[Rzkr]

I heard back from Audeze and they will retrofit fazors for $275. The customer pays shipping both ways.

 

[Thenewguy007]

Can anyone help?

I want to try my hands on the LCD-2's, but there were so many revisions & mods that it is overwhelming to get into.
 
Can someone list the difference in short simple layman terms between:

1. LCD-2  rev. 1
2. LCD-2  rev. 2
3. LCD-2  rev 2.2
4. LCD-2 fazor mods

Do the rosewood or bamboo cups make a difference in weight or sound?
 
 
I want a lush, liquid, smooth, fun & musical headphone to compliment my Beyerdynamics T1.
 
Which of the LCD-2's have the best bass quality & quantity. Best kick & slam. Best mids & coloration?
 
Don't really care for forward or bright highs or accuracy.
 
 

 

[DDDamian]

  Can anyone help?

I want to try my hands on the LCD-2's, but there were so many revisions & mods that it is overwhelming to get into.
 
Can someone list the difference in short simple layman terms between:

1. LCD-2  rev. 1
2. LCD-2  rev. 2
3. LCD-2  rev 2.2
4. LCD-2 fazor mods

Do the rosewood or bamboo cups make a difference in weight or sound?
 
 
I want a lush, liquid, smooth, fun & musical headphone to compliment my Beyerdynamics T1.
 
Which of the LCD-2's have the best bass quality & quantity. Best kick & slam. Best mids & coloration?
 
Don't really care for forward or bright highs or accuracy.
 
 
 

I can only condense what was a considerable read through opinions on this and other forums, but I'll give it a go:
 

1. LCD2,1 - original design with connectors built into the wooden design. Had issues with cracking there in some cases. Replaced with different different drivers (the only change Audeze felt warranted a revision update). Not sure on the SQ differences in detail but widely held as improving with the next revision.
2. LCD2,2 - this covers a range of mods but all have the same designation. The major change was the newer drivers. Generally considered an improvement in SQ. Several other mods followed, and have been given unofficial designations here on Head-Fi. First was a change to the connectors: they were put on angles in the original wood housings, then changed to a metal angled connector to alleviate some of the cracking concerns. A further option brought a bamboo housing in addition to the standard rosewood housing. Last was the addition of the fazor modification. This was a backwards retrofit based on other LCD models which aimed to reduce the interference from the magnet structure in order to improve the imaging and resolution, but is sometimes felt to have reduced the bass extension and volume of the previous non-fazor versions. Pre-fazor is sometimes referred to as LCD2.2c and post-fazor as LCD2.2f in discussion here.

 
I'm sure I'm not completely correct in the above, and doubtless someone will correct me shortly.
 
The bamboo is (very) slightly lighter and anecdotally less prone to cracking than the rosewood versions or even the zebrawood of the higher versions like the LCD3. There is no widely-acknowledged SQ difference between them.
 
I think you'll find any of them a lush, liquid yet full-bodied compliment to the T1. They are all known for deep and controlled bass extension when driven well. The soundstage tends to be close (compared to, say, the HD-800) but few will accuse them of lacking body or bass. None are fatiguing in the highs.
 
For kick and slam I am biased to the non-fazor 2.2, and I think that's the majority view. That said, they do lack imaging which I hear the fazor mod improves upon. Texture, speed. great bass and smooth mids with just enough treble are hallmarks of the whole line.
 
I would recommend them highly, especially in contrast to the T1 or HD-800. Make sure you have enough current from your amp and go for it.
 
P.S. Yes they are heavy. Man-cans. If that will bother you don't do it. I find them very comfortable, but after many hours in a session they do get heavy. But slip on a light pair of HD-800's afterwards and the highs will jangle your nerves more than your neck will relax lol.

 

[Thenewguy007]

  I can only condense what was a considerable read through opinions on this and other forums, but I'll give it a go:
 

1. LCD2,1 - original design with connectors built into the wooden design. Had issues with cracking there in some cases. Replaced with different different drivers (the only change Audeze felt warranted a revision update). Not sure on the SQ differences in detail but widely held as improving with the next revision.
2. LCD2,2 - this covers a range of mods but all have the same designation. The major change was the newer drivers. Generally considered an improvement in SQ. Several other mods followed, and have been given unofficial designations here on Head-Fi. First was a change to the connectors: they were put on angles in the original wood housings, then changed to a metal angled connector to alleviate some of the cracking concerns. A further option brought a bamboo housing in addition to the standard rosewood housing. Last was the addition of the fazor modification. This was a backwards retrofit based on other LCD models which aimed to reduce the interference from the magnet structure in order to improve the imaging and resolution, but is sometimes felt to have reduced the bass extension and volume of the previous non-fazor versions. Pre-fazor is sometimes referred to as LCD2.2c and post-fazor as LCD2.2f in discussion here.

