[Jimmyf1312]

Gave me a good laugh just now.

I thought the exact same thing lol.

 

[Earbones]

  [Yes.  Truth be told.  I also preferred my Martin Logan Mikros 90 to the HE-6.]

Oh, come on. 

 

 

[MacedonianHero]

  Funny.  My impression is that the PM-1's treble is arguably more vibrant, detailed and certainly more nuanced than the LCD 2.2's.  To me, the LCD 2.2 truly have a high frequency "roll-off".  The PM-1 extend further and reveal more detail, I believe, but may be a touch reticent [compared with other treble-prominent headphones].  More treble emphasis with the lambskin pads versus the velour pads, IMHE.
 
Have been amping the Oppos with the Lehmann BCL [w/gain set at zero], and the PM-1 are really surprising me in a very unexpectedly positive way.

Actually for upper mids/lower treble, they appear to be about the same, but the LCD-2.2s extend further and have "smoother" treble based on the measurements.
 
http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=3221&graphID[]=4343&scale=30

 

[keanex]

  I read your post and thought that the hp was give a 6 out of 10. 

 
This was my exact thought as well! haha

 

[vkalia]

  Actually for upper mids/lower treble, they appear to be about the same, but the LCD-2.2s extend further and have "smoother" treble based on the measurements.
 
http://graphs.headphone.com/graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=3221&graphID[]=4343&scale=30

 
I think these measurements do not account for the head's transfer function, right?  I imagine there is enough variation here from head to head, which might account for why some people find the LCDs to have better treble and some  find the PM1s to have better treble.
 
I havent A/Bed them with the same source, but from memory and general impressions, i find the treble characteristics fairly similar, FWIW.

 

[x RELIC x]

I think these measurements do not account for the head's transfer function, right?  I imagine there is enough variation here from head to head, which might account for why some people find the LCDs to have better treble and some  find the PM1s to have better treble.

I havent A/Bed them with the same source, but from memory and general impressions, i find the treble characteristics fairly similar, FWIW.

I think there is more LCD variation than head variation.

 

[vkalia]

I think there is more LCD variation than head variation.

 
You mean across the various variants of the LCD2s, or unit-to-unit variance?  

 

[x RELIC x]

You mean across the various variants of the LCD2s, or unit-to-unit variance?  

There are a lot of different LCD2s in the wild, both in versions and unit to unit variance. But come to think of it there have been a lot of LCDs in general, now Fazor'd for your pleasure.

Edit: Don't want to turn this into an LCD variation thread. Was just feeling a bit mischievous when I posted. We now bring you back to your regular PM-1 impressions.

 

[Currawong]

I managed to get my brain attuned to the LCD-X (with a WyWires cable) and PM-1 again (I usually listen with the HD-800s), plugged them both into the Studio Six and did a bit of A-B comparing (as far as is possible).
 
Very roughly they have a similar frequency response (at least the pairs I have here do). The (perceived) soundstage seems greater with the LCD-X. I think that purely a result of them being physically larger with larger ear pads and the Fazer system. I feel a bit of this is lost going back to the stock cable.

 

[pataburd]

  Oh, come on. 

 

No.  Seriously.  Look at my signature.

 

[pataburd]

Swapped out the Lehmann BCL for the [2 channel] beta 22.  
The PM-1 responded with a decidedly more forward, punchy and dynamic pulse, clearly differentiating the effect of amping [at least between these two amps], with the BCL being a little warmer, more refined and slightly laid back by comparison.
Both the BCL [set at zero gain] and the beta 22 pair very well with the PM-1 IMHO.
I think I recall a review claiming that amp changes--specifically amp upgrading--would register marginal improvement, if any improvement at all, with the PM-1.  Given my prior statement, I would tend to doubt that assertion.  Will run the PM-1 through the headphone out on the Linn Intek and the Denon AVR-1905 and check for degradation compared to the BCL and a the beta 22.

 

[vkalia]

  I think I recall a review claiming that amp changes--specifically amp upgrading--would register marginal improvement, if any improvement at all, with the PM-1.  Given my prior statement, I would tend to doubt that assertion.  Will run the PM-1 through the headphone out on the Linn Intek and the Denon AVR-1905 and check for degradation compared to the BCL and a the beta 22.

 
While your experience may vary, I for one support that assertion.   Tried the Oppo PM1s with my iPod, my DX90 and AK100/Quickstep.   Cant tell a difference in the latter 2.   I *think* I hear a difference compared to the iPod, but nothing that I can say with certainty isnt caused by placebo or confirmation bias.   Even if that difference exists, it is pretty marginal.

 

[ogodei]

  I think I recall a review claiming that amp changes--specifically amp upgrading--would register marginal improvement, if any improvement at all, with the PM-1.  Given my prior statement, I would tend to doubt that assertion.  Will run the PM-1 through the headphone out on the Linn Intek and the Denon AVR-1905 and check for degradation compared to the BCL and a the beta 22.

 
 

   
While your experience may vary, I for one support that assertion.   Tried the Oppo PM1s with my iPod, my DX90 and AK100/Quickstep.   Cant tell a difference in the latter 2.   I *think* I hear a difference compared to the iPod, but nothing that I can say with certainty isnt caused by placebo or confirmation bias.   Even if that difference exists, it is pretty marginal.

 
I am midway between marginal difference and confirmation bias, see my previous thoughts on the matter here.

 

[pataburd]

Also, I think I had read a review somewhere about the PM-1, suggesting that the Oppos had a tendency to sound congested, and did not resolve complex passages well. My experience was to the contrary. The first movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony #6 ("Pathetique") emerged from an ample, well-organized and well-managed soundstage, with excellent resolution: spatially, tonally, timbre-ally, dynamically, and with powerful emotional impact--really involving(!).

My experienc with the PM-1 so far is that they resolve low level detail very very finely and succinctly. They also provide a sense of dynamic contour/shapeliness and elasticity that I do not recall experiencing with the other orthodynamics I have tried, with more earmarks of a characteristically "conical" sonic front than a "planar" one. Bass is full, rounded and fluid in texture. They may not have the subterranean capability of the HE-6 [or even the Mikros 90, which can go very deep--and effortlessly at that], yet I find the PM-1's bass very satisfying.

Funny. Everytime I don the Oppos, I am [at least quasi-] determined to find a flaw, but find myself getting caught up in the music instead. Several hours and several discs later, I simply find myself enjoying a fine listening experience, almost unaware that I am wearing headphones.

 

[pataburd]

 
I am midway between marginal difference and confirmation bias, see my previous thoughts on the matter here.

Nice read.
Thank you.
Honestly, I cannot see why a product designed this thoughtfully and fabricated this meticulously would not benefit from good upstream gear.