[rutter]

I found two deals on LCD-3 placing it at basically the same price as the HEXv2 so I went to the audio store to compare the two directly. Spent an hour and a half switching between the two. For most of that time I couldn't tell much of a difference, sounded like I'd be hard-pressed to tell them apart. In the last half an hour I thought the HEXv2's female vocals may have been off, a little insubstantial sounding, kind of thin and a little raspy perhaps. Once I identified this I quickly switched to the LCD-3 and the whole headphone sounded meh. I zeroed in on this for the past half an hour and had a difficult time determining whether the LCD-3 has a significant edge in female vocals (perhaps they are smoother, a little hard to say fuller but maybe filled in, ultimately I couldn't say definitively). The HEXv2 probably has a larger soundstage and more separation but I don't think it's that big of a difference, although it might be appreciable and ultimately significant. Most surprisingly with what I was listening through the bass of the HEXv2 sounded fine and conversely the bass of the LCD-3 didn't sound special at all. The chain was a tablet used wirelessly with Tidal, some device with a $500 price tag and with < > play and pause buttons so go figure that out (maybe it was used as a DAC or is it solely some wireless receiver?), and the Questyle CMA600i that was possibly only used as an amp, I've no idea. The Audio buddies seem to trash Questyle, but I don't know.

So a few conclusions. I've been reading a little about the LCD-3 and it's also described as a more relaxed headphone (with questionable treble), so perhaps these two headphones sounding similar shouldn't be surprising. The Focal Clear was more different in that its sound was sharper, but it sort of seemed thinner as well, and I think I might prefer the LCD-3 to it. I'm also starting to suspect that the HEXv2 to some extent sounds congested or lacks clarity despite whatever separation and soundstage it has. I'm starting to believe all of these headphones are really overpriced, which is something Tyll Hertsens might've been trying to convey in a few of his farewell words. The value of this type of headphones is not worth its price, but I'm unlikely to pull out at this point. Frankly, it's arguably ridiculous. What I've been hearing is quite far from divine, very refined, or euphoric, which is a damn shame at these dumbass prices, to put it bluntly. Consider that the headphones require other things that are similarly expensive too. Lastly, I won't be replacing the HEXv2 with a $1250 pair of used LCD-3 or a $1300 pair of new B stock LCD-3. The headphones are too similar and an argument can even be made that the HEXv2 could edge out the LCD-3. I'd accept an edge either way, but making the switch isn't worth the hassle for me. $1900-$2000 for the LCD-3 is kind of a travesty though and not something I'd consider. On Monday I'll be able to test LCD-X, which apparently followed the LCD-3 and although priced a few hundred dollars under it I've been reading positive things about it, including favorable comparisons to the LCD-3. Apparently vocals are supposed to be more forward and clear on it, the treble should be better, and the bass should be punchier although in less quantity or so it goes. It's claimed to be a more energetic headphone, so I'm open to the possibility that it would make sense to replace the HEXv2.

Got the Schiit Loki. It's a funny little device. Some of these people made it sound like a stroke of genius. Let me start with a possible defect I really don't have the patience for. When I use its equalization the sound is shifted to the left. Even vocals. What in the actual ****? It shouldn't be any of the brand new Schiit Pyst wires (by the way, at some point they can get bent with these names) as when I flip the disable eq switch at the front the sound readjusts more centrally. The wires are of course still in play. I also flipped the headphones so that the imbalance would be on my right ear and there it was. I'm literally shaking my head. The knobs go from 12 to 5:30. At 5:30 on the first knob (20hz) the bass is far boomier than it is punchier, reminiscent of the crap bass boost of other devices. So there goes any remarkable quality out the door. That said I don't think it's completely useless or a joke. I ended up turning all 4 knobs first to like 2 o'clock and then to 3, which results in the sound getting a boost. This could be quite significant if I can disentangle it from just turning the volume up (in part it definitely resembles turning the volume up as from within and without the headphones sound significantly louder at the flip of the eq switch without touching volume). I also found it strange, from a more understanding perspective, that turning the 8khz knob actually affects vocals as well, which are down at like 400-1200hz? I have to send it back so that this left imbalance can be examined. It's either a defect or these people are clowns in my opinion. The imbalance is pretty serious too. I'm now listening with the headphones flipped. I thought it could be a matter of soundstage, but vocals are very much affected too and this effect is not present when the device is more or less bypassed. Actually, I think I found the offending knob! "Midrange adjustment (2khz)"... it's everything though. if I turn it left everything shifts to the right big time, and if I turn it right everything goes left. This has to be a defect, right? Ridiculous. Yea, when I flip the switch with the other 3 knobs at 3 o'clock and the third knob at the neutral 12 the sound doesn't actually shift laterally. They better cover all the associated shipment costs for this.

