[GrowthValue]

I listened to a pair of LCD2 rev2 lately with Benchmark DAC1 Pre's headphone jack. I have used HD650 in the past intensively. While the sound from LCD2 completely blows me away, I do feel LCD2.2 is actually a bit brighter than HD650. As a result, my ear becomes more fatigue by using LCD 2.2 than HD650. 
 
I mostly listen to classical music. Sometimes, I feel the violin voice from LCD2.2 is a little too bright for me while I don't feel the same way when I use HD650. Meanwhile, LCD2 produces warm sound with much more refined and deeper bass. Also, the mid from LCD2 is more forward than HD650. 
 
Anybody feels the same way about LCD2 rev2 compared with HD650?
 
(PS: I have the silver coil HD650, which is considered already brighter than the previous HD650 verison.)

 

[GrowthValue]

Nobody has any feedback?

 

[LugBug1]

I think the Dac1 may be the cause of the fatigue, the LCD2's are very transparent and the Dac1 is notoriously unforgiving. I personally think the 650's are a little brighter when amped sufficiently but the LCD2's are more resolving and detailed. That and the more tranparency will contribute more to fatigue depending on source. Possibly

 

[GrowthValue]

Ludbug, thanks for your reply. The thing is both my HD650 and LCD2 are driven by DAC1 Pre. So, when I feel LCD2 is brighter, it should mean at least my pair of LCD2 is brighter than my pair of HD650. 
 
Also, DAC1 seems to do a very good job to reflect the actual recording. Some classical recordings, especially the ones made in the last decade, sound much more balanced without any bright treble pain. 
 
Also, the violin definitely sounds more like real on LCD2 than on HD650.

 

[jerg]

Quote:

Ludbug, thanks for your reply. The thing is both my HD650 and LCD2 are driven by DAC1 Pre. So, when I feel LCD2 is brighter, it should mean at least my pair of LCD2 is brighter than my pair of HD650. 
 
Also, DAC1 seems to do a very good job to reflect the actual recording. Some classical recordings, especially the ones made in the last decade, sound much more balanced without any bright treble pain. 
 
Also, the violin definitely sounds more like real on LCD2 than on HD650.

You are just not used to the difference in tonality; that always happens when someone who uses a specific headphone for a long time suddenly switches to another. Take some time and re-explore your music without worrying about the preconceptions of how they sounded on your HD650s, and your ears will adapt to the LCD2 tonality.

 

[GrowthValue]

Actually, my ears adjusted right away. I love the sound from LCD2 much better. I just want to confirm which one is brighter.

 

[Barry S]

In some respects, you might call the LCD-2 a little brighter than the HD-650--the mids and highs seem slightly more forward. That might be due to the LCD-2 doing a better job resolving detail, because with a low grade opamp amplifier that falls on the harsh/bright side, the HD-650 will sound more sibilant than the LCD-2.

It sounds like the DAC-1 has some edginess that's a poor match with the LCD-2. I'm really sensitive to treble energy, but even with the energetic Mjolnir, I don't experience any treble fatigue with the LCD-2. That's with the Gungnir, which seems transparent and dead neutral.

 

[paradoxper]

Quote:

It sounds like the DAC-1 has some edginess that's a poor match with the LCD-2. I'm really sensitive to treble energy, but even with the energetic Mjolnir, I don't experience any treble fatigue with the LCD-2. That's with the Gungnir, which seems transparent and dead neutral.

+1

 

[GrowthValue]

I have to disagree.  I feel the notion that DAC1 is cold and clinical is because many recordings are cold and clinical. DAC1 is a product that produce sounds true to the recordings. Most of my classical recordings sound very musical on my DAC1 Pre while many modern pop musics sound terribly cold and harsh. Meanwhile, recordings with good sonic reputation such as Eagle's hell freezes over sound fantastic with DAC1. They are warm and musical, and most importantly of all, sound like live.  
 
