[olor1n]

I generally don't find the HD800 thin and bass-lite when switching from the LCD-2. I do however, find the rev.2 comparatively bloated, congested and veiled when switching from the HD800. I appreciate the LCD-2 more when I use it exclusively for some time. Quick swaps don't really flatter the LCD-2.
 
And before I'm pegged as a treble-head, my previous go to and perhaps all time favourite headphone is the HD650. I don't understand the drawing of boundaries. The HD800 and LCD-2 are not mutually exclusive. Both can be appreciated in tandem.

 

[Argo Duck]

Scootermafia's point about what music we're listening to is one of being thinking about for a while. It's quite a variable when reviewing and even when just listening.
 
Because you know what, once we tune in to the 'sound' of a piece of gear, I suspect we start unconsciously choosing tracks that we 'know' will sound good with that gear. We've all got thousands of tracks to choose from, not to mention the other differences in our gear. The chances of us comparing apples with apples is just about nil.
 
And now something from the land of surmise, this because I have not heard the HD800. I repeat, I have not heard the HD800!
 
The HD800 does highs spectacularly well is the general consensus I get. This would seem to explain its soundstage, as it gives us all the subtle cues we need to hear the ambience of the recording venue. What's notable about highs is that they convey spatial information.
 
Bass however does not.
 
My suggestion is the Audez'es do the same thing in the lows the HD800 does in the highs. Ambient information. So we get the resonance from the body of instruments like piano and cello, the thump and reverb through the stage a band is playing on and so on.
 
The point of difference is most of this subtle, ambient information from the LCD# is in the bass region. No spatial definition. Dependent on what's in the recording this can give an impression of muddled sound - not to mention an undefined or contracted soundstage.
 
The corollary is that with either 'phone you'd want recording venues and mixing that control the extraneous highs (HD800) and lows (LCD) very well. As we already know, both 'phones set new standards and are just a touch too revealing of recordings that sound fine with most other gear.
 
Well, IDK. I might change my mind once I get to hear the HD800. Just my random thought for the day...
 
[edited to put back all the paragraph breaks that disappeared!]

 

[Girls Generation]

Classic case of Half full vs. Half empty.
 

I generally don't find the HD800 thin and bass-lite when switching from the LCD-2. I do however, find the rev.2 comparatively bloated, congested and veiled when switching from the HD800. I appreciate the LCD-2 more when I use it exclusively for some time. Quick swaps don't really flatter the LCD-2.
 
And before I'm pegged as a treble-head, my previous go to and perhaps all time favourite headphone is the HD650. I don't understand the drawing of boundaries. The HD800 and LCD-2 are not mutually exclusive. Both can be appreciated in tandem.
 

 

[spkrs01]

Quote:

 
The HD800 does highs spectacularly well is the general consensus I get. This would seem to explain its soundstage, as it gives us all the subtle cues we need to hear the ambience of the recording venue. What's notable about highs is that they convey spatial information.
 
Bass however does not.
 
My suggestion is the Audez'es do the same thing in the lows the HD800 does in the highs. Ambient information. So we get the resonance from the body of instruments like piano and cello, the thump and reverb through the stage a band is playing on and so on.
 
The point of difference is most of this subtle, ambient information from the LCD# is in the bass region. No spatial definition. Dependent on what's in the recording this can give an impression of muddled sound - not to mention an undefined or contracted soundstage.
 
The corollary is that with either 'phone you'd want recording venues and mixing that control the extraneous highs (HD800) and lows (LCD) very well. As we already know, both 'phones set new standards and are just a touch too revealing of recordings that sound fine with most other gear.
 
Well, IDK. I might change my mind once I get to hear the HD800. Just my random thought for the day...
 
[edited to put back all the paragraph breaks that disappeared!]

 
In my opinion, here lies the confusion.
 
Trebles does not provide spacial cues, it provides positional information of images projected within the soundstage, but will never provide the size of venue etc.....
 
