I thought I'd try to finally write my thoughts down about the Audeze's I've heard.  I've got an LCD-2 rev2 here that I think sounds better than the LCD-3rev1.  It's the best Audeze I've heard and I feel like I've finally gotten a taste of what I wanted them to sound like all along.  And it's not better than the LCD-3 as in a "different flavor" that I happen to prefer, it really just sounds better- it's similar except it has more clarity, more detailed, sounds faster, and it actually has better soundstage.  The LCD-3 sounded a bit smoother, but it was also glossed over.  Here's some quick notes on the different Audeze's I've heard, in order of preference. And from memory. And I'm kind of tired right now, so forgive me if I'm rambling here.

LCD-2 rev1
"WTF is wrong with these" was what I thought as soon as I put them on. Tried to like them for months, but could hardly make it through a single song.  Everything sounded reverby like it was coming through a cement tunnel, or like every recording was made in a cement basement with no acoustic treatment.  I considered that maybe they were "so revealing" that I was just hearing the recordings really well, but it was the exact same coloration on all recordings and wasn't there on any of my other headphones including orthos, nor on my speakers.  I could hear something good in there, but it was all mucked up with this resonant coloration.  I thought they were defective until I compared them to others and they didn't sound significantly different. And to be clear, I'm not talking about warmth, or lack of treble.  It wasn't an FR issue.  There may have been that problem as well, but I couldn't listen to them long enough to get to that.

LCD-3 rev1
Almost no reverb, still a bit though but 95% less or something like that.  And I would describe it the same way as being sickly sweet or nausiating, like a tunnel effect but again, greatly reduced.  I was very pleased by the nice smooth sound that was quite a relief from almost all other headphones.  It was hard not to feel positive about them considering how rare this is. They seemed to commit very few of the sins that most headphones commit.  I kept coming back to thinking that their strength was in what they didn't do wrong rather than what they did right, and their weaknesses were in what they didn't do well enough rather than what they did wrong.  Purrin described this as "errors of omission rather than errors of commission" which in fact is no small feat considering the very troublesome artifacts almost all headphones add to the musical picture and which my number one priority in headphone-dom is to avoid.  So I had a bit of trouble evaluating them because their strengths/weakness lined up decently with my preferred strenghts/weaknesses (if I had to choose, I'd of course rather have it all).  Their signature wasn't as immediately apparent as most headphones, where I put them on and I can immediately hear all this glaring crap added on top of the recording that shouldn't be there.  But I never really liked them that much, despite these strengths, from my first listen I felt rather underwhelmed.  It took a few days to get over my good vibes about not hearing "the glaring crap" and attribute my underwhelmed reaction to the things they were leaving out and glossing over. 

First of all, despite being better than most phones, they still were not quite as smooth sounding as I'd like them to be especially for how warm they were.  There was a very narrow part of the FR range that stuck out and certain bits of sounds would stick out and jab a little bit, like fingers on the guitar strings or something which was a strange and slightly sickening sensat ion considering the lack of treble energy to go along with it.  Felt kind of like being kissed and punched at the same time.  But it wasn't too bad.  They lacked clarity, and me and a few other people  preferred my Yamaha YH3 (which I spent 2 years modifying and carefully tuning, so not stock at all, and probably shouldn't be considered cheap given how much time I spent on them) because it actually had more clarity, more air, about equal amount of detail and a more transparent midrange.  Of course the LCD-3 had bigger soundstage, better bass extention and was more refined in some ways, but not by much.  I had been listening to these quite a bit and I was expecting the LCD-3 with it's huge modern driver to be much better in every way.  Along with how heavy and cumbersome they were, it made them seem kind of silly and I reached for my Yamahas every single time.  The LCD-3 lacked air, sharpness and a sense of precision in the treble.  It also seemed to be recessed in general and just kind of dull.  Cymbals sounded kind of mechanical and muffled, something I've heard others say before.  They lacked the clean shimmer that cymbals should have.  Of course, my yamahas have some of this mechanical quality in the treble as well, but less of it, and more air.  FWIW, this is coming from someone who really hates over-pronounced treble/upper mids. the 3's also had a kind of cloud or what people call a veil over the midrange, which just didn't sound as transparent as it should have. 

So in the end and to summarize, they sounded good to me, and totally listenable and enjoyable with their smooth, even sounding presentation where nothing (or at least less than most phones) jumps out at you.  I would describe them as a supercharged HD650 in every way.  Similar even, unoffensive signature with improvements in speed, detail and bass depth-texture-detail, but similar weaknesses of sounding dull and leaving out subtle nuances in the music.  I would prefer them on sonics alone to most other headphones which sacrifice this smooth, even presentation for clarity.  But for 2k, and considering the size and weight you have to put up with, I don't want to make sacrifices like that.  I wanted to keep the smooth even-ness and add more clarity, speed and transparency overall, and a cleaner, airier treble presentation (and maybe upper mids as well).

