CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS
Lobby => Headphone, IEM, and Other Audio Related Discussion => Topic started by: mikoss on May 18, 2015, 04:04:51 AM
-
Hey guys, I'm fairly new here... started off at headfi, and basically looking to have a "real" conversation without stepping on ego's. Basically, what I want to discuss are micro-details, and specifically, HD-650's vs LCD-3's. This could also include other headphones, or even just dynamic drivers vs. planars.
I'd like to hear the thoughts of others.
Here are my thoughts; I've had the HD-650's for about 3 years. Initially picked up a used set and thought they sounded extremely dull/not as resolving as other headphones I'd heard. Fast forward to the last year, where I picked up a Woo WA2 OTL amp, and basically went crazy acquiring tubes. I've found the 650's scale extremely well with gear, while retaining an overall smoothness. I'm prone to fatigue from upper-midrange emphasis and/or brighter headphones, so these have been my go-to headphones.
The somewhat paradoxical thing about the 650's is that despite their smooth signature, I also find them to be extremely detailing. Reverb, decay, nuances tend to be nicely fleshed out. They carry a nice tonal balance through... the midrange is also one of my favourites, despite being overly warm. The treble is also what I describe as nicely rolled off, and perhaps not as crystal clear as a set of planars, but I just feel that micro-details really present themselves nicely with these headphones.
On to the LCD-3's... I recently acquired them, and was underwhelmed (I have the fazor edition). The soundstaging of the 650's isn't "huge" or "impressive", but the soundstaging of the LCD-3's was nearly non-existent for me. I would describe it as literally having two speakers beside my ears. Flat... and not as high or wide as I can hear with the 650's. The LCD-3's are obviously technically superior, in that they are quick, have more bass (especially quality sub-bass), have perhaps a more nuanced tonality in the midrange, and handle transients much better than the 650's. But, at most, perhaps 30% of the micro-detailing that I'm hearing from the 650's...
I'm not driving them with the WA2... I know that OTL's and planars simply don't gel. I'm actually using an old Panasonic class-d amp, but it actually seems to be doing a good job. Maybe I need a better amp? I can hear my music "popping" on the class-d... it doesn't sound flat, or boring the way underpowered headphones tend to... but it also lacks details, atmosphere, and soundstage.
So I have the Cavalli Liquid Carbon on order, and I guess it should help me out... but I'm just wondering if anyone has been able to get the same satisfaction from the LCD's as the 650's. I think there is a tendency by some people to dismiss the 650's as being old/dark, but I feel differently. I would like to have basically a formidable planar that retains their signature.
Welcome any thoughts or comments :)
-
Well, you've discovered what many us here already knew. That's why you will many users here use the HD600/650 or 800. Others are Stax users, and Hifiman planars outnumber Audezes here by a wide margin. A lot of our discussion revolves around micro-details and 'plankton'.
It seems you will get along with a lot of us resolution whores here. So, welcome!
-
As far as the HD650's go, they have always sounded good to me, regardless of amp or DAC used (ok, so I only have an Uberfrost with Gen 2 upgrade and a Titanium HD soundcard), but they sound great with the V1 and V2. And after the thread purr1n started on modding the HD650, I like them even better after doing the mod. I really want to hear the HD800, hopefully I will get the opportunity soon.
Now