Jump to content

Audeze LCD-2


swt61
 Share

Recommended Posts

Glad to hear. :)

Any very early JH13/LCD2 comparisons?

I love them both, JH 13s are more open and potentially more revealing. The LCD 2s sounds better over a wider range of music even compressed rock like the Goo Goo Dolls sounds fantastic. Since all things sound good sometimes great things do not sound their absolute best. The 13s are revealing of more flaws in recordings with greater detail.

I'd not want to give up either as to me both are top of their game in their category

No detailed comparison, but the 2 slaughters the 13 in every area (IMO), except perhaps in treble presence. But then, my DT250 beats the JH13 pretty decisively too.

This is just flat out wrong, your first post crashed and burned. May want to read and chill before a second one

I liked the LCD-2 but I find the noise/hype being generated for it with evangelical zeal by a vocal minority over at another headphone forum really annoying. You'd think God had sent his only begotten headphone into the world. It's good but it ain't the messiah.

you may be wrong as on several occasions I've seen my LCD2s walk on water and turn water into wine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to hear. :)

Any very early JH13/LCD2 comparisons?

Sorry, a bit late in replying.

Because I didn't end up having the 13Pro's and LCD-2's in the house at the same time any impressions will have to be from memory and even though I had the 13Pro's up until the day I got the LCD-2's I hadn't really listened to them much in the last while. I should also note that I'm using the LCD-2's with a Gilmore Lite whereas I never used the 13Pro's with the Lite for any length of time.

Up until I heard the LCD-2's the 13Pro's were by far the best headphone I had heard and my feeling after spending a few days with the LCD-2 is, while they're in the same league making it pretty hard to say one is better than the other, I do think the LCD-2 suits my preferences even moreso than the 13Pro's did. Trying to quantify the reasons and differences has proven a bit elusive though but I'll give it a try.

On a whole I think the easiest way to describe the difference is the 13Pro's are drier and more clinical in their presentation whereas the LCD-2 is more vivid and lifelike. There's something very tactile about the LCD-2's presentation that I've not experienced with headphones before. And, that's not to say that I think 13Pro's are dry and clinical, only in comparison to the LCD-2.

From my memory of the 13Pro's I've felt the LCD-2's are fuller bodied, richer, more textured and there's a weight to the music that the 13Pro's didn't quite achieve. They're both very good tonally with the LCD-2 coming across as a tad thick on some instruments and the 13Pro a touch thin on some. I also want to say that the LCD-2's are more transparent but without having them side by side I wouldn't want to say for certain. At the risk of sounding cliche it does seem like I'm hearing things with the LCD-2's that I hadn't heard or hadn't noticed before but then the same could be said of the 13Pro's when I first got those.

There are a few areas I think the 13Pro's have a slight advantage, the first is speed. While the LCD-2 doesn't come across as slow by any means transients are smoother than the 13Pro's, the 13Pro's seemed a bit snappier. Second is treble, I personally don't think I've heard a better treble than that of the 13Pro's, incredibly clean and detailed and always seemed to have just the right amount of presence, never obtrusive and never lacking. By contrast the LCD-2's can lack a bit of that presence and it's treble isn't quite as clean. I've also noticed a very slight amount of sibilance smearing on a few tracks with the LCD-2 which never happened on the 13Pro's. Third, I think at least in some regards the 13Pro's had a bit better soundstaging. This is particularly noticeable on The Tiger Lillies "Urine Palace" a very well recorded live album where the 13Pro's seem to give a better sense of depth and space than LCD-2's.

By contrast, that same recording does a good job at illustrating what it is that grabs me about the LCD-2. Soundstage aside, the realism with which LCD-2's portray the recording is simply stunning. The 13Pro's do a wonderful job as well but somehow the LCD-2's have that extra something that creates an even more lifelike presentation.

It's too bad customs didn't work out for me, I envy those of you who are able to have both the LCD-2 and 13Pro's because I think both are wonderful and even though both are in the $1000 range they offer tremendous value for what you get. The 13Pro's probably moreso because of their versatility and that they sound good out of just about anything.

Again, these are still only initial impressions of the LCD-2 and subject to change and the two weren't directly compared so comparisons should be taken with a grain of salt.

On separate note, I was very glad to find the weight of the LCD-2's much less than I anticipated and it doesn't seem to bother me and neither does the clamping force which was a particular concern because of the problems I've had with my jaw.

Edited by elnero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been listening to both of these headphones almost every day since getting my LCD-2s in October. I agree with much of what elnero said. But I come to the opposite conclusion regarding speed and treble clarity. While less prominent, the LCD-2s reveal high frequencies with a tiny bit of extra resolution. They parse out complexity and reveal texture with greater clarity. The JH-13s have a relative softness about their highs. That makes them more forgiving of recordings for me. I feel the same regarding imaging, which is even more pinpoint on the LCD-2s. I’ve caught quite a few stereo field cues with them that I’d missed elsewhere.