 

[rutter]

Went in to compare the HEXv2 to the LCD-X this morning. I'm starting to get the impression something is screwed up at the store prior to the headphones, which would explain why everything sort of sounds like crap to me there. I think I get better quality sound out of the HEXv2 through my Schiit stack at home, which shouldn't be the case against a CMA600i (let alone the McIntosh or whatever thing I tried initially). So everything I've written originating from that store might need to be taken with a healthy boulder of salt, unfortunately. That $500 thing enabling use of the tablet wirelessly apparently has a DAC but its DAC isn't being used but maybe it's at fault nonetheless. Anyway, I'll actually get an LCD-X at home and eat a $100 restocking fee if I return it, but if I don't I'll be ahead by $200. With my tastes it probably means I lost another $100... on to my impressions.

The LCD-X is markedly different from the LCD-3 and the HEXv2. Unlike the LCD-3 it doesn't have that "syrupy" quality other Audeze headphones apparently have that some like and I don't. I suppose this is what people mean when they call the LCD-X neutral and sounding more like other headphones, it's basically clean in the sense no one decided to throw it in sonic mud for whatever reason. Unlike both this is not a laid-back headphone. It's more engaging and energetic. I have reservations and thus this can be a close call but suffice it to say it's a headphone that more so comes after you, kind of like Focal. I think it's better for electronic music. By comparison the HEXv2 made Sandstorm sound analytical yet lacking refinement and highs. The LCD-X seemed to render it more "properly" with highs but it wasn't technically impressive either, though the HEXv2 may have been more underwhelming in that respect. Kind of a mangled description but that's what I can think of at the moment. Now, this might have something to do with the possibly poor set-up at the store so I'll follow up on it once I get the LCD-X at home. Although soundstage and separation aren't bad on the LCD-X that is one area of concern where I'll need to spend some more serious time with the headphone to decide whether it's worth to keep instead of the HEXv2. The other is it sounds like there is at least one peak somewhere I might not tolerate well. Initially a familiar female vocal was becoming piercing, then I started to find something too much elsewhere (vocals might be better on the LCD-X, by the way, but I definitely need to listen more). The one place I don't think it's at is the bass although I don't find bass on this headphone lacking, but I could be wrong on the former. Upper-mids and treble somewhere maybe? This goes completely against a quote I'll post a little bit later but it's what I was hearing. I could use the Loki going in the other direction with this one.

I continue to not be wowed by anything, although the HEXv2 has had some moments at home, but the LCD-X may make more sense. Remains to be seen.

PS

The LCD X is my favorite Audeze, but I still wish it had more upper mids/lower treble for balance with the perfect bass and lower mids. If I could have an LCD X tuned with more upper mids/lower treble, I would just upgrade to the carbon fiber headband, buy a silver aftermarket cable, and walk away with my endgame headphone.

From an LCD-4 thread. Where was this input here, Hifiearspeakers? That's some high praise. O, and about the comfort, I actually found the LCD-X remarkably comfortable, with the stock headband too! Was quite surprised. It didn't feel heavy and there was no pain on top of my head. I grabbed the LCD-3 to compare and despite the seemingly identical headband and somewhat lower weight I immediately had some pain and discomfort with the LCD-3. Go figure.

How long would the HEKv2 sale go on Adorama? I think I might miss it. The HEKv2 is still something I haven't dismissed.

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

Went in to compare the HEXv2 to the LCD-X this morning. I'm starting to get the impression something is screwed up at the store prior to the headphones, which would explain why everything sort of sounds like crap to me there. I think I get better quality sound out of the HEXv2 through my Schiit stack at home, which shouldn't be the case against a CMA600i (let alone the McIntosh or whatever thing I tried initially). So everything I've written originating from that store might need to be taken with a healthy boulder of salt, unfortunately. That $500 thing enabling use of the tablet wirelessly apparently has a DAC but its DAC isn't being used but maybe it's at fault nonetheless. Anyway, I'll actually get an LCD-X at home and eat a $100 restocking fee if I return it, but if I don't I'll be ahead by $200. With my tastes it probably means I lost another $100... on to my impressions.