It is bass that provides spacial cues to a recording.
 
An example is, one does not buy a pair of Wilson Thor Hammers to increase the bass of the Alexandra, as the Alexandra has gobs of bass already. Adding the subwoofers and quoting the review in Absolute Sounds
 
[size=14.166666030883789px]"In my listening room, bass is extending into the 20Hz range. But the introduction of the Thor subwoofers produced an instant improvement, even before Wilson’s John Giolas and Peter McGrath visited me to perfect the setup. The first thing that I noticed was an increase in the size of the soundstage both in depth and width." [/size]

 

[DefQon]

Quote:

His love for audio-gd or violectric is nowhere near his love for grado 
IMO the v181 sound more like a v100 with balanced output than the v200 

 
When I auditioned the V200 while ago at A2A, I asked George about the V181 and he said it's basically the V200 with a 4 pin balanced XLR output.
Quote:

The LCD2 has a nominal impedance of 60 ohms. The curve of this impedance is high, flat, and primarily resistive. This is almost an ideal load for a transformer coupled tube amp.
 

 
There was a review article that certain tube design's (amp) will not drive the LCD2's properly rather then to its potential due to a dampening factor with Ortho drivers and certain tube amp's.
Quote:

The HD800 is an amazing sounding headphone, but with my pretty maxed out Beta22 based system, it's still lacking the ability to move air and provide impact that the LCD2s have.  The sound just seems thin by comparison, stretched out, hollow.  If you had never heard LCD2, you'd think the HD800 was the best ever, and vice versa.  When you switch between them it's a big shock, then you sort of get used to it.  But really, I'd like to hear someone listen to the LCD3, then the HD800, then tell me that the HD800 has enough bass impact.  

 
By B22 system you mean a 4 board/channel balanced setup? Funny thing here I'm the exact opposite to you, my 2 channel passive ground (ongoing DIY to a 3 channel using an Epsilon backplane board) B22 paired with my HD800's sounds better then my LCD2's in the same combo. The HD800's a bit more forward while my LCD2's sound bit more distant and again as I mentioned sounds bloated with certain songs. But what you said in the last line is correct, the HD800 does not have the bass impact that the LCD2's do(most likely LCD3's as well).
 
Quote:

I used to think about immature things, like do I have a Beta22? Is the Burson really the end-all LCD-2 amp?
 

Don't know if sarcasim intended but the Burson 160 range is not the end all LCD2 amp.
Quote:

I'm 12 what is this?

 
lol
Quote:

And now something from the land of surmise, this because I have not heard the HD800. I repeat, I have not heard the HD800!
 
The HD800 does highs spectacularly well is the general consensus I get. This would seem to explain its soundstage, as it gives us all the subtle cues we need to hear the ambience of the recording venue. What's notable about highs is that they convey spatial information.
 
Bass however does not.
 
My suggestion is the Audez'es do the same thing in the lows the HD800 does in the highs. Ambient information. So we get the resonance from the body of instruments like piano and cello, the thump and reverb through the stage a band is playing on and so on.
 
The point of difference is most of this subtle, ambient information from the LCD# is in the bass region. No spatial definition. Dependent on what's in the recording this can give an impression of muddled sound - not to mention an undefined or contracted soundstage.
 
The corollary is that with either 'phone you'd want recording venues and mixing that control the extraneous highs (HD800) and lows (LCD) very well. As we already know, both 'phones set new standards and are just a touch too revealing of recordings that sound fine with most other gear.
 
Well, IDK. I might change my mind once I get to hear the HD800. Just my random thought for the day...
 
[edited to put back all the paragraph breaks that disappeared!]

 
This is just so wrong I don't even know where to begin. 
 
Your regurgitating what other's have said on these board's, experience from users to users vary and subjectively change and so do their impressions, you have to hear it or listen to it before you can come up with something like "The HD800 does highs spectacularly well is the general consensus I get. This would seem to explain its soundstage". The HD800's does its low's just fine, it's just the presence of the lows from a LCD2 is stronger, their more impact which seems to me why it sounds bloated sometimes with certain tracks (with a mixture of speed and bass).
 
