Seems like Audeze quality control still can't be trusted.  For what it's worth, I found the LCD2 I tried to sound really muddy, while the LCD3 I had (both were pre fazor btw), to sound really resolving with and was able to pick out subtle differences in tone on instruments real well.  Meanwhile, the LCD-X I had was only average.  Of course there have also been impressions of totally craptastic LCD3s and amazing LCD2s.

I want to say it again but I think a lot of this 'plankton' that everybody keeps talking about with the Sennheisers is a result of their smooth response and healthy amount of treble energy around 4-6khz.  The treble in this region helps greatly with ambient cues and room reflections, so the Sennheisers do a good job at 'painting the room,' if you're looking for those kinds of cues in your recordings.  The Audezes by comparison are either a bit recessed in that region (pre-fazor), or all over the graph in terms of sound (fazor).

I'm convinced that the lack of resolution with the Fazor models is inherent to the change in diaphragm materials. Which would explain why no one has heard a resolving LCDX because they've all been built with that new stuff. I'd like to see someone install Fazor waveguides on a cherry-picked, pre-Fazor model in order to verify.

The new LCDs sound a lot closer to the LCDX tonally to me which were the first to use the new material.

Precisely

One guy here called Audeze concerning possible veiled LCD2r2 and they persuaded him that Fazor is for losers, I mean iPhones.

Perhaps I should also get a new production HD600 or HD650 to find out if my old ones are somehow not doing what they're capable of any more.  Mine are around 15 years old now.  Production has certainly changed since then. Maybe the new production ones are better at detail resolution than the old ones.