The LCD-X is markedly different from the LCD-3 and the HEXv2. Unlike the LCD-3 it doesn't have that "syrupy" quality other Audeze headphones apparently have that some like and I don't. I suppose this is what people mean when they call the LCD-X neutral and sounding more like other headphones, it's basically clean in the sense no one decided to throw it in sonic mud for whatever reason. Unlike both this is not a laid-back headphone. It's more engaging and energetic. I have reservations and thus this can be a close call but suffice it to say it's a headphone that more so comes after you, kind of like Focal. I think it's better for electronic music. By comparison the HEXv2 made Sandstorm sound analytical yet lacking refinement and highs. The LCD-X seemed to render it more "properly" with highs but it wasn't technically impressive either, though the HEXv2 may have been more underwhelming in that respect. Kind of a mangled description but that's what I can think of at the moment. Now, this might have something to do with the possibly poor set-up at the store so I'll follow up on it once I get the LCD-X at home. Although soundstage and separation aren't bad on the LCD-X that is one area of concern where I'll need to spend some more serious time with the headphone to decide whether it's worth to keep instead of the HEXv2. The other is it sounds like there is at least one peak somewhere I might not tolerate well. Initially a familiar female vocal was becoming piercing, then I started to find something too much elsewhere (vocals might be better on the LCD-X, by the way, but I definitely need to listen more). The one place I don't think it's at is the bass although I don't find bass on this headphone lacking, but I could be wrong on the former. Upper-mids and treble somewhere maybe? This goes completely against a quote I'll post a little bit later but it's what I was hearing. I could use the Loki going in the other direction with this one.

I continue to not be wowed by anything, although the HEXv2 has had some moments at home, but the LCD-X may make more sense. Remains to be seen.

PS



From an LCD-4 thread. Where was this input here, Hifiearspeakers? That's some high praise. O, and about the comfort, I actually found the LCD-X remarkably comfortable, with the stock headband too! Was quite surprised. It didn't feel heavy and there was no pain on top of my head. I grabbed the LCD-3 to compare and despite the seemingly identical headband and somewhat lower weight I immediately had some pain and discomfort with the LCD-3. Go figure.

How long would the HEKv2 sale go on Adorama? I think I might miss it. The HEKv2 is still something I haven't dismissed.

The LCD X is a great headphone. But the upper mid/lower treble drop off is a deal breaker for me. I’ve heard it can be remedied with Vegan pads and a silver cable though.

Rutter if you find a peak in the LCD X that bothers you, I’d stay away from the HEK V2. I found the X very smooth without even a hint of sibilance. The HEK is definitely brighter than the X and the HEX.

 

[rutter]

I can tone down a peak limited to one area. The Schiit Loki should at least be able to do that effectively. I'm not sure it's sibilance, just something somewhere too strong for me. What I can't compensate for as well is lack of impact (although I did have an interesting experience with the Loki turning all knobs to 2-3 o'clock; I'm getting a replacement that hopefully works as intended and will be able to try the HEXv2 with it for longer) or lack of soundstage/some physical distance. HEXv2 lacks the impact, the LCD-X might lack the physical separation. Things like the HEKv2 being more resolving, sounding clearer and more exquisite are further benefits (for a higher price of course, but I can't afford to miss the Adorama sale). But if the HEKv2 is as soft as the HEXv2 then I'm not sure it's worth the trouble for me, not to mention at the moment I'm juggling money. I'd probably have to return both Xs to be able to get the HEKv2 at that sale price.

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

I can tone down a peak limited to one area. The Schiit Loki should at least be able to do that effectively. I'm not sure it's sibilance, just something somewhere too strong for me. What I can't compensate for as well is lack of impact (although I did have an interesting experience with the Loki turning all knobs to 2-3 o'clock; I'm getting a replacement that hopefully works as intended and will be able to try the HEXv2 with it for longer) or lack of soundstage/some physical distance. HEXv2 lacks the impact, the LCD-X might lack the physical separation. Things like the HEKv2 being more resolving, sounding clearer and more exquisite are further benefits (for a higher price of course, but I can't afford to miss the Adorama sale). But if the HEKv2 is as soft as the HEXv2 then I'm not sure it's worth the trouble for me, not to mention at the moment I'm juggling money. I'd probably have to return both Xs to be able to get the HEKv2 at that sale price.

They’re similar in impact. Both have a more laid back, ethereal quality. Currawong even compares the HEK to a Stax. Neither is going to have impact like Focal. But the HEK has superior detail retrieval and tonality to both the HEX and LCD X. The LCD X has the more impactful and better bass to all 3. I absolutely love the bass quantity and quality on the X. In fact, I don’t know how you make it any better. The LCD X bass is the best I’ve ever heard for my tastes.