 
I'm sure I'm not completely correct in the above, and doubtless someone will correct me shortly.
 
The bamboo is (very) slightly lighter and anecdotally less prone to cracking than the rosewood versions or even the zebrawood of the higher versions like the LCD3. There is no widely-acknowledged SQ difference between them.
 
I think you'll find any of them a lush, liquid yet full-bodied compliment to the T1. They are all known for deep and controlled bass extension when driven well. The soundstage tends to be close (compared to, say, the HD-800) but few will accuse them of lacking body or bass. None are fatiguing in the highs.
 
For kick and slam I am biased to the non-fazor 2.2, and I think that's the majority view. That said, they do lack imaging which I hear the fazor mod improves upon. Texture, speed. great bass and smooth mids with just enough treble are hallmarks of the whole line.
 
I would recommend them highly, especially in contrast to the T1 or HD-800. Make sure you have enough current from your amp and go for it.
 
P.S. Yes they are heavy. Man-cans. If that will bother you don't do it. I find them very comfortable, but after many hours in a session they do get heavy. But slip on a light pair of HD-800's afterwards and the highs will jangle your nerves more than your neck will relax lol.

 
 
Thanks for the write up.
So non-fazor, with metal angled connector & bamboo housing is the one to look for?
 
I did read a few Rev. 1 vs Rev. 2 comparisons & a few said that the Rev 2 did tame/recess the bass a small tiny bit for slight soundtsgae & imaging improvements. Is that the improved SQ?

 

[DDDamian]

   
 
Thanks for the write up.
So non-fazor, with metal angled connector & bamboo housing is the one to look for?
 
I did read a few Rev. 1 vs Rev. 2 comparisons & a few said that the Rev 2 did tame/recess the bass a small tiny bit for slight soundtsgae & imaging improvements. Is that the improved SQ?

That sounds about right, and the same might be said for the pre-fazor/post-fazor changes: an improvement in soundstage and imaging for a slight loss in bass. In fact Tyll Hertsons of InnerFidelity (a pretty trusted source and a fan of the LCD line-up from the start) stated he's noticed a steady progression away from the bass-heavy signature over the years, and somewhat missed it. That's a can of worms and one man's opinion, but seems to suit the trend of thought here when averaged.
 
I'm biased, but I can say based on my pair that the non-fazor with metal angled connectors is a great headphone with plenty of bass extension and level, and a great overall balance. For sure one of my top three currently in possession. The rosewood/bamboo thing is personal choice (what isn't) but if you're cautious the bamboo probably is a safer choice and marginally lighter.
 
I have them on my head right now, and am still, months later and with other top-notch cans within reach, continually impressed. A very rich yet forgiving listen, with loads of detail, texture and speed, and one of the most natural sounds I've heard yet.

 

[TontonJoK]

I tried lcd 2.2 fazor and pre fazor and really preferred the 2.2 pre fazored, that's my opinion with the kind of music I listen to

If you look for a used pair then rosewood is really nice despite being just a little heavier than bamboo

 

[LNCPapa]

I own the 2.2 non-fazor in bamboo and have listened to all the other flavors of LCD-2.  I prefer mine over all of them but found that I prefer the non-fazor LCD-3 over everything else.  It's pretty hard to get the non-fazor LCDs now as they're no longer in production so the pairs that are out there will just have to shift hands.  
It's also worth mentioning the types of music I listen to - all in flac and a large percentage in HD via my WA7:
Mostly small band jazz... Dizzy, Miles, Grover, Hancock, Quincy, etc.
Oldschool R&B... Bill Withers, Commodors, Marvin Gaye, Rick James, Ohio Players, Quincy, George Duke, etc.
Neo-Soul... Erykah, Jill Scott, Goapele, D'Angelo, etc.
A little modern R&B... mostly female vocals like Vivian Green, Jeanelle Monae, Teedra Moses, Chrisette Michele, Syleena Johnson
Some oldschool hip-hop... because new hip-hop isn't even music anymore.
Van Hunt... because I don't really know how to categorize him but I really love his music.  Mix of Kravitz and Prince in my opinion.
 
http://www.last.fm/user/LNCPapa
 
Sounds absolutely perfect with the music I listen to.

