[visualguy]

Quote:

 
Yea, imaging on the HE-6 is decent but falls short of its competitors. I remember the LCD-2 had very precise imaging through high-end systems.

Soundstage is constricted on the LCD-2. It's better on the HE-6.
 
The HE-6 are much better than the LCD-2 in detail resolution.
 
The T1 are somewhat better than the HE-6 in soundstage and imaging. Pretty similar in tonality and detail resolution, although I slightly prefer the HE-6 on that front.
 
All of these pale when compared to top Stax setups. The SR-009 is in a completely different league all around in my experience, but it's also much more expensive. The SR-007 is also more expensive.
 
At the price level of the LCD-2, I would go with the HE-6 or T1 instead.
 

 

[Shahrose]

Quote:

Soundstage is constricted on the LCD-2. It's better on the HE-6.
 
The HE-6 are much better than the LCD-2 in detail resolution.
 
The T1 are somewhat better than the HE-6 in soundstage and imaging. Pretty similar in tonality and detail resolution, although I slightly prefer the HE-6 on that front.
 
All of these pale when compared to top Stax setups. The SR-009 is in a completely different league all around in my experience, but it's also much more expensive. The SR-007 is also more expensive.
 
At the price level of the LCD-2, I would go with the HE-6 or T1 instead.
 

 
I agree the soundstage is larger on the HE-6 than the LCD-2. But we're talking about imaging of the LCD-2, not soundstage size.
 

 

[ianmedium]

Have you compared to the other headphones that I mentioned?
 
 

I have heard the HE6 Very nice in many ways, have not tried the new Stax though. Mind, considering the price premium they ruddy well should trounce everything out there!

 

[Loevhagen]

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and that´s the whole idea with a forum like this. So, I must be given the liberty to disagree with visualguy. Having had the HE-6, HE-500, Stax 007mkII and LCD-2 here at home recently I would say that Stax stands out, and LCD-2 is second runner up with respect to imaging. 
 
Staxamp was SRM-007t and for the rest 3 different SS-amps.
 
For me there are three terms that are essential in describing sound from headphones: Imaging, transparency and soundstage. The former is aka pin-pointing. Transparency is the ability to unfilter the sound and the latter is about the extent of the space the sound is presented. Others may have other interpretations.
 
BTW: Is it a sticky thread somewhere on this forum that act as a dictionary to head-fi terms? If not; maybe a good idea to compile one. 

 

[complin]

Quote:

 

Yes - I own a pair. I've used them with my 4-board Beta 22, 3-board Beta 22, and HeadAmp GS-X. Sources are Marantz SA-7S1, Sony 5400ES, Bel Canto DAC2.5, Benchmark DAC1.
 
The LCD-2 aren't horrible, but they are the worst headphones that I own. Inferior in detail resolution and soundstage. Particularly bad for acoustic and orchestral music. I would recommend the HE-6, T1, or a good Stax (SR-507, SR-007, SR-009) as much better alternatives.
 

I have to disagree with your comments here.  Whilst the Stax SR 007 are better in many respects in terms of layering sound, the LCD2 are the most impressive and natural headphones i've heard in years.  I have owned all of the top rated phones and could happily live with the Audeze as their balance and neutrality is very similar to Stax.  They don't have an immediately impressive soundstage or imaging, but if thats what you want go for the sennheiser HD800 as they seem to impose their unnatural perspective of the music on everything despite the recording.  Like all really great headphones they don't sound immediately impressive and draw attention to themselves with bloated bass or hot treble, but the more you listen you appreciate just how good they are.
I would suggest you try and get to a meet and listen to a pair or perhaps someone locally might let you listen or loan, only you can decide if the soundstage, imaging and overall sound suits your taste. 
 

 

[visualguy]

Quote:

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and that´s the whole idea with a forum like this. So, I must be given the liberty to disagree with visualguy. Having had the HE-6, HE-500, Stax 007mkII and LCD-2 here at home recently I would say that Stax stands out, and LCD-2 is second runner up with respect to imaging. 
 
Staxamp was SRM-007t and for the rest 3 different SS-amps.
 
For me there are three terms that are essential in describing sound from headphones: Imaging, transparency and soundstage. The former is aka pin-pointing. Transparency is the ability to unfilter the sound and the latter is about the extent of the space the sound is presented. Others may have other interpretations.
 
BTW: Is it a sticky thread somewhere on this forum that act as a dictionary to head-fi terms? If not; maybe a good idea to compile one. 

The thing is that the different sound aspects (imaging, transparency, soundstage, detail resolution, etc.) aren't really independent. For example, imaging within a constricted soundstage is problematic - if the soundstage is small, imaging suffers as well.
 
Also, soundstage and imaging are actually created by some fine details in the sound which give the brain the impression of space and the sense of location. Headphones that don't do well on detail resolution, don't tend to do well on soundstage and imaging either.
 

 

[Shahrose]

Quote:

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and that´s the whole idea with a forum like this. So, I must be given the liberty to disagree with visualguy. Having had the HE-6, HE-500, Stax 007mkII and LCD-2 here at home recently I would say that Stax stands out, and LCD-2 is second runner up with respect to imaging. 
 
Staxamp was SRM-007t and for the rest 3 different SS-amps.
 
For me there are three terms that are essential in describing sound from headphones: Imaging, transparency and soundstage. The former is aka pin-pointing. Transparency is the ability to unfilter the sound and the latter is about the extent of the space the sound is presented. Others may have other interpretations.
 