 I suspect most criticisms of DAC1 come from people who mostly listen to "quick" and "modern" recordings. 
 
Quote:

It sounds like the DAC-1 has some edginess that's a poor match with the LCD-2. I'm really sensitive to treble energy, but even with the energetic Mjolnir, I don't experience any treble fatigue with the LCD-2. That's with the Gungnir, which seems transparent and dead neutral.

 

[musiclife]

Quote:

Most of my classical recordings sound very musical on my DAC1 Pre while many modern pop musics sound terribly cold and harsh. Meanwhile, recordings with good sonic reputation such as Eagle's hell freezes over sound fantastic with DAC1. They are warm and musical, and most importantly of all, sound like live.  
 
 I suspect most criticisms of DAC1 come from people who mostly listen to "quick" and "modern" recordings. 
 

 
How about *old* classical recordings? For example the Goldberg variations by Gould ?
Or the "Koln Concert" wich I think is the best test for accurate reproduction, since it was really an impromptu recording, and the piano wasn't the one supposed to be here (Jarret almost canceled the concert).

 

[GrowthValue]

Musiclife, my experience with old classical recordings are that they have more noise and less clarity. Very often, the low frequencies are also weaker. My feeling is the most post 1995 recordings sound more like real concert hall experience. Let me know what you think.
 
 
Quote:

 
How about *old* classical recordings? For example the Goldberg variations by Gould ?
Or the "Koln Concert" wich I think is the best test for accurate reproduction, since it was really an impromptu recording, and the piano wasn't the one supposed to be here (Jarret almost canceled the concert).

 

[Barry S]

Quote:

I have to disagree.  I feel the notion that DAC1 is cold and clinical is because many recordings are cold and clinical. DAC1 is a product that produce sounds true to the recordings. Most of my classical recordings sound very musical on my DAC1 Pre while many modern pop musics sound terribly cold and harsh. Meanwhile, recordings with good sonic reputation such as Eagle's hell freezes over sound fantastic with DAC1. They are warm and musical, and most importantly of all, sound like live.  
 
 I suspect most criticisms of DAC1 come from people who mostly listen to "quick" and "modern" recordings. 
 

Ok, you're the one that mentioned that the DAC1/LCD-2 combination as bright and fatiguing in your original post.  I don't see where anyone called the DAC1 cold and clinical--you sound awfully defensive.  Sorry if I offended you somehow in trying to help.

 

[GrowthValue]

Barry, I feel you miss my point. Sorry if my original explanation is vague. My point is LCD2 is brighter and little more fatigue than HD650 but meanwhile sounds much better. I confirm from several posters that a proper driven LCD2 is indeed brighter than LCD2. Remember, being brighter doesn't mean it is bad. In this case, LCD2 actually sounds much better with its slightly brighter high. Originally, I wrote this because I used to see many posters claim LCD2 is one of the darkest headphones. 
 
Also,whether the DAC 1 is has the edginess, which you claimed, has nothing to do with whether LCD2 is brighter than HD650. We would be reasonable to think at least my pair of LCD2 will always be brighter than my pair of HD650 when the same amp and source are used. As a result, DAC1 should have nothing to do with the brightness comparison between LCD2 and HD650.
 
One last update. The fatigue effect is actually gone now. Yesterday, I listen to LCD2 for 4 hours without any fatigue. 
 
Quote:

Ok, you're the one that mentioned that the DAC1/LCD-2 combination as bright and fatiguing in your original post.  I don't see where anyone called the DAC1 cold and clinical--you sound awfully defensive.  Sorry if I offended you somehow in trying to help.

 

[eugenius]

The LCD2 has a grain and a slight harshness in the lower-highs and a lack of refinement that is disappointing for such an expensive headphone. If it didn't have that, I would have considered it.

 

[pp312]

Quote:

 I confirm from several posters that a proper driven LCD2 is indeed brighter than LCD2.

 
I might have to think about that for a while.