Jump to content
Joe-Siow

Audez'e LCD-2 Rev 2

Recommended Posts

Hey kchew, thanks for the HD800 loan as well. Very generous of you to agree to the 2 week swop.

 

Having owned the LCD-2 for coming 2 months now, and never heard of the HD800 in my own home environment, I tremendously enjoyed both sets of headphones.

 

The LCD-2 is an amazing headphone, the mids is so sweet and the bass is so well extended with excellent punch. The HD800 on the other hand showed me how clear and transparent a high end headphone can be. And the staging and imaging is nothing short of jaw dropping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting all those negatives together in one place, it doesn't sound quite so good:

 

Has a mid-bass bump.

Doesn't go as low as the 800.

Loses some midrange detail compared to the 800.

Treble not as extended as the 800.

Not as good soundstage as the 800.

Not as good speed as the 800.

 

Not a criticism since I haven't heard the LCD2, but those are six things that seem like they add up to a lot. The other thing that bugs me about the LCD2 is reading about so much variance in their sound from sample to sample, as well as a high incidence of defects.

 

 

Funny how u should mention that the post is not a criticism, yet it reeks exactly of that. Like what u mentioned, u have not tried the LCD-2, yet one can't help but have the feeling that u have reached the conclusion that LCD-2 is rubbish.

 

Anyway having heard HD800 for 2 weeks, and having heard LCD-2 for a month, the below is based on what i heard.

 

 

 

1) There is mid bass bump, but this is a pair of coloured headphone and not strictly neutral nor flat, so it really isn't an issue here.

 

2) Kchew mentioned that it MIGHT be able to go deeper than LCD-2 with the RIGHT tubes, so how low the 800 goes actually depends on the tubes rolled. For me, the bass of LCD-2 extends very deep and its impact and resonation is amazing, yet not excessive. Impressive.

 

3) For me, the reason why LCD-2 is a great headphone, is because it manages a perfect blend of warmth, musicality, clarity and transparency. Seldom do one hear a better blend. Yes, its detail retrieval might only be 90-95% of HD800, yet LCD-2 is being compared to a supremely neutral headphone here, possibly the best dynamic headphone in the market. HD800's mid is uncoloured and listening to the mids, it presents what the recording is about; nothing more is added.

 

4) U might say that the treble of LCD-2 is not as extended as HD800, but I'll say the opposite is true for bass. It's what each technology is good or bad at.

 

5) Again, staging is one of the strongest point of HD800, while it is one the weak point of orthodynamics.

 

6) Both cans are tuned differently with different genres of music in mind. HD800 works best with audiophile recordings, Jazz and Classical music; while LCD-2 works for Jazz, Blues, R&B, Pop and Rock.

 

 

 

I've had the LCD-2 for coming 2 months now, and I have nothing but praise for Audez'e. It is not only well constructed, it is also classy looking. Though it's heavy, but it is really quite comfortable with the leather headband and the thick yet soft ear pads. HD800 is also fantastically well built with plastic and metal. It is supremely light and very comfortable on the head. At the end of the day, anyone will be extremely happy with either headphone. At least I know I am. I am so seduced by the HD800 I am seriously considering getting one, maybe next year, to complement my LCD-2. Both headphones are amazing and are both keepers IMO.

Edited by Joe-Siow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how u should mention that the post is not a criticism, yet it reeks exactly of that. Like what u mentioned, u have not tried the LCD-2, yet one can't help but have the feeling that u have reached the conclusion that LCD-2 is rubbish.

 

I hate to have to repeat myself, but it is not a criticism. Why is it not a criticism? Very simple - because like I said, I haven't heard it. When I noticed so many negatives in one post I thought it would be a good idea to collect those in one place so someone could explain better how in spite of all those, it was still very good.

 

There is no need to be defensive - I read the same things you do, I just wanted to put that together for an explanation. The term 'rubbish' doesn't make sense when I said I haven't heard it. So let's stop with the "reeks" stuff and just offer an explanation if you want to - I'm not demanding any explanations - it's just a friendly request, that's all.

 

I would like to also suggest that when we say headphone 'x' works best with one type of music and headphone 'y' works best with other genres, that is not what high fidelity says. Personally, I find it very inconvenient to restrict myself to one or two or three genres when I'm using a particular headphone. I find in most cases how enjoyable the tracks are with my current headphone I'm using is not by the genre, but by the quality of the recording.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offence, but I find it very tough to take advice from someone who once stated that "The point here is that it's wrong to tell people that the HD-800 cannot be driven satisfactorily from an iPod Touch when it most assuredly can be".

