Disappointed with Audeze LCD2s

[DefQon]

lol
 
Two things came to mind reading this thread and reminds me of the old HD650 vs K701 comparison threads.
 
To sum up:
 
Two different sounding headphones, one laid back or progressively used "dark" sounding. The other with a lot of treble energy and to some overly bright or shrilling sounding.
 
Going from a Grado to a LCD2 is a night and day difference. If OP has been listening to the Grado for all his life, the transition from them to the LCD2's will not automatically allow for his ears and brain to adjust to the extremely different sound signature. OP should spend a little more time with the LCD2's, get to know it, listen to it through some different genre's/music and get to know the positive attributes of the headphone. Compare back and forth with the Grado's and understand what both are good at and why they are good in that aspect. If OP still dislikes the LCD2's by the of this, it simply comes down to one thing - sound preference. Nothing wrong with this, not everyone will enjoy a piece from the same cake.

 

[SP Wild]

Run the LCD2s through a software equaliser, seeing as you already have them.  They can sound as bright as you like them to and still have a faster resolution than any Grado without EQ.
 
What you will not emulate in an EQ is the cup resonance characteristics of the Grado.
 
If you feel EQ is sinful, than either the HD800, Denon/Fostex platform from what I have heard are brighter than the LCD2 and they are faster resolving than Grado's finest, but all headphones seem to have a unique cup resonace that cannot be emulated or removed with EQ.
 
But no.  A bit of EQ also goes a long long way.
 
Your ability to adapt to darkness? If going by my ability to adapt to brightness - is zero.

 

[Focker]

Quote:

  All of the lesser grados dont even sound that good.
 
 

 
Sound great to me!
 
One of these days I'd love to see someone take an idea that Purrin once attempted to put forth, and actually do it correctly. A while back I read one of his threads where he loosely attempted to show that headphone preference was related to how they objectively measured, erroneously concluding that listeners preferred the headphones that measured the "best". The way he did it was problematic, but I'd love to see an actual study where people listened to various headphones without any knowledge of how they measured, and then compare that to the actual data. That would really be difficult to do, but not impossible. 

 

[SP Wild]

Some can even measure with their ears - then back that up with measurements after the fact!
 

 

[Focker]

Quote:

Some can even measure with their ears - then back that up with measurements after the fact!
 

 
 
That would be very impressive! And it's a big reason why such a study would be very interesting. 

 

[TMRaven]

Quote:

 
Sound great to me!
 
One of these days I'd love to see someone take an idea that Purrin once attempted to put forth, and actually do it correctly. A while back I read one of his threads where he loosely attempted to show that headphone preference was related to how they objectively measured, erroneously concluding that listeners preferred the headphones that measured the "best". The way he did it was problematic, but I'd love to see an actual study where people listened to various headphones without any knowledge of how they measured, and then compare that to the actual data. That would really be difficult to do, but not impossible. 

 
 
I know there was a paper that did this with speakers.  It did conclude that people preferred sounds that were closer to flat.  Speakers are an entirely different story though, they have inherent advantages over headphones with bass impact.

 

[nicholars]

Maybe you would prefer the hifiman headphones? I think they are supposed to be brighter than the LCD2.

 

[DarKen23]

OP might enjoy the HE-500. I still think the OP should give the LCD2 some time, the understanding of a headphone can take awhile imo, and it should also be auditioned using various amps, dacs, etc. 

 

[wafflezz]

Quote:

OP might enjoy the HE-500. I still think the OP should give the LCD2 some time, the understanding of a headphone can take awhile imo, and it should also be auditioned using various amps, dacs, etc. 

 
I don't know why everyone thinks that different DACs are so important to try out for different headphones though. It's honestly all about the amp setup. Even a lot of onboard soundcards will not distort to audible levels and will have semi-transparent sound. Anything past the point of transparency to the human ear is diminishing returns.