 

[jodgey4]

  I own the 2.2 non-fazor in bamboo and have listened to all the other flavors of LCD-2.  I prefer mine over all of them but found that I prefer the non-fazor LCD-3 over everything else.  It's pretty hard to get the non-fazor LCDs now as they're no longer in production so the pairs that are out there will just have to shift hands.  
It's also worth mentioning the types of music I listen to - all in flac and a large percentage in HD via my WA7:
Mostly small band jazz... Dizzy, Miles, Grover, Hancock, Quincy, etc.
Oldschool R&B... Bill Withers, Commodors, Marvin Gaye, Rick James, Ohio Players, Quincy, George Duke, etc.
Neo-Soul... Erykah, Jill Scott, Goapele, D'Angelo, etc.
A little modern R&B... mostly female vocals like Vivian Green, Jeanelle Monae, Teedra Moses, Chrisette Michele, Syleena Johnson
Some oldschool hip-hop... because new hip-hop isn't even music anymore.
Van Hunt... because I don't really know how to categorize him but I really love his music.  Mix of Kravitz and Prince in my opinion.
 
http://www.last.fm/user/LNCPapa
 
Sounds absolutely perfect with the music I listen to.

What do you like about the 2.2 over the 2.1? Great music tastes... they're quite similar to mine!

 

[LNCPapa]

The main thing I like about the 2.2 over previous versions is the angled connectors.  The straight wood connectors had many people complaining about cracking in the wood.  The difference in the sound isn't as drastic to me between the older versions and the 2.2 when compared to the 2.2 fazors.  The fazors clearly don't extend as deep to me even though the imaging is better.  I originally wanted my 2.2 because of the endless bottom that it has.

 

[spaech]

I've had my LCD2.2fs for a couple weeks and today decided to EQ them as flat as possible. Here is the measured frequency response using a log sine sweep without any EQ, using my Gustard H10 amp:
 

 
I had the option of EQing to this sine sweep or to the frequency response calculated from white/pink noise using ARTA. I get pretty different frequency response graphs depending on which of these methods I use. I'm not 100% sure if ARTA is doing some funky calculation wizardry, or if the difference is down to the way the drivers respond to full-spectrum signal as compared to the single-frequency sweep. I think it's probably more the latter. The waveforms in most music aren't hammering the drivers with full spectrum noise, so I figured EQing to the sine sweep would be the better option.
 
Using the MathAudio Headphone EQ plugin for foobar, I flattened out the frequency response as well as my patience allowed, ending up with a pretty nice looking FR graph:
 

 
The EQ curve:
 

 
I've been listening to them EQ'd for an hour and so far I'm really enjoying the sound. More bass, vocals are less in-your-face and sit better in the mix. Overall the sound feels more natural and is less fatiguing. The headphones have lost some of the sonic signature, but they are in no way boring. Just beautifully presented music. If anyone wants to try this EQ curve on their 2.2Fs (I wouldn't suggest it on other versions), I've got the preset on dropbox here. It works with this foobar component.

 

[BassDigger]

@spaech Thanks for the PM.
 
My first thought was actually 'thanks, but no thanks'. I'm a purist; I gave up equalisers decades ago.
 
But, now I'm not quite sure what this foobar component is. Is it something that you use to EQ the music that you're playing, just like a conventional eq? (But this is active mic eq'ing)
Or is it able to actually modify/eq the levels, permanently, during the conversion process, and save the converted and eq'ed music file? e.g. when I convert my flacs to wav, to put on an SD card, those files could be permanently eq adjusted during the conversion process.
 
Ok, I've had a look. It basically seems to be more of an active equaliser. It may be useful; I've been looking for a good equaliser, for use with either vlc or foobar, just to help isolate problem areas.
 
Incidentally, as this probably isn't for file conversion, does anyone know of any file eq'ing software, that doesn't have any negative effects? I just want to ramp up the sub 40hz bass, on my lcd2f, without having any extra hardware in the signal path, or using a pc for a transport.
 