 

This will be my last response to Dalathorn. Good day to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't have to be offended, as I find that it is good to have critics on each headphone or gear, as I have heard the LCD2 and LCD3, was not too impressed. One main reason for it was because it don't sound neutral, so why enthuse over a headphone of that price, when you can have a cheaper option and similarly colored.

 

Everyone has their views here, this here is not a praise thread or site, only fanboys get so excited and hurt by criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offence, but I find it very tough to take advice from someone who once stated that "The point here is that it's wrong to tell people that the HD-800 cannot be driven satisfactorily from an iPod Touch when it most assuredly can be".

If someone doesn't like me for any reason they have, no problem. But I do have a problem with false statements about what I say. I did a factual test of the HD-800 with iPod and I reported my results, including my recommendation that the HD-800 needs more power for many tracks that won't be loud enough. So as long as you report what I actually said, no problem, but please report factually.

 

On the LCD2, I have several headphones myself which sound very different from each other, so you can be sure some of those are very "colored", since they cannot all be "right". But that's no problem either. When I listed the six items, I wasn't making anything up, just repeating what the OP said in a condensed form, for comment. The LCD2 is a very expensive headphone, and when 6 items are listed like that in one small review, it certainly deserves more attention.

 

We are here to discuss headphones I thought, not to hide behind product names and legends. So please, let's discuss and dispense with the silly stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our brains are "wired" differently. Our ear canals are formed differently. So many variables. I wouldn't be bothered by the 6 items cos one can list negative attributes of HD800 in a small review as well.

 

IMHO HD800 mids are kind of lean and could do with more body. One can never deny that HD800 is soundstage king. Very few headphones can match it. I find it impressive too but I also feel that it's kind of artificial at times. It all comes down to personal preference and taste. Take comments with a pinch of salt. There're always two sides to every coin.

 

HD800 and LCD2s are two very different headphones catered for different camps of listeners. Some people own both cos they find them complementary.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Cheers!

Edited by kwhv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of high fidelity is not to offer different sound preferences, but rather to reproduce what's in the recording accurately. So even though our ears are different, what we hear on a good hifi is the same as each of us would hear at the recording session or the live music date. Equipment that does not at least subscribe to this principle is not high fidelity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point of high fidelity is not to offer different sound preferences, but rather to reproduce what's in the recording accurately. So even though our ears are different, what we hear on a good hifi is the same as each of us would hear at the recording session or the live music date. Equipment that does not at least subscribe to this principle is not high fidelity.

I think the proper word to use is audiophile or purist, many and I mean many think that emphasized headphones are inline with being audiophile. That is also why very accurate headphones have been so often deemed no bass or with recessed bass, when in fact if they spend more time listening to actual rather than compare between headphones, they would quite easily distinguish between headphones and which gives a more accurate representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the proper word to use is audiophile or purist, many and I mean many think that emphasized headphones are inline with being audiophile. That is also why very accurate headphones have been so often deemed no bass or with recessed bass, when in fact if they spend more time listening to actual rather than compare between headphones, they would quite easily distinguish between headphones and which gives a more accurate representation.

There is a lot of confusion about high fidelity or accuracy/neutrality. I believe in the principle of it, but as far as the application to any particular headphone, it's not perfect (whatever that is), so the reality is arguable of course. But I would suggest that deliberate colorations are probably always bad for general music listening, since those colorations then write over ALL of the music, and that can't be good. There's a theory of course that you could have all or almost all of the tracks you're going to listen to today be especially in tune with a particular headphone, but I for one have found that when I go somewhere, usually carrying just one headphone, I rarely stick to just those tracks. I almost always like to change moods and genres according to inspiration of the moment, and that requires a headphone that's not very colored in any one direction. Funny thing is, I can use the DT-1350 in that sense and it works pretty well, even though the 1350 is nowhere near neutral. I just "tame" it a little bit and that works OK. I think most LCD2 users also adapt well that way, because otherwise they wouldn't pay so much money for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how to define neutral ?

 

Neutral is how you hear it from actual performance, most Hifi speakers are neutral, just the imaging issue, which of the most part weighs on placement and room acoustics.

 

not here and not there :P

It is definitely defined. Just that you need to pay more attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the other words, cant be achieved... close to it , maybe

Did I say that? you have heard my headphones, that is neutral. you have heard my speakers, sub bass is felt not heard. Midrange is always more pronounced as compared to the accompaniment, unless that is the lead, which falls under the midrange. Remember Fletcher Munson, our hearing is non linear, so you can't perceive equal loudness on the Frequency range at normal listening levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...