[Currawong]

Quote:

 
Is that measurable?

 
Rev. 1 in red; rev. 2 in blue.
 

 

[dyl1dyl]

I've owned both the rev 1 and rev 2. In my opinion, the rev 2 is an overall superior headphone, bringing slightly more detail and speed and clearer treble for a more balanced sound. Plus, the soundstage is much more coherent and less disjointed to me. However, you do less a touch of the thick, lush mids which are the distinctive signature of the lcd 2 rev1s, so if you plan to collect a whole range of headphones, say a k701/2, hd 800, stax, etc., I would recommend the rev 1s and imo they are more unique. However, if you are looking for one, general use headphone, the rev 2s are definietly superior, though I would consider the Beyer T1s too if you want an all rounder. All the best

 

[BrainFood]

Quote:

The rev. 2s aren't "brighter" as such, that is, the don't have more treble. What they do have is less of a drop in the upper-mids where instruments such as violins play. If anything, due to the stronger balance in that region, I'd say they sound less bright (and the bass less strong) as both frequency regions will be weaker relatively to the mids at any given volume level. 
 
My issue with the rev. 1s was particularly with classical and violins seeming to be more in the background than they really were, so the rev. 2s were just what I was after.

Funny you should mention violins because I have been thoroughly enjoying the rendition of stringed instruments (FM tuner--> 160D--> Rev 2's).  Both classical and jazz.  
 
Whether or not the slight upper-mid bump is a good thing is subjective though. Rev-2's have been criticised over on the big thread for sounding edgy as a consequence.
 

 

[Naim.F.C]

Quote:

The rev. 2s aren't "brighter" as such, that is, the don't have more treble. What they do have is less of a drop in the upper-mids where instruments such as violins play. If anything, due to the stronger balance in that region, I'd say they sound less bright (and the bass less strong) as both frequency regions will be weaker relatively to the mids at any given volume level. 
 
My issue with the rev. 1s was particularly with classical and violins seeming to be more in the background than they really were, so the rev. 2s were just what I was after.

 
Based on the frequency graphs (and general impressions/comparisons), I'm pretty sure the Rev.2's do have more treble. The high frequencies are noticeably higher peaked.
 

 

[bbophead]

Ahh, too bad.  It looks like I would have liked the rev2 more.  Sold the rev1 because of that dullness.  I won't be taking another one of those $200 chances, however.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

 
Based on the frequency graphs (and general impressions/comparisons), I'm pretty sure the Rev.2's do have more treble. The high frequencies are noticeably higher peaked.
 

Sure about that? On my R1 vs. R1 frequency graphs, the treble was about the same. The biggest difference was that the treble push back was at a slower decline from 1kHz to 3kHz with my Rev. 2s. That's about it.
 
Have a look at the Innerfidelity Graphs....
 
Rev. 1
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2SN5312123.pdf
 
Rev. 2
http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudezeLCD2Rev2.pdf
 
Throw in my A-B comparisons, all I heard was more treble detail...not presence.

 

[pp312]

 
Quote:

 
Rev. 1 in red; rev. 2 in blue.
 

I think I'd like to see a number of comparisons first, as treble variations can be caused by an number of things.
 
So get out there, Currawong, buy a half dozen LCDs and do a full, scientific comparison.
 

 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

 

I think I'd like to see a number of comparisons first, as treble variations can be caused by an number of things.
 
So get out there, Currawong, buy a half dozen LCDs and do a full, scientific comparison.
 

 

To be statistically significant, sample sizes of 30 R1s and 30 R2s would be needed.

 
We can then run the Hypothesis tests to see if there are statistically significant differences at each frequency band.
 

 

[olor1n]

Quote:

 
Rev. 1 in red; rev. 2 in blue.
 

 
My rev.2 measurement is identical to yours, up until 9k where it mirrors the line your rev.1 follows until 20k. I have another unit in transit. It'll be interesting to see how it differs from the first.

 

[BrucYSN]

Quote:

I bought my LCD-2 in January this year and have hardly listened to it yet.  Is there a significant margin of improvement between the rev 2 and rev 1?  I am still pondering over a decision of whether to sell the almost new rev 1 to trade up for a rev 2.  How much would I be missing living with the rev 1 as compared to upgrading to the rev 2?

No that all i can tell you 

 

[Currawong]

Quote:

 
Based on the frequency graphs (and general impressions/comparisons), I'm pretty sure the Rev.2's do have more treble. The high frequencies are noticeably higher peaked.
 

My fault for posting before reminding myself of where the bumps were exactly.  I was thinking more the now lack-of-dip around 2k.
 

 

[johnwmclean]

Both rev 1 and rev 2 versions are exceptional phones. In my experience the rev 2 does have attributes that closer mimic live performance. I have found it to be as forgiving on lesser recordings as the rev 1. To put it simply and clearly the new driver is never bright, to the contrary it actually sounds less fatiguing with details a little better defined making it easier to fill in the gaps. The bass is not so lumped together, with a slight improvement in transparency and detail, it can have the allusion at first of slightly less bass than the rev 1, but I've found it to be more program dependent offering good contrast between recordings.
The rev 2 midrange if anything is a little less opaque than the rev 1, I think overall the rev 2 is better balanced, but I can also hear the attraction of the rev 1 midrange.

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

Funny you should mention violins because I have been thoroughly enjoying the rendition of stringed instruments (FM tuner--> 160D--> Rev 2's).  Both classical and jazz.  
 
Whether or not the slight upper-mid bump is a good thing is subjective though. Rev-2's have been criticised over on the big thread for sounding edgy as a consequence.
 

What?  The R.2 are not edgy at all.  If there is any edge in the sonics it's coming from somewhere else in the system.  Most likely the Audeze stock cable, the amp, or the digital source, could even be the USB cable in use, but there is no edginess to the LCD-2 R.2.  I have none in my rig.    There was some stridency and congestion in the upper regions during high energy passages but it was removed when I substituted the Q cable for the Audeze stock cable.  The stock cable is holding the LCD back.   Further, The upper regions gained even more clarity and smoothness when I changed out the W4S stock USB cable for a WireWorld Starlight USB cable.  In every case  whatever artifacts were removed with each tweak it proved the LCD-2 r.2 was not the cause.