Take my comparisons with a grain of salt however, as I find both of these headphones to be faster and more detailed than the HD800s and K1000s. That’s not something many seem to agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been listening to both of these headphones almost every day since getting my LCD-2s in October. I agree with much of what elnero said. But I come to the opposite conclusion regarding speed and treble clarity. While less prominent, the LCD-2s reveal high frequencies with a tiny bit of extra resolution. They parse out complexity and reveal texture with greater clarity. The JH-13s have a relative softness about their highs. That makes them more forgiving of recordings for me. I feel the same regarding imaging, which is even more pinpoint on the LCD-2s. I’ve caught quite a few stereo field cues with them that I’d missed elsewhere.

Take my comparisons with a grain of salt however, as I find both of these headphones to be faster and more detailed than the HD800s and K1000s. That’s not something many seem to agree with.

I'd agree with you on the pinpoint imaging of the LCD-2's, it's actually thrown me off a bit by times. I still think in my system at least that the 13Pro's had a bit more depth to the stage though. The difference in our perception of the treble could come down to differences in system or I may be over romanticizing my recollections of it, both to me do a wonderful job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The LCD2's have landed and I am really enjoying listening to them. Here are a couple of quick observations I have made within the past couple of days. I am using a meridian 508.24, my amp is a hybrid custom design by dsavitsk, and my main cans are hp1000 and jh13.

1) the lcd2 has a real nice bass response. Very tight and punchy, not boomy at all, I don't detect any obvious humps like the grados have, but have the same punchy feel that the grados have without resorting to any obvious bass humps. Appears to go very deep as well. Very clean as well.

2) the top end is really nice. This is not a bright can to my ears but sounds lime a detailed highly resolved can. I think that speaks to it's integration with the rest of the spectrum and a nice smooth character as well. I prefer a can that doesn't draw attention to itself on the top end, hence why I have always preferred and enjoyed the hp1000. The jh13 is similar in that regard. However the lcd2 makes the hp1000 sound almost mushy and find the lcd2 to be more detailed without sounding bright. I think the lcd2 might be as detailed as the jh13 on top but the jh13 sounds softer to me on the high end. To summarize I really like the highs on the lcd2 and I think it offers for me the optimal midpoint between the hp1000 and something like the hd800 which sounds bright to my ears.

3) the midrange is nice and transparent, clean and detailed. I find the hp1000 to be more lush and rich but that is more a flavor and preferen thing, the lcd2 is perfectly fine in this regard. I don't find the lcd2 to be overly lush or thin in this area, it appears very accurate and has that nice transparent open quality where you can hear through the midrange if that makes sense.

4) still too early to talk about head staging/sound staging capabilities. At first hearing it has a little bit of the 3 blob effect to my ears and I feel like the lcd2 could throw out the stage a lilttle farther out and have a bit more distance in front. Again here is where preference for presentation is everything as I have yet to find something that matches my personal preference for how the hp1000 presents it's soundstage to the listener. Closes enough to the stage to get a nice live quick punchy and immediate sound but far enough back to be able to soak in and absorb details without feeling assaulted. I would put the lcd2 closer to the stage than the hp1000, a couple of rows behind a Grado rs1,which to my ears is a very nice place to be. I would prefer a wider headstage but I don't find fault per SE with what I am hearing.

Overall this is probably the first can I have listened to where I don't feel like I need to run back to my hp1000s ASAP. It's very detailed without being bright, is very transparent through the midrange, has a nice sense of depth and I enjoy it's stage presentation, and I really dig the bass response. It is tonally rich without being overly lush or romantic and offers a nice snappy immediate transient response that made me love grados in the first place. A part of me wants to say this is what the hd800 should have sounded like and what I think a lot of us wanted the hd800 to sound like but god damn that bright thin character. Go audeze, kudos to you for making a nice sounding headphone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup.

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/Audeze%20LCD-2.pdf

Bass is ruler flat; rolls off a little too much at the very top though.

Impedance and phase is ruler flat ... A normal planar-magnetic characteristic.

30 hz square wave is stunning due to the good bass response.

THD is the best ive seen.

300hz square shows a little stored enpergy after the first overshoot. But i like the fact that its not overshooting a lot...most headphones do, and thats the brightness Kevin mentions.

Impulse response shows that blip of energy coming in after the first impulse again as a fat little wiggle.

Ive been listening to both a lot lately, and Im thinking the LDC-2 is a tad too slow, and the HE6 is a bit more of a tad too fast.

I think the Audeze is my desert island can at the moment.

Edited by Tyll Hertsens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you heard the HE6? Its much faster sounding with a kick ass bass that n estat would have a hard time pulling off, I think.

I heard HE-4/5/6 headphones at the meet and a coworker of my has HE-4 and just got HE-6. Since the room was mostly empty I was able to listen critically. I like their ability to sound very transparent and fast, but overall sound signature is not to my liking. Overly bright with thin mids and just tonally wrong to these ears. I prefer LCD-2 although they do have slightly rolled off HF, they have much meatier and ballsy sound. Since I am coming from a lot of vintage orthos, such as Fostex T-20/30/50 and Yamaha YH-1/100 I like LCD because they are much closer in sound to that sound signature. I spoke with Fing and from that conversation I think the diaphragm used for HE phones is much thinner that traditional orthos and does not have printed traces so they are closer to electrets in this regard. Anyhow they are nice phones, but have their issues. If you like their sound signature they a have a lot to offer.

Edited by faust3d
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...