[pp312]

Quote:

pp312, you are right on the money about that odd nasally coloration.  As I said in an earlier post, I got the HE 500 and LCD2 R2 on the same day to audition sided by side at home (no emotional attachment to either).  The thing that put the LCD2's clearly ahead of the HE 500's was the need to adjust to that coloration every time I put on the HE 500 while no adjustment was needed for the LCD2.  The other factors were comfort and build quality.

 
Donlin, are you saying you found the LCD-2 more comfortable? Because the concensus seems to be that the HE-500 is more comfortable, though certainly not to me.
 
My hearing seems to be quite different to everyone else's, or else I'm listening to different things. To me the HE-500 has a smaller soundstage than the LCD-2. Also, it isn't much brighter (and remember, I have the Rev1). It's brighter in spots, giving greater definition to certain instruments, but this is somewhat undermined by a certain pinched, closed in quality, perhaps linked to that nasally colouration. The greater openness of the LCD-2 gives it the feel of a sunny day to the HE-500s slightly overcast hue. I know a small change can make a large difference with these things, and maybe the velour earpads will change the whole perspective, but the fact is that I haven't been able to line my perceptions of the LCD-2 up with the majority since I got them, so I guess there's no reason it should line up in this particular comparison. I don't find them "dark". The HD650s were dark; the LCD is very open and sunny, just a little shelved. I don't find the soundstage "small" or "intimate". Quit the opposite; the LCD-2 presents to these ears a nice, wide-open soundstage with instruments spreading to extreme left and right and depth where appropriate. So I seem to be swimming upstream for the whole length of the river, perhaps not for the first time.
 
Just as an amusing aside, I joined the "listened to the Fostex 50RP--wow!" thread a while back and on the basis of comments there ordered said Fostex phone. When I heard it "Wow!" was my reaction too, but it was more "Wow, I've never heard a worse phone!". (Well, I did buy a $2 headphone in K-Mart once, and that was probably worse, but it's too long ago to be sure). Yep, definitely swimming upstream....    

 

[OPR8R]

Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but it seems to me that things like soundstage with the LCD's are largely amp dependent.  I don't think just any amp is capable of opening up LCD-2's, or at least that hasn't been the case in my experience.
 
Also, I've only observed the "wall of sound" phenomemon while listening to large, orchestral classical music.  In those cases, what I'm hearing is similar to what I hear when I go to the symphony.  I don't expect that I should be able to hear 18 distinct violins when they're all playing at once.  I think this has been mentioned before in this thread.
 
That doesn't mean people shouldn't and/or won't enjoy phones that do deliver a higher level of instrument separation.

 

[preproman]

Quote:

To me the HE-500 has a smaller soundstage than the LCD-2. Also, it isn't much brighter (and remember, I have the Rev1). 

 

  
 
Yes I agree - our hearing is definatly different.  IMO the HE-500s can get a little hot / sharp / sparkly or what ever you want to call it > at times up top.  The LCD-2.2s never, ever get hop up top - ever.

 

[pp312]

Quote:

 
Also, I've only observed the "wall of sound" phenomemon while listening to large, orchestral classical music.  In those cases, what I'm hearing is similar to what I hear when I go to the symphony.  I don't expect that I should be able to hear 18 distinct violins when they're all playing at once.  I think this has been mentioned before in this thread.
 
That doesn't mean people shouldn't and/or won't enjoy phones that do deliver a higher level of instrument separation.

 
Good point, and links with what I've been saying about the obsession with detail. You don't hear much detail in a symphony concert (or probably any other kind as well). You mostly hear a homogeneity, a number of instruments blending together, with "detail" as we mean it appearing with the tinkle of a triangle, the clatter of a castanet or xylophone, the crash of a cymbal--but otherwise just a wall of sound, with the sound patterns changing according to the orchestral forces predominating (horns, trombones etc). As you say, this doesn't preclude people preferring a more etched sound where they can pick out detail more easily, but it's not natural, and it's unfair to criticise a phone for not presenting exaggerated detail.  

 

[pp312]

Quote:

Originally Posted by preproman /img/forum/go_quote.gif

  
 
Yes I agree - our hearing is definatly different.  IMO the HE-500s can get a little hot / sharp / sparkly or what ever you want to call it > at times up top.  The LCD-2.2s never, ever get hop up top - ever.

 
Pleather or velour pads on your HE-500?

 

[preproman]

Quote:

 
Pleather or velour pads on your HE-500?

 
Velour all the way for my 500s, 5LEs and 6s

 

[donlin]

Quote:

 
Donlin, are you saying you found the LCD-2 more comfortable? Because the concensus seems to be that the HE-500 is more comfortable, though certainly not to me.
 