That's why if you want music the same from the recording without any particular humps to the spectrum, the HD800 offers monitor like qualities while it's far from perfect to being a neutral phone (this is exactly what Tyll feels with the HD800 as well), some people like the sound, some don't while it can be considered too analytical or fatiguing to listen to. The LCD2's add more musicality into the songs, more fun to enjoy complete opposite to the HD800's etc etc. I'm not even going to bother from now on. 

 

[Girls Generation]

According to Project86's review:
 
"The Violectric V200 sounds like an improved version of the V181, which makes sense because internally that’s exactly what it is."
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/551173/review-violectric-hpa-v200-amp
 
Do note, this is certainly not stating my opinion. May be worth reading that over.
Quote:

 
When I auditioned the V200 while ago at A2A, I asked George about the V181 and he said it's basically the V200 with a 4 pin balanced XLR output.
 

 

[dagothur]

Quote:

This is just so wrong I don't even know where to begin. 
 
Your regurgitating what other's have said on these board's, experience from users to users vary and subjectively change and so do their impressions, you have to hear it or listen to it before you can come up with something like "The HD800 does highs spectacularly well is the general consensus I get. This would seem to explain its soundstage". The HD800's does its low's just fine, it's just the presence of the lows from a LCD2 is stronger, their more impact which seems to me why it sounds bloated sometimes with certain tracks (with a mixture of speed and bass).
 
That's why if you want music the same from the recording without any particular humps to the spectrum, the HD800 offers monitor like qualities while it's far from perfect to being a neutral phone (this is exactly what Tyll feels with the HD800 as well), some people like the sound, some don't while it can be considered too analytical or fatiguing to listen to. The LCD2's add more musicality into the songs, more fun to enjoy complete opposite to the HD800's etc etc. I'm not even going to bother from now on. 

It's not 'wrong', it's contrary to your opinion.  I've never heard anything bad about the HD800's bass excluding quantity (as Skylab puts it 'like a feather-weight punch'), but that doesn't mean the conclusion is incorrect.  It just comes from testimonials rather than personal experience - which the person indicates, mind you - which makes it a little less reliable.  But not 'wrong'.  

 

[DefQon]

Quote:

It's not 'wrong', it's contrary to your opinion.  I've never heard anything bad about the HD800's bass excluding quantity (as Skylab puts it 'like a feather-weight punch'), but that doesn't mean the conclusion is incorrect.  It just comes from testimonials rather than personal experience - which the person indicates, mind you - which makes it a little less reliable.  But not 'wrong'.  

It is wrong when he say's the "general consensus on these forums", what general consensus? Theirs already people here (myself only in this tread) that disagree with the HD800's having excellent highs which is the result of why it has such an expansive soundstage. The only reason why the HD800's has a huge soundstage is the way it's designed and tuned, the extension to all sound aspects that the HD800 produces "NOT just the highs" gives the user an impression that the music they are listening is in a large audiotorium, it surrounds the user, not cramped or anything. Their has been countless amounts of discussions of why the HD800 has a large soundstage and if you really believe it's due to its high's, then you seriously need to listen to it properly before giving out any further comments.
 
./2c>

 

[Girls Generation]

Well you could say all pornstars are sluts, which would be the general consensus, but how would you know what their true personalities are without meeting them personally? Testimonials, that they are sluts, rather than personal experience does not make pornstars "less reliable" to be sluts. See the fallacy in your argument now?
Quote:

It's not 'wrong', it's contrary to your opinion.  I've never heard anything bad about the HD800's bass excluding quantity (as Skylab puts it 'like a feather-weight punch'), but that doesn't mean the conclusion is incorrect.  It just comes from testimonials rather than personal experience - which the person indicates, mind you - which makes it a little less reliable.  But not 'wrong'.  

