[Taowolf51]

EQ has worked pretty well for me. The trick is finding an EQ that is actually good.

 

[DefQon]

 

I meant getting the LCD2's to sound bright without sacrifacing anything else. I know EQ don't work as responsively as it does with other headphones on the LCD2's due to it's design.

 

[Taowolf51]

  I meant getting the LCD2's to sound bright without sacrifacing anything else. I know EQ don't work as responsively as it does with other headphones on the LCD2's due to it's design.

 
You're always going to have sacrifices to make something sound brighter. If you're increasing the treble, you're making everything else a little more recessed. There isn't any way around that.
 
That is unless you do something to give the effect of brighter sound without affecting the FR, but that would most likely have its own drawbacks (which would most likely be worse if it was even possible).

 

[Mediahound]

If you like the LCD2 but want it a bit brighter, get the LCD3. It's just about perfect to me. 

 

[DefQon]

  If you like the LCD2 but want it a bit brighter, get the LCD3. It's just about perfect to me. 

 
See that's the thing, I've heard/owned the rev.1's, rev.2's and had the LCD3 (2012 pair) in my possession for a short while and I did not find the improvements to warrant and justify the price increase. I have my rev.1's extensively modded to my preference (more treble, more soundstage) but retaining the liquid mid's and badass bass and I prefer it over the LCD3's that I've heard except in the looks department, the wood on the LCD3's are die for.
 
I don't have the cashola in the meantime for the LCD-X which so far looks to be a neutral version of the existing LCD2/3's so I'm just looking for shortcuts to mimic the LCD2's to sound bit more different. 
 
From what I've gathered and read, the post-veil LCD3's were pretty bad and sounded more darker and constrained than the early LCD2 rev.1's. The later batches (currently) are more balanced sounding, bit more improvement in the treble but soundstage is about the same.
 
Then there's reports from this thread that the new thicker LCD2 pads which uses the same memory foam and foam density as the LCD3 pads make the existing LCD2's sound more airy. Again, a good thing in my books for Audeze.

 

[Mediahound]

   
See that's the thing, I've heard/owned the rev.1's, rev.2's and had the LCD3 (2012 pair) in my possession for a short while and I did not find the improvements to warrant and justify the price increase. I have my rev.1's extensively modded to my preference (more treble, more soundstage) but retaining the liquid mid's and badass bass and I prefer it over the LCD3's that I've heard except in the looks department, the wood on the LCD3's are die for.
 
I don't have the cashola in the meantime for the LCD-X which so far looks to be a neutral version of the existing LCD2/3's so I'm just looking for shortcuts to mimic the LCD2's to sound bit more different. 
 
From what I've gathered and read, the post-veil LCD3's were pretty bad and sounded more darker and constrained than the early LCD2 rev.1's. The later batches (currently) are more balanced sounding, bit more improvement in the treble but soundstage is about the same.
 
Then there's reports from this thread that the new thicker LCD2 pads which uses the same memory foam and foam density as the LCD3 pads make the existing LCD2's sound more airy. Again, a good thing in my books for Audeze.

 
I had the LCD2 rev. 2 prior to my LCD3s and could discern no difference in bass at all (and I'm a bit of a bass head too).  Bass is great on both.
 
Yet the LCD3s have nicer, less veiled highs. 

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

The only thing thing I could potentially see as making a headphone brighter without real drawbacks is if the thickness of the sound is reduced. That in itself can be a drawback though, so YMMV.

Kinda like the two LCD2s I had. One was leather and one was vegan. They both had the same bass/mid/treble balance (with the slight driver variation), but the vegan sounded slightly tighter, but not as thick/full bodied. It gave me an impression of being brighter, though it honestly wasn't. It was all perception.

LCD2 is known for that chunky/thick/sultry voicing, so making it slimmer and tighter allows the treble to come out a little more, at least to my ears.

 

[DefQon]

That thicker sound is an trait of the LCD2 sound sig, no chance reducing that without changing the FR completely.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Well, the vegan pair I had wasn't as thick sounding as the leather one. I compared directly. Still, same level of bass and mids, just less thickness. It wasn't as "fat" sounding. Felt more precise.

 

[dotrunghieu]

Accually I don't know how to read this one guys. 

 

[jibzilla]

  How does one amplify the LCD2 to be brighter? What constitutes a brighter sound out of the LCD2's? EQ and amplification is not the answer, mods is 50/50.

.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Wasn't the original Asgard known to be somewhat dull on top?

 

[kothganesh]

 
Shovel some schiit on them. Seriously schiit is kind of bright sounding. I found it added just the right amount of brightness without affecting much else.

+1. The Mjolnir will do the trick.

 

[Taowolf51]

  Accually I don't know how to read this one guys. 

Pretty standard new LCD-2 FR graph, it looks pretty nice.

 

[jibzilla]

  +1. The Mjolnir will do the trick.