My hearing seems to be quite different to everyone else's, or else I'm listening to different things. To me the HE-500 has a smaller soundstage than the LCD-2. Also, it isn't much brighter (and remember, I have the Rev1). It's brighter in spots, giving greater definition to certain instruments, but this is somewhat undermined by a certain pinched, closed in quality, perhaps linked to that nasally colouration. The greater openness of the LCD-2 gives it the feel of a sunny day to the HE-500s slightly overcast hue. I know a small change can make a large difference with these things, and maybe the velour earpads will change the whole perspective, but the fact is that I haven't been able to line my perceptions of the LCD-2 up with the majority since I got them, so I guess there's no reason it should line up in this particular comparison. I don't find them "dark". The HD650s were dark; the LCD is very open and sunny, just a little shelved. I don't find the soundstage "small" or "intimate". Quit the opposite; the LCD-2 presents to these ears a nice, wide-open soundstage with instruments spreading to extreme left and right and depth where appropriate. So I seem to be swimming upstream for the whole length of the river, perhaps not for the first time.
 
Just as an amusing aside, I joined the "listened to the Fostex 50RP--wow!" thread a while back and on the basis of comments there ordered said Fostex phone. When I heard it "Wow!" was my reaction too, but it was more "Wow, I've never heard a worse phone!". (Well, I did buy a $2 headphone in K-Mart once, and that was probably worse, but it's too long ago to be sure). Yep, definitely swimming upstream....    

Correct, I find the LCD-2 to be more comfortable, I have no comfort issues whatsoever since getting the xtra long posts.  I also agree with what you're saying regarding soundstaging.

 

[LugBug1]

Just thought I'd add this pick that was used earlier on in this thread. It shows how I find the soundstages to be for the LCD2.2 and HE500. The LCD2 is rounder and more forward, while the HE500 is wider and more pillar box. I find the HE500 deeper as well.
 

 
mmm.. don't think the pic has worked...
 
edit; yes it has

 

[OPR8R]

Quote:

Just thought I'd add this pick that was used earlier on in this thread. It shows how hear the soundstages to be for the LCD2.2 and HE500. The LCD2 is rounder and more forward, while the HE500 is wider and more pillar box. I find the HE500 deeper as well.

 
Just out of curiosity, is this using the same amp for each?

 

[LugBug1]

Quote:

 
Just out of curiosity, is this using the same amp for each?

Don't know..
 
But out of the 5 headphone amps that I've used this is pretty accurate for me.

 

[hekeli]

With Realiser.

 

 

[LugBug1]

Quote:

With Realiser.

 

mmm... or a sprinkling of cocaine on the drivers again..!

 

[Mr.Sneis]

Quote:

So I have two stock Audeze cables, I think there have been 4 altogether? If so these are nos. 2 and 3 (both are round, neither is flat). One is completely unbranded and uses smaller diameter wire than the other, and has a silver-colored TRS plug. The other (thicker) on has a black Neutrik plug, Rean headphone connectors, and is made of Canare speaker cable.
 
I forgot which one is supposed to be better quality? I'm guessing it's the smaller, unbranded version with the silver plug but a confirmation would be nice

 
I have 3 of these older cables!  All 3 have the beefy Rean connectors and the same Canare L4E6S speaker cable.  One I have modified by removing the techflex on the headphone split and replacing with paracord to fix microphonics and then re-terminated to 4-pin balanced.  One came stock balanced with 3-pin XLR's Neutrik XX and but has much nicer techflex (feels like slightly oversized multifilament).  The other I have not touched and it has the horribly stiff techflex on the Y split still and black gold plated Neutrik 1/4".  IMO I like these older cables better than the modern cable but they take some work to make a little more functional.
 
Let me know if you find a difference in sonics between the cables, I can only imagine the modern stock cable may have less conductors than the old ones.

 

[grokit]

So I have two stock Audeze cables, I think there have been 4 altogether? If so these are nos. 2 and 3 (both are round, neither is flat). One is completely unbranded and uses smaller diameter wire than the other, and has a silver-colored TRS plug. The other (thicker) on has a black Neutrik plug, Rean headphone connectors, and is made of Canare speaker cable.

I forgot which one is supposed to be better quality? I'm guessing it's the smaller, unbranded version with the silver plug but a confirmation would be nice

I have 3 of these older cables!  All 3 have the beefy Rean connectors and the same Canare L4E6S speaker cable.  One I have modified by removing the techflex on the headphone split and replacing with paracord to fix microphonics and then re-terminated to 4-pin balanced.  One came stock balanced with 3-pin XLR's Neutrik XX and but has much nicer techflex (feels like slightly oversized multifilament).  The other I have not touched and it has the horribly stiff techflex on the Y split still and black gold plated Neutrik 1/4".  IMO I like these older cables better than the modern cable but they take some work to make a little more functional.

Let me know if you find a difference in sonics between the cables, I can only imagine the modern stock cable may have less conductors than the old ones.

Thanks for the reply!

After doing some research, I believe that there are only three iterations of the stock LCD2 SE cable. The first was the Canare speaker cable with the branded connectors, the second was the lighter-weight unbranded "new and improved" intermediate version, and the third is the current flat version. I haven't been able to listen to this new LCD-2 setup with my reference recordings yet to judge the SQ of the first two compared to the DHC Molecule with HE6 SE adapter yet, but I am almost there.

 

[Mr.Sneis]

So it seems the intermediate unbranded cable is the one to get!