Cheers.

 

[DDDamian]

@spaech interesting - is the more natural and less-fatiguing sound more a result of the crossfeed or the EQ?
 
BTW - the link you gave goes to the Room Correction plugin. Here's the headphone-resonance-correcting one....
 
@BassDigger - Foobar can do that using its convert function (just right-click a song or album, hit convert, set the output type and additional processing for your DSP chain and go). I for one don't much like altering the actual file, but I guess to then put it on a DAP processed how you want might be fun.

 

[spaech]

  @spaech Thanks for the PM.
 
My first thought was actually 'thanks, but no thanks'. I'm a purist; I gave up equalisers decades ago.
 
But, now I'm not quite sure what this foobar component is. Is it something that you use to EQ the music that you're playing, just like a conventional eq? (But this is active mic eq'ing)
Or is it able to actually modify/eq the levels, permanently, during the conversion process, and save the converted and eq'ed music file? e.g. when I convert my flacs to wav, to put on an SD card, those files could be permanently eq adjusted during the conversion process.
 
Ok, I've had a look. It basically seems to be more of an active equaliser. It may be useful; I've been looking for a good equaliser, for use with either vlc or foobar, just to help isolate problem areas.
 
Incidentally, as this probably isn't for file conversion, does anyone know of any file eq'ing software, that doesn't have any negative effects? I just want to ramp up the sub 40hz bass, on my lcd2f, without having any extra hardware in the signal path, or using a pc for a transport.
 
Cheers.

 
Yeah you're correct, it's an active equaliser and won't modify any files. But having said that, there wouldn't be any difference in quality between EQing on the fly and hard-coding the EQ changes into the files. Your DAC would be seeing the exact same thing either way. I feel a bit icky about using an EQ too but I think it's probably irrational, there's no real reason why it should reduce sound quality as long as it's not clipping (which this EQ seems to avoid).
 

  @spaech interesting - is the more natural and less-fatiguing sound more a result of the crossfeed or the EQ?
 
BTW - the link you gave goes to the Room Correction plugin. Here's the headphone-resonance-correcting one....

 
Thanks for that, I'll fix up the link. I'm not actually using the crossfade, it's turned off, so I'm attributing the lower fatigue to the flattening out of that huge spike around 7k.

 

[BassDigger]

 
@BassDigger - Foobar can do that using its convert function (just right-click a song or album, hit convert, set the output type and additional processing for your DSP chain and go). I for one don't much like altering the actual file, but I guess to then put it on a DAP processed how you want might be fun.

 
I too don't really like the idea of messing with the original file, but I'd give it a try.
 
I'd totally forgotten about the foobar DSP.
But actually with the foobar equaliser the lowest adjustment is only as low as the 55hz centre frequency. That would probably be making it too thick sounding, without really boosting the very lowest frequencies. So, I guess what I should have been asking is, is there an eq with adjustable bands or lower centre frequency adjustment, for the deepest bass, that foobar can use for conversion?

 

 
Yeah you're correct, it's an active equaliser and won't modify any files. But having said that, there wouldn't be any difference in quality between EQing on the fly and hard-coding the EQ changes into the files. Your DAC would be seeing the exact same thing either way. I feel a bit icky about using an EQ too but I think it's probably irrational, there's no real reason why it should reduce sound quality as long as it's not clipping (which this EQ seems to avoid).

 
I don't use any computer as a transport; my transport just plays wav files. It can do nothing else. I'm oldskool minimalist, hence the disdain of EQing.
I just wondered if it was possible to mess with the EQ, during the conversion process, without losing any quality. Being realistic, I'm doubting it. Although, maybe I should have a mess around with foobar's built in dsp, and make my own conclusions.
 
I guess this discussion would be better conducted on a different thread. (But any short answers would be appreciated 

)

 

[DDDamian]

   
So, I guess what I should have been asking is, is there an eq with adjustable bands or lower centre frequency adjustment, for the deepest bass, that foobar can use for conversion?
 

Here's a way to do what you're looking to do: http://www.best-free-vst.com/download.php?p=Electri-Q
 
Edit: sorry - link was bad - okay now. You will need the Foobar VST-bridge plug-in available from the Foobar components page over at SourceForge.