I no longer have CL2 so it's purely from memory. CL2 sub-bass is bottomless, with some EQ can go terrifyingly low but... rather polite when it comes to sub impact and that was my problem with it. If u cannot achieve seal with minimum air between eardrum and nozzle it will not perform up to the hype! Roland has bass that is almost as linear but while some genres will give advantage to CL2 due to it's speed but to me Roland is more realistically sounding with real sub impact while being very well controlled. I mentiond CL2 for it's uncanny realism but the 2-3-4Khz peak/hump didn't go away completely with source scaling and most of the time I was EQing it quite a bit. I would reduce mid bass 2db, 2K-2db, 4k-3db(or I was getting SHHHibilance), boosted treble some days. CL2 is otherwise calmer, more polite sounding, I tolerated it's sound very well and found it's sound to be mesmerizingly pleasing for long sessions and falling asleep in. Roland sounds more aggressive through low end to low mids but then it doesn't have 3K hump and sounds more balanced. CL2 has wonderful shimmer of the cymbals, I sometimes wish Roland had it but please don't take it as a criticism on Roland. This weekend I switched to lossless and find Roland growing on me rather fast Treble seems to extend about the same, Soundstage is very good on Roland. I occasionally was getting comparable stage on CL2 but could't get a secure fit with that. One thing in common, both stages were having that room feel. If you have long ear-canals CL2 is non starter.