 

[paradoxper]

Quote:

Well you could say all pornstars are sluts, which would be the general consensus, but how would you know what their true personalities are without meeting them personally? Testimonials, that they are sluts, rather than personal experience does not make pornstars "less reliable" to be sluts. See the fallacy in your argument now?

How is this anything meaningful in regards to audio yet alone the HD800?

 

[Argo Duck]

Wow!
 
Couple of points. Nowhere did I write "general consensus on these forums". And, I carefully stated this was surmise.
 
In my profession wild ideas are encouraged, in the full knowledge nine of every ten are ludicrously wrong.
 
So, the 'peer review' of my surmise seems to be it belongs in the throw-out bin...not a problem!
 
I had no strong attachment to it - forget it and move on 

 

[Girls Generation]

It's meaningful in that I was making a point, in attempt to incite realization that the "general consensus" of anything, without [experienced] direct personal input, does not have the grounds to qualify anything.
Quote:

How is this anything meaningful in regards to audio yet alone the HD800?

 

[beaver316]

Hi guys.

Let me start off by saying that choosing a specific headphone to purchase is one tough job. Over the period of the last 4 months I've gone from deciding to buy the HD700, then the HD650, HD800, Beyer T1, LCD3, and now I'm thinking of the LCD2s. To be honest I love researching each headphone and reading thoughts on them.

Well anyway I have my sights on the LCD2 now. I previously wanted the LCD3 but ultimately decided against it because of my music tastes. I listen mainly to mainstream modern music and I've read that the LCD3 shows its flaws. This is where the LCD2 comes in. Supposedly it plays nice with modern, poorly mastered music which unfortunately the majority of my library is made of. This combined with the fact that the LCD2 is half the price with 80% the sound of the LCD3 (supposedly) further solidifies my decision.

Now onto a few questions. I never quite understood exactly how a headphone can reproduce modern (poorly mastered) music better than another. Can someone explain this concept. If the music is bad, then shouldn't the music sound bad regardless the headphone (garbage in, garbage out). So how is it that the LCD2 fairs better with my type of music than the HD800 for example.

Lastly, do u guys think I'm making the right decision between the LCD2 and LCD3 for my type of music? Stuff like hip hop, rnb, dnb, dance, drum n bass, rock... u get the idea.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

 

[MacedonianHero]

Hi guys.
Let me start off by saying that choosing a specific headphone to purchase is one tough job. Over the period of the last 4 months I've gone from deciding to buy the HD700, then the HD650, HD800, Beyer T1, LCD3, and now I'm thinking of the LCD2s. To be honest I love researching each headphone and reading thoughts on them.
Well anyway I have my sights on the LCD2 now. I previously wanted the LCD3 but ultimately decided against it because of my music tastes. I listen mainly to mainstream modern music and I've read that the LCD3 shows its flaws. This is where the LCD2 comes in. Supposedly it plays nice with modern, poorly mastered music which unfortunately the majority of my library is made of. This combined with the fact that the LCD2 is half the price with 80% the sound of the LCD3 (supposedly) further solidifies my decision.
Now onto a few questions. I never quite understood exactly how a headphone can reproduce modern (poorly mastered) music better than another. Can someone explain this concept. If the music is bad, then shouldn't the music sound bad regardless the headphone (garbage in, garbage out). So how is it that the LCD2 fairs better with my type of music than the HD800 for example.
Lastly, do u guys think I'm making the right decision between the LCD2 and LCD3 for my type of music? Stuff like hip hop, rnb, dnb, dance, drum n bass, rock... u get the idea.
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

Unless your music is poorly mastered 128/256 kps, then the LCD-3s would be the better cans. But as you mentioned, nothing in this price range offers linearity in terms of price vs. performance. Maybe start with the LCD-2s and make sure the Audeze sound is for you.

 

[Girls Generation]

I would also consider options for proper amp and dac to match your taste and budget.