There's a reason that there is an entire society of people on the internet who think that it's all just a big placebo. It's because the difference is very minor...audible, but minor

 

[nicholars]

Quote:

 
I don't know why everyone thinks that different DACs are so important to try out for different headphones though. It's honestly all about the amp setup. Even a lot of onboard soundcards will not distort to audible levels and will have semi-transparent sound. Anything past the point of transparency to the human ear is diminishing returns.

There's a reason that there is an entire society of people on the internet who think that it's all just a big placebo. It's because the difference is very minor...audible, but minor

 
Yes buy a Xonar STX, use that as your dac and any other changes to the sound from a dac will be 10% better at best.

 

[DarKen23]

Quote:

I don't know why everyone thinks that different DACs are so important to try out for different headphones though. It's honestly all about the amp setup. Even a lot of onboard soundcards will not distort to audible levels and will have semi-transparent sound. Anything past the point of transparency to the human ear is diminishing returns.

There's a reason that there is an entire society of people on the internet who think that it's all just a big placebo. It's because the difference is very minor...audible, but minor

 
mmmkay

 

[nicholars]

Quote:

 
mmmkay

 
The difference between dacs is not very big though is it, I have only heard 5 external dacs, my motherboard onboard dac, Xonar D2 and my Xonar STX. Once you get to the Xonar STX, I have not found a dac which is significantly better, most have sounded worse to my ears.... I have not tried anything over £300 so I may be wrong. All pretty minor differences though, not exactly night and day is it. Sorry that was off topic.

 

[MohawkUS]

The difference between dacs is not very big though is it, I have only heard 5 external dacs, my motherboard onboard dac, Xonar D2 and my Xonar STX. Once you get to the Xonar STX, I have not found a dac which is significantly better, most have sounded worse to my ears.... I have not tried anything over £300 so I may be wrong. All pretty minor differences though, not exactly night and day is it. Sorry that was off topic.

The Xonar STX is an interesting case. One of the most important parts of the DAC is the power supply, of which the Xonar uses the one built into your PC. I would imagine the performance of that card varies quite a bit depending on what computer you stick it in. With my XFX branded power supply I preferred the STX to the Schiit Bifrost(though not to the DAC in the Burson 160DS). All of the DACs I've tested out under $500 have been very close performance wise, but my Ultra-Fi DAC sounds significantly better.

I don't know why everyone thinks that different DACs are so important to try out for different headphones though. It's honestly all about the amp setup. Even a lot of onboard soundcards will not distort to audible levels and will have semi-transparent sound. Anything past the point of transparency to the human ear is diminishing returns.


There's a reason that there is an entire society of people on the internet who think that it's all just a big placebo. It's because the difference is very minor...audible, but minor

Do you have experience to back this up, or are you just going based on what you have read? There is a bit of a catch 22 where many in the objective crowd flat out refuse to try anything that could challenge their PoV making their viewpoint as much if not more 'faith based' than those they look down their noses on. Under $500 the differences between DACs are mostly in the realm of sound signature, above that you'd be surprised what some of them can do. Though frustratingly if you're just looking for pure performance it's cheaper to go with a mid-range turntable. Digital technology is getting close though, the major problem is the poor mastering of most modern digital releases.

 

[nicholars]

Quote:

The Xonar STX is an interesting case. One of the most important parts of the DAC is the power supply, of which the Xonar uses the one built into your PC. I would imagine the performance of that card varies quite a bit depending on what computer you stick it in. With my XFX branded power supply I preferred the STX to the Schiit Bifrost(though not to the DAC in the Burson 160DS). All of the DACs I've tested out under $500 have been very close performance wise, but my Ultra-Fi DAC sounds significantly better.
 

 
Yes I have a pretty good PC with a antec power supply and the STX has suprised me with how good it is.... I have not tried any high end headphone amps or dacs over £300, but the STX is excellent value in my opinion, the headphone amp is good and the dac section is very good as well. I think if you are looking for a good dac and headphone amp on a budget there is nothing better than the STX, if you have a PC with a decent case and power supply.

 

[roBernd]

you're just used to piercing treble which would torture regular folk... nope, regular folk are already deaf these days.