limited manufacturing and distribution capabilities.  It is really good for all of us for that to be possible.  It encourages new designs, new research, and new perspectives. 

 

[fishski13]

 
Quote:

That may not matter to some people, but I do think that even if the LCD-2 is not to your liking you have to give it up for the 2 guys at Audeze who have taken on the biggest headphone company in the world, and with less resources, less man power and less experience, created a product that something like half the customer base thinks is better.  It's also much cheaper, which is also impressive considering their more limited manufacturing and distribution capabilities.  It is really good for all of us for that to be possible.  It encourages new designs, new research, and new perspectives. 

x2.
 

 

[chronomitch]

I wasn't really arguing with you, just echoing some of the voices in this thread. However, I don't think you can really compare the HD800 with the LCD-2 as their aims are actually very different. If Audeze's aim was to emulate and in some ways surpass the Sennheiser sound, then I would give you the point. Instead, they have focused on creating a headphone with a very natural tone and more intimate sound stage (and kudos to them for succeeding). As to the size of the company which created the LCD-2, I think you will find that the world of hi-end audio is filled by many smaller, boutique companies which create high end components. It's really not that uncommon.

 

[MacedonianHero]

 

Joe Montana, Mustang, .45, and yes.
 
JK except for Joe Montana 

LoL...beat me to it.

 

[Ra97oR]

I think both headphones are flawed.  The HD800 has too much treble and a cold tone that is unnatural, and the LCD-2 has what I believe to be an unresolved backwave issue that sounds like resonance (though I don't think it's actual resonance from the housing or anything because they have tested for that). 
 
But if we are leaving this thread to the tune that the HD800 and LCD-2 are technically equal, but different flavors, than I think Audeze wins hands down simply because they are a 2 man operation.  For them to even come close to Sennheiser with its' long history and experience, resources and man-power would be an achievement, but to make something that many people feel is superior is really something. 

I just totally agrees with it, I will take neither myself. If I have to choose a current production dynamic (not needing a energizer) flagship, it will be the T1 instead, if not I will keep my current pairs or a K1000.

 

[skeptic]

Good grief is there some spin going on in this thread when it comes to descriptions of sound stage...
 
Whoever started the trend of rebranding the LCD-2's sound stage as "intimate" (instead of relatively small and wholly unremarkable), deserves an honorary position on Audeze's marketing staff...and maybe a share in their commissions. 
 
 
 
 

 

[Ra97oR]

So true... xD

The soundstage and the "closeness" is the downfall of the LCD-2 to me. If they can fix that, LCD-2 > T1 > HD800 for fun, I must say the LCD-2 is fun to listen to even now, but I just cannot stand the soundstage.

 

[wind016]

 
Quote:

Good grief is there some spin going on in this thread when it comes to descriptions of sound stage...
 
Whoever started the trend of rebranding the LCD-2's sound stage as "intimate" (instead of relatively small and wholly unremarkable), deserves an honorary position on Audeze's marketing staff...and maybe a share in their commissions. 
 
 
 
 

Closed headphones sound more intimate than open headphones. The LCD2 sounds like a closed headphone so I guess that's why people think it's intimate.
 

 

[Currawong]

Quote:

Good grief is there some spin going on in this thread when it comes to descriptions of sound stage...
 
Whoever started the trend of rebranding the LCD-2's sound stage as "intimate" (instead of relatively small and wholly unremarkable), deserves an honorary position on Audeze's marketing staff...and maybe a share in their commissions. 

 
On the contrary, with my gear it could be described as neither. 

 

[kwkarth]

Quote:

Good grief is there some spin going on in this thread when it comes to descriptions of sound stage...
 
Whoever started the trend of rebranding the LCD-2's sound stage as "intimate" (instead of relatively small and wholly unremarkable), deserves an honorary position on Audeze's marketing staff...and maybe a share in their commissions. 

I don't know who came up with the "intimate" description, but when soundstage is recorded, I find that the LCD-2s reproduce it very, very well.  If you're looking for something besides this sort of sonic honesty, then I agree with you, the LCD-2 is not the place to look.  That's the way I hear it on my gear.
 
 

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

 
On the contrary, with my gear it could be described as neither. 

 
Quote:

I don't know who came up with the "intimate" description, but when soundstage is recorded, I find that the LCD-2s reproduce it very, very well.  If you're looking for something besides this sort of sonic honesty, then I agree with you, the LCD-2 is not the place to look.  That's the way I hear it on my gear.

 

X2 on both counts. The LCD-2 faithfully reproduces the soundstage that is in the recording. If there is no soundstage present in the recording the LCD-2 will not create one for you.
 

 

[oqvist]

Why is the LCD-2 not better with binaural recordings then?