BTW: Is it a sticky thread somewhere on this forum that act as a dictionary to head-fi terms? If not; maybe a good idea to compile one. 

 
x2
 

 

[complin]

Quote:

The thing is that the different sound aspects .) aren't really independent. For example, imaging within a constricted soundstage is problematic - if the soundstage is small, imaging suffers as well.
 
Also, soundstage and imaging are actually created by some fine details in the sound which give the brain the impression of space and the sense of location. Headphones that don't do well on detail resolution, don't tend to do well on soundstage and imaging either.
 

I suggest you read this thread as its a tour de force defining imaging, transparency, soundstage, detail resolution, etc http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/40313/stax-sr-007-omega-ii-a-review-after-4-years-of-ownership
 

 

[ktsai1283]

For anybody interested and who can't find it...
 
http://www.head-fi.org/wiki/describing-sound-a-glossary

 
Quote:

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, and that´s the whole idea with a forum like this. So, I must be given the liberty to disagree with visualguy. Having had the HE-6, HE-500, Stax 007mkII and LCD-2 here at home recently I would say that Stax stands out, and LCD-2 is second runner up with respect to imaging. 
 
Staxamp was SRM-007t and for the rest 3 different SS-amps.
 
For me there are three terms that are essential in describing sound from headphones: Imaging, transparency and soundstage. The former is aka pin-pointing. Transparency is the ability to unfilter the sound and the latter is about the extent of the space the sound is presented. Others may have other interpretations.
 
BTW: Is it a sticky thread somewhere on this forum that act as a dictionary to head-fi terms? If not; maybe a good idea to compile one. 

 

 

[Frank I]

Quote:

 
Yea, imaging on the HE-6 is decent but falls short of its competitors. I remember the LCD-2 had very precise imaging through high-end systems.

As afar as imaging I owned all the flagships except for Grado's and I can say the best focus and imaging I have heard and that could also be to the CSP-2 was the T1. It was a dynamic imaging heaphone that i have yet to hear duplicated.

 

[visualguy]

 
Quote:

As afar as imaging I owned all the flagships except for Grado's and I can say the best focus and imaging I have heard and that could also be to the CSP-2 was the T1. It was a dynamic imaging heaphone that i have yet to hear duplicated.

 
Agreed on the T1.
 

 

[visualguy]

Quote:

I suggest you read this thread as its a tour de force defining imaging, transparency, soundstage, detail resolution, etc http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/40313/stax-sr-007-omega-ii-a-review-after-4-years-of-ownership
 

Yes - I saw it already. More like a tour de graphomania.
 
The SR-007 are indeed wonderful, but the SR-009 are even better on all fronts, which is a great achievement.
 

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

That thread is for the Audeze devout.  Nothing bad to say and if you mention something I would duck fast.  I'm sure they are great headphones and I'd like to give them a whirl to hear for myself and compare to my T-1's.  Keep in mind all this posting is subjective.  I would expect there are many of these posters who haven't even heard a big system image where your eyes are tearing up from the beauty of the whole experience.   If you want killer imaging buy a Smyth Realiser.  Next on my list.
 
Also keep in mind there are huge differences because of your source and amp.  A better digital/analogue front end is going to help out in a huge way and help any headphone no matter how good they are at whatever trait.


 

Yes a Smyth Realiser is almost next on my list.  I really want one in the worst way.  It has to come down in price somewhat or mature as a product into the next generation or come into my hands as a used unit.
 
A better digital front end is definitely going to help along with the amp.  My rig is giving me very precise imaging, detail, and focus.   I was recently listening to Bjork's Oceania and  I was amazed by the details of her voice and how precisely I could hear the "s" at the end a her words come off her teeth as she sang.  the song itself was holographic.   As far as how the LCD's rate against other headphones I do not know, I've only had the LCD's but I do not find them soft or lacking in detail.  For me they are so revealing that any interconnect change in the system is very noticeable.

I only mentioned the LCD thread because it would seem the OP would get a larger sampling of response to his question.
 

 

[Loevhagen]

 
Thumbs-up. Thanks.
 
Quote:

For anybody interested and who can't find it...
 
http://www.head-fi.org/wiki/describing-sound-a-glossary
 

 

[Icenine2]

The Smyth Realisers are probably rarely going to pop up as used.  Evidently the owners are beyond satisfied.  I spoke w/the US distributor and he sold the demo to Apple.  That is interesting for sure.  According to him there isn't much markup on these either.  I want one in a big way for sure.  Silly Sally has one over at our Woo Thread he uses w/the Woo WA5LE.  Talk about a nice setup.  He's big on the HE6 too.
 
Quote:

Yes a Smyth Realiser is almost next on my list.  I really want one in the worst way.  It has to come down in price somewhat or mature as a product into the next generation or come into my hands as a used unit.
 
A better digital front end is definitely going to help along with the amp.  My rig is giving me very precise imaging, detail, and focus.   I was recently listening to Bjork's Oceania and  I was amazed by the details of her voice and how precisely I could hear the "s" at the end a her words come off her teeth as she sang.  the song itself was holographic.   As far as how the LCD's rate against other headphones I do not know, I've only had the LCD's but I do not find them soft or lacking in detail.  For me they are so revealing that any interconnect change in the system is very noticeable.

I only mentioned the LCD thread because it would seem the OP would get a larger sampling of response to his question.