[nicholars]

Do they need much amp power? More / less than the 2C? They are 20 ohm / 94db and my amp is about 1.2w at 32ohm, so I guess ok.

 

[negura]

They have lower impedance than the LCD2C, so if I remember right, the volume dial was a bit lower. But what's more important the Quads scale up significantly with quality amplification. Not a lot, but clean, transparent power.

 

[arteom]

I will respect your opinion, but you need to not tell readers here the Quad's have a "forward mid.
See, even what you have just stated is more proof you are in error.
You are comparing the Quads "midrange" with Beyer T1s that have no midrange, and Audeze that are low mid thick.
This means your context for evaluation regarding the Quads, is based on using 2 headphones with "midrange issues".... and that is why when you hear good mids, you dont get it.
Not trying to be rude, but, its pretty obvious why you think the Q's have "forward" mids., as the headphones you use and are comparing them to, have mids that are not accurate, RF.
Now, i know you will have something else to say, and so, say it with all your strength, but, as i told you, and is the case, the Quads are not forward in their midrange, and the headphones you are use to hearing are midrange error products.
So, it has been interesting reading you prove why you are wrong, but, i think we should stop now, as i want to go and wash and wax my Toyota and get myself prepared to watch Brady beat the Rams.
And the fact is, the Rams are my favorite team, but they should not be playing in the SB, and all of us who saw them play the NOS, understand why. So, maybe the Rams will win, which would add insult to injury, but i feel that Brady is going to beat the Rams, about 42-17.....tho, if im wrong, ...thats life..... next.>..

Have the last word RF......... enjoy yourself.

Forward mids is kinda the Quad house sound. Not talking specifically about headphones, but Quad gear in general. I say that having sold many pairs of Quad speakers / components. Let the battle continue!

 

[FullBright1]

And yes I agree, the Quads are in the same school of sound with Abyss and my modded HE-6s. Very few headphones that sound like this, and perform at the level they do.

This set of headphone, for people who like it from first listen, will find it just gets better.
I bought mine based on a recent review posted by "Inner-Fidelity".
He stated they should be considered a "product of the year", and = Totally correct appraisal.

 

[FullBright1]

Forward mids is kinda the Quad house sound. Not talking specifically about headphones, but Quad gear in general. I say that having sold many pairs of Quad speakers / components. Let the battle continue!

Quad engineers understand that "V" shape freq response, is a non-musical entity.
"V" shape, is Audiophile anathema.
So, they create a very wide midrange within their Sig sound, and some call this "forward".
However, in most cases this means "too much" or "dry", or "U" shaped, however, in the case of the Quad ERA-1, its non of this, its simply a very wide midrange soundscape.
The Aeon C's have a taste of this same type of sonic signature, ...they are created with a wider, not a forward, but a wider midrange, that allows for a more rich musical experience.
The Quads sound a lot better, but the Aeon C's are certainly a good sounding set of headphones once you take out all the offending sound blocking filters and just let them run as designed.

 

[lugnut]

Are ear connections 2.5 or 3.5 ? Thanks

 

[FullBright1]

I sold the LCD2C some time after buying the Quads and I had a cherry picked pair. I really liked the 2Cs but they do not compete imo..

You are right.
The Quads sound better, and cost less.
I think the Quad ERA-1s, are going to become a sort of HD600 type of legend, in a few years.
It'll become one of those that all Audiophiles own and keep.
Nothing sounds better for the price, but many sound different.

 

[donlin]

Are ear connections 2.5 or 3.5 ? Thanks

3.5

 

[nicholars]

You are right.
The Quads sound better, and cost less.
I think the Quad ERA-1s, are going to become a sort of HD600 type of legend, in a few years.
It'll become one of those that all Audiophiles own and keep.
Nothing sounds better for the price, but many sound different.

The price is the same in UK, actually slightly more because you can get bundles with the 2C which end up a bit cheaper than the Quad, the question is whether the Quad is better. Do they have a better soundstage than the 2C? That would be something that would make me want to try the Quads as the 2C has a good soundstage and imaging already.

The other things that would be deal breakers, would be a lack of sub bass and "punchy" bass, also excessively bright or sibilant, but if they are similar to the 2C except with better soundstage and more neutral frequency response, they might be worth a look. Also they look like they need less amping than the 2C to sound good so that would be another positive thing, as well as the lower weight and probably better comfort.

Also do you know about Quad service? If you needed them repaired out of the 2 year warranty, would they be good? Slightly worrying they might get discontinued like Oppo for example and not be able to service them if any problems down the road

 

[negura]

The LCD2C stage is somewhat wider. The Quads win imaging easily, much better instrument focus. Because the Quads hit harder across the FR range, the bass punch is more impactful. Both are relatively linear in the bass... LCD-2C need Reveal to help the bass a bit, the Quads err slightly on a little much bass. But I am spoiled by the modded HE-6s in bass reference quality.

They do not sound similar to the LCD2C. It's a different sound signature. Focal Clear are closer, HE-6 too. Audeze not really.

 

[nicholars]

Can you tell me in detail what the difference is between the 2C and the Quads and what the Quads sound similar to? Do they sound anything like Sennheiser 6 series? I am tempted to try some of these, but also a bit hesitant as not much feedback etc.

 

[negura]

No, they don't sound like the Senn 6 series either. I have a pair of (kiss modded) HD650. All these headphones benefit from top amplification, and boy do the HD650 scale to incredible levels. That said, hearing them after the Quads... it's not even worth comparing.

I just said in my previous postings what the Quads sound more similar to. They are not sounding exactly like those headphones as they have a great sound signature in its own right. If you are in the UK, it's easy enough to get a pair for a listen.

 

[nicholars]

Does seem a lot of people in this thread also have other very good headphones and still like the Quads, so that is a good sign. Weird how they have almost no reviews etc.

 

[lugnut]

I apologize if this has already been covered, but my searches have not produced anything except it being briefly mentioned in the Brainwavz thread .
Specs are very close, so are these based on the same headphones ?

https://www.brainwavzaudio.com/collections/headphones/products/alara-planar-magnetic-headphones

 

[nicholars]

No, they don't sound like the Senn 6 series either. I have a pair of (kiss modded) HD650. All these headphones benefit from top amplification, and boy do the HD650 scale to incredible levels. That said, hearing them after the Quads... it's not even worth comparing.

I just said in my previous postings what the Quads sound more similar to. They are not sounding exactly like those headphones as they have a great sound signature in its own right. If you are in the UK, it's easy enough to get a pair for a listen.

I also noticed this Brainwavz planar, you have both I think? Which out of the 2 is better? Which has the biggest soundstage and the darker treble out of the 2? it sounds like these might actually be the same headphones eg. an OEM design with different brand and tuning? Thanks