[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

You can read about it here.
 

I didn't see anything about the weight in that article...

 

[purrin]

 
Quote:

I'd classify the midrange of the rev 1 as sour creaminess and that of the rev 2 as whipped creaminess 

I'll take the thicker sour cream vs. the fluffy whipped cream.
 
It's funny, because on paper, I thought I would have liked the changes on the r2; but the r1 just sounded more "right" or according to a creator's intelligent design.
 
---
 
The r2 did feel lighter on the top of my head though.

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

I didn't see anything about the weight in that article...

"The new drivers use a thinner raw material. Thinner raw material results in less mass of the diaphragm. Less mass of diaphragm causes greater acceleration and better impulse response. Better response in driver results in higher resolution and extensions in both ends of the spectrum and better imaging."
 
I thought you wanted to know the source of the weight loss not the actual number of grams.
 

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

"The new drivers use a thinner raw material. Thinner raw material results in less mass of the diaphragm. Less mass of diaphragm causes greater acceleration and better impulse response. Better response in driver results in higher resolution and extensions in both ends of the spectrum and better imaging."
 
I thought you wanted to know the source of the weight loss not the actual number of grams.
 

Yeah, but I meant the weight of the headphone as a whole, not the diaphragm.  The thinner diaphragm wouldn't change the weight of the headphone at all, because they're really lite to begin with.  Is that the correct use of "lite"?  hmmmm

 

[purrin]

LMAO
 
Yes, that is an acceptable use of "lite".

 

[Anaxilus]

Quote:

Yeah, but I meant the weight of the headphone as a whole, not the diaphragm.  The thinner diaphragm wouldn't change the weight of the headphone at all, because they're really lite to begin with.  Is that the correct use of "lite"?  hmmmm

Oh I forgot to mention they are using Balsa wood for the housings now.  Maybe that's it.  

 
I dunno if the change in the diaphragms was met w/ a change in the magnets too?  
 

 

[Naim.F.C]

I was going to settle on the LCD-2's, but after hearing numerous opinions from people on these forums who owned both the LCD-2's and the T1's, most seemed to prefer the T1's, so I ended up settling with them. Do not regret my decision in the slightest. they've been an absolute joy thus far. Still not perfect mind, but I'm not sure 'perfect' exists.

 

[grokit]

Quote:

Totally agree with this, the rev2 did indeed have the transient response that I found lacking in the rev1. Unfortunately, as a side effect, the rev2 has lost that midrange creaminess which I felt made the rev1 more coherent throughout. The rev2 even sounded sizzly too, even compared to the HD800. As far as the "reverb" effect, I didn't hear any with the rev2.

Even compared to the HD800

?!?
 
 
Quote:

 
I dunno if the change in the diaphragms was met w/ a change in the magnets too?  

Good theory, that actually makes sense that a thinner, more responsive diaphragm wouldn't need as powerful of as magnet.
 
I have also read that the rev.2 is a bit less efficient; I wonder how would that fit into the equation, maybe it has something to do with the extra extension or perceived detail.
 
Whatever the case, as Jude said calling it the LCD 2.5 would have probably made sense.

 

[MulberryMadness]

As to the OP, AT seems to me to be 2nd tier along with high-end Denon, u left out Beyerdynamic in top tier from years gone back, could also put in the smaller manufacturer side Grado...but I've never quite liked the Grado sound/uncomfortable feel of them....didn't even find the PS1000 all that impressive for $1600. Ultrazone high-end seem to be really popular before Auduze & HifFiman came along.
 
Quote:

Well the LCD-2 isn't exactly an underdog, it's the second most popular high end can here.
 
The HE500 is relatively unknown in comparison, which is very strange considering they're unbelievably good and in my and a few others' opinion, superior to all of the high end dynamic cans (except maybe the T1, they're very similar and I'm still A/Bing) and a hell of a lot cheaper.

^Sorry, but this statement seems completely at odds with your for sale comments about the HE-500...change mind much?
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/566262/hifiman-he-500-mint-condition
 
 
Quote:

Quote:

lol whyr u selling it bro? u shud jus keep it 

Na it's too similar to my LCD2 and I need the money.

 
And useing the HF 15% discount, the diff btw new HE-500 ($900) & discounted T1 @$1100 isn't really that much.
 

 

[purrin]

 
Quote:

 The rev2 even sounded sizzly too, even compared to the HD800.
 
Originally Posted by grokit /img/forum/go_quote.gif

Even compared to the HD800

?!?

 
Not brighter overall, but it sounded like someone turned up the EQ in a particular spot in the high treble region.

 

[grokit]

 
Quote:

 
Not brighter overall, but it sounded like someone turned up the EQ in a particular spot in the high treble region.

 

 
They do seem to cross paths at the very high end, do you have really good hearing up there?

 

[purrin]

The sizzliness I heard was more consistent with the r2 EQ graph on post #365 that Anaxilus posted, which is completely different from the HR graph in your post. LOL, the HR FR graphs are not the bible, and IMO possibly untrustworthy above 10kHz. But anyways...
 
Different measurement methodologies, equipment, and software, but here's an overlay that I feel very well describes the HD800 vs LCD2r2 in terms of FR (at least the particular ones that I've heard). The only substantial difference from what I actually hear is that these FR graphs are overly smoothed. There are sharper higher Q peaks at 6kHz for the HD800 and 11kHz for the LCD2.
 

 

[grokit]

There's also the issue of the old vs. new HD800, I among others can testify that those differences are very real. Someone else recently asserted that they are 3dB different, I think he said in the bass. Unlike with the Audeze you have to go by serial number so who knows what version HD800 is actually being measured

 

[purrin]

Every time I see a rig with another HD800, I head straight there to compare. I've probably heard at least half a dozen different pairs now. I agree that the differences are definitely real. I believe there is some correlation to the serial numbers with the more current production being less flawed. At an LA meet earlier this year, I tried on dallan's HD800 (a very early serial # with an aftermarket cable just to make things bearable) and my HD800 (serial # > 10,0000 with stock cable) on his rig. That peak at 6kHz was more evident on his pair.
 
One of these days, I'm going have to pull out my speaker measuring equipment and borrow a dummy head - just to objectively confirm for myself.

 

[Anaxilus]

Jude's comments calling it LCD 2.5 sounds pretty spot on to me.