 

[rutter]

Tonality means what exactly? Focal is at an extreme in terms of across the board impact that I don't want to touch. If the HEKv2 is just the same as the HEXv2 in terms of impact then that's that. Really appears there's no headphone anywhere close to perfect at a remotely realistic price for the vast majority of people, depending on taste of course. Some people do seem very content, not sure if it's from a lack of perspective or true contentment.

What's the HD800S truly like, by the way?

 

[franz12]

Tonality means what exactly? Focal is at an extreme in terms of across the board impact that I don't want to touch. If the HEKv2 is just the same as the HEXv2 in terms of impact then that's that. Really appears there's no headphone anywhere close to perfect at a remotely realistic price for the vast majority of people, depending on taste of course. Some people do seem very content, not sure if it's from a lack of perspective or true contentment.

What's the HD800S truly like, by the way?

Can't believe you haven't heard Senn's highly regarded flagship yet. Only your ears will tell yourself what you think about it. You need to hear it first before wasting your money on others.

 

[rutter]

My local store doesn't carry Sennheiser at all. Was a little hard for me to believe as well but it is what it is.

 

[carlosgab]

Ananda is on the Hifiman store now for USD999. I did not hear any press release about it so I guess its definitely a HEX with Sundara headband which Im not a fan of the latter. Just hoping that soon there will be a chance they will cut off prices for the HEX V2.

 

[knopi]

I think Ananda looks super cool. Ananda is probably meant as even more efficient than previous HEX which is good.

 

[franz12]

Other than the price cut by $300 and the different headband, it is hard to know what is difference from hexv2.
If Ananda had exactly the same SQ with hexv2, it would be also puzzling to me why they named it as Ananda, not hexv3.

 

[zachgraz]

Ananda is on the Hifiman store now for USD999. I did not hear any press release about it so I guess its definitely a HEX with Sundara headband which Im not a fan of the latter. Just hoping that soon there will be a chance they will cut off prices of the HEX V2.

The HEX V2 ist still available at the Hifiman store at the previous price. So the Ananda has not exactly replaced the HEX yet.

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

Tonality means what exactly? Focal is at an extreme in terms of across the board impact that I don't want to touch. If the HEKv2 is just the same as the HEXv2 in terms of impact then that's that. Really appears there's no headphone anywhere close to perfect at a remotely realistic price for the vast majority of people, depending on taste of course. Some people do seem very content, not sure if it's from a lack of perspective or true contentment.

What's the HD800S truly like, by the way?

Simply amazing. Spacious, clear, dynamic, and comfortable. It’s a classic for a reason and it’s one of the best headphones ever made still to this day. It’s the king of comfort and soundstage.

 

[rutter]

I think Ananda looks super cool. Ananda is probably meant as even more efficient than previous HEX which is good.

The specs are the same.

Simply amazing. Spacious, clear, dynamic, and comfortable. It’s a classic for a reason and it’s one of the best headphones ever made still to this day. It’s the king of comfort and soundstage.

Serious question. Based on what I've posted, do you think I should return the HEXv2 and get the HD800S blindly? Is the HD800S basically a HEXv2 that has more impact with a bigger soundstage? How are vocals? Is the HD800S more sterile or something, leaner?

 

[Hifiearspeakers]

The specs are the same.



Serious question. Based on what I've posted, do you think I should return the HEXv2 and get the HD800S blindly? Is the HD800S basically a HEXv2 that has more impact with a bigger soundstage? How are vocals? Is the HD800S more sterile or something, leaner?

I personally think the 800S is a way better headphone than the HEX, but that’s based on my tastes. I consider the 800S to be the pinnacle of bang for your buck and anything you spend above it takes you deep into diminishing returns.
My only wish for it is that it had more sub bass and slightly less treble. It will definitely sound leaner than the HEX because it doesn’t have a mid bass hump. I think the bass is great and it doesn’t sound thin to me without comparison. It’s very clear and accurate and far more tame than the original 800. It DEFINITELY has a more expansive soundstage than the HEX or any other headphone for that matter, but I’ve never heard the Abyss Phi which is also supposed to be pretty phenomenal.
I will never recommend anyone buy blindly, because I don’t have your ears and we all hear differently. All I can say is that it’s simply an incredible headphone and worthy of all the praise it gets. It is not forgiving to poorly mastered music though. If a track is sibilant, you will hear that sibilance in all its glory. If a track is mastered well, it will blow your socks off. It is more forgiving than the 800.