LCD-2 rev2 (Questhate's pair)
I think less reverb than the LCD-3rev1, though it may be equal it's hard to tell without A/Bing directly.  More clarity.  Imaging is better.  Vocals sound more natural with the added clarity.  More transparent than the LCD-3rev1.  It seems to have most of the even presentation of the LCD-3, but maybe not quite as smooth.  I think the bass on these is better than the LCD-3rev1.   Bass goes deep and is more articulate, but isn't overbearing or bloated, there is less soft focus.  But similarly to the LCD-3 you can tell the drivers are not flinching at all with even the deepest bass notes, even when driven by an ipod.  As a long term listening headphone, I may want less bass than this, it's sometimes a bit intense hearing this much bass so close to the ear though it does sound fairly accurate, as it's not always there nor is it the same through different recordings, it has that chameleon quality that is the hallmark of neutrality and accuracy.  Soundstage is bigger than the LCD-3.  First time I've listened to an Audeze and felt that the sound was being projected beyond the 2-D plane of the drivers, I heard sounds coming from outside the cups.  It's still not great though, and feels kind of "cupped" or closed in.  You could call it intimate though that has a positive twist that may not be totally realistic.  It's mostly the bit of reverb that's left.  Vocals are more in l ine with what I expect from an ortho.  They didn't have the nausiating reverby, warm but thin vocal reproduction of the rev1, and were more transparent than the LCD-3.  (yes, I found the 2rev1 to have pretty mediocre vocals, they were warm headphones overall, but the vocals lacked richness, lacked clarity/transparency/air, and were somehow kind of warm dry and thin all at the same time.  I expect vocals to at least capture either the warmth or breathy qualities of vocals, and the rev1 got neither one right for me).  The Rev2 isn't perfect though, it still has recessed and kind of mechanical, plodding treble (I don't mean upper mids) although I think it's better than the LCD-3.  Cymbals should have more of the shimmer and air I was talking about before.  Not terrible, but not great for a 1k headphone.  If treble is important to you, it might bother you.  I could ignore it I think and just groove with the midrange.  But I haven't had much time with them yet.  I think one reason the bass can come off as being too strong is that they don't have the treble to balance it out.  They also are not as smooth as the LCD-3, they have more uneven sound in the upper registers.  The feeling I got going from my T50rp to the rev2 was that someone had turned on a "sound enhancer" filter or something, or like someone had tried to turn a film shot in 2D to 3D, so some of it was sticking out in an uneven way, wasn't totally coherent. This wasn't that bothersome at all, but it was there and gave vocals a shouty quality sometimes.  This shout was more evident when a vocalist sings up the FR range starting before the shoutty range, so you can hear the voice come into the shout and leave it again, as if a certain FR range in their voice starts resonating and then stops as they continue to climb.  Again, not as bad as even the HP1000.  Some of these things may in fact be part of the sense of clarity.  But my T50rp sounds more even/smooth in the upper mids and treble, has more treble quantity and cleaner treble.  Of course, they don't have as accurate a bass response.  And I think the LCD-2rev2 has a bit more midrange detail. This rev2 has a lot of midrange detail.  First time I've wanted to use that description, as they are very detailed, but it all comes through in the midrange, not in the treble.

Overall, Questhate's LCD-2rev2 is a pretty darn good headphone.  I'd take them over the stock HD800 and HE6 except that I'd never own one due to the ergonomics.  I have yet to compare to the HE500.  I can say with certainty that the LCD-2 bass is better and I think their midrange might be as well, but the HE500 has better, cleaner treble. If I were to put a worth price on this LCD-2rev2 I'd price it at 600 dollars, but most hi-end headphones are overpriced compared to their performance so that's not as much of a diss as you might think. Overall, they sound really even for a headphone.  They have outstanding bass, very detailed gorgeous midrange that has natural warmth, but is clear and transparent though occasionally slightly shoutty, and decent-ish treble that is kind of dull and recessed and not as transparent as the rest of the spectrum but on the flip side, not harsh or exaggerated.  They are very very fast sounding in the bass to midrange, but not so fast sounding in the treble.  They have a small intimate soundstage but with good imaging and placement. 

It's worth noting that this is likely a good version.  There is quite a bit of variation between units within the same "revision" and model.  Based on others impressions who I trust I'm pretty sure this is one of the better rev2's out there.  And probably one of the better Audeze's out there in general.

Other thoughts:
The ergonomics of the Audeze's are terrible.  I&# 039;ve always felt that way, but I've been trying to be positive about them and hearing a better sounding pair made it all the more apparent because I want to listen to them more.  Why the hell did they put a rectangular driver in such a huge round enclosure anyways?  All the baffle and pads sticking out in the front and back (and top/bottom as well) of the driver are useless and make them the awkward face huggers they are.  If they had put them in Lambda like enclosures they'd be way more comfortable.  I could hardly stand keeping the LCD-3 on my head either.  I feel like I'm wearing a medical device at the doctor's office.  Except I don't get any candy or stickers afterwards.