It's interesting to compare the LCD-2 because there are so many different versions/variance between them. My 2013 LCD-2.2 actually sound thinner than the ETHER Flow. The Flows mid bass is more prominent as is the midrange in general. The Flow is smoother than my pair of LCD-2, with less grain and more balance up top. YMMV.
As an owner of the newly re-voiced (2016) LCD-2, you are describing one of the bigger annoyances I experience with trying to find information on Audeze products. Their lack of iteration notation between revamps in the series makes it near impossible to find up to date impressions and comparisons. It is part of the reason I'm considering jumping to another brand.
As an owner of the newly re-voiced (2016) LCD-2, you are describing one of the bigger annoyances I experience with trying to find information on Audeze products. Their lack of iteration notation between revamps in the series makes it near impossible to find up to date impressions and comparisons. It is part of the reason I'm considering jumping to another brand.
Yup. In general the LCD-2 is one headphone that I feel can not be used as a reference point because of the variance between different pairs, never mind different revisions. I feel MrSpeakers headphones are pretty good with unit to unit consistency.
Take my opinion with a grain of salt, as I am still burning in my Flows. The Ethers are developing a nicely textured bass, still a touch bloomy, and not the level of sub bass my LCD2's had (they were Nov 2015 model). Don't know if this will change, but the LCD's bass seemed slightly punchier (maybe a tiny bit enhanced by an SW22 cable I used with the LCD2's). I do prefer the better overall balance of the Flows, however. Timbre, instrument placement, and upper mid and treble detail is there in spades, and more natural to my ears with the Flows As has been noted, the flows have a slight V shape signature, maybe more so than the LCD's. But I've always liked midcentric phones, and the Flow's mids are not so recessed as to cause me not to love them. Lastly, there is no comparison when it comes to comfort, the much lighter Ethers win hands down. Of course, all in my opinion.
Thanks for the reply! So, to summarize, I would gain a bit of detail in the high end and lose some sub bass quantity? I'm still a bit new to this hobby overall, and I'm still learning the language.
Overall, my one complaint about my LCD-2s is that the treble feels a bit rolled off, and a touch more sub bass would be nice. Hence, the Ether Flows and LCD-X are on my radar.
Yes, that would be my current impression in those two specific areas. But I may not have adequately conveyed that, in my opinion, the balance of the Ethers, from bass through the upper registers, is noticeably more cohesive and natural sounding than the Audezes, and improving the longer I listen to them. Wasn't quite ready to believe that burn in was necessary to fully appreciate the Ethers, but I am coming around to that opinion.
As an owner of the newly re-voiced (2016) LCD-2, you are describing one of the bigger annoyances I experience with trying to find information on Audeze products. Their lack of iteration notation between revamps in the series makes it near impossible to find up to date impressions and comparisons. It is part of the reason I'm considering jumping to another brand.
Thanks for the reply! So, to summarize, I would gain a bit of detail in the high end and lose some sub bass quantity? I'm still a bit new to this hobby overall, and I'm still learning the language.
Overall, my one complaint about my LCD-2s is that the treble feels a bit rolled off, and a touch more sub bass would be nice. Hence, the Ether Flows and LCD-X are on my radar.
I haven't received my flows yet. But I had the lcd-2f and then got the lcd-X, the greater sub bass was very noticeable. I had a late version lcd-2f, so I think it wasn't as dark and thick sounding as I've heard it described with the older versions. Someone recently posted a really nice comparison of the Lcd-X with the flows on this thread a couple weeks ago.
I wish I could make something like this, it's a Norne, using his Arcade cable. I can't say it makes things sound better, I can say it is completely transparent with no degradation when using it in the chain.
I have a mojo. It pairs very well with the Ether C. I'd give it a "very nice" and "punches above its weight" for sure. I *might* give it TOTL for portable gear. I think I'd stop there though. That's pretty high praise from me though. If I didn't like it as I do, it would be long gone....
I would say that the mojo has a dual personality. It is a phenomenal portable amp/DAC. It's amp component can't compete with a high end desktop amp in terms of soundstage. The beauty is when you want to pair it with such a high end amp, you have a world class DAC that is tough to beat regardless of price. Thus, the mojo is a serious win-win. Portability when you need it, no-compromise when you don't want it.
I would say that the mojo has a dual personality. It is a phenomenal portable amp/DAC. It's amp component can't compete with a high end desktop amp in terms of soundstage. The beauty is when you want to pair it with such a high end amp, you have a world class DAC that is tough to beat regardless of price. Thus, the mojo is a serious win-win. Portability when you need it, no-compromise when you don't want it.
I am not sure though. When I auditioned Hugo and Mojo one by one, Hugo was simply better than Mojo. Mojo was not much different than other DAC in the similar range $300-$600.
I am not sure though. When I auditioned Hugo and Mojo one by one, Hugo was simply better than Mojo. Mojo was not much different than other DAC in the similar range $300-$600.
Not doubting your own observations, we all hear things differently, but I'd guess you have dozens if not hundreds of long-term Head-Fiers that believe the Mojo is an amazing DAC that performs far beyond its price-point. There are also many of us who actually prefer the Mojo's sound over the Hugo. Cheers
Not doubting your own observations, we all hear things differently, but I'd guess you have dozens if not hundreds of long-term Head-Fiers that believe the Mojo is an amazing DAC that performs far beyond its price-point. There are also many of us who actually prefer the Mojo's sound over the Hugo. Cheers
I understand that there are people who like somewhat warmer sound signature of Mojo. But we as owners of Ether, we already have the very good alternative (3 sponges) for that purpose.
My personal opinion is that the Mojo is damn good for the price but compared to my Bimby/Lyr2(iFi NOS 6922) it lacks a spaciouse soundstage,clarity and instrumental separation but when you consider that the latter is double the price I guess that shouldn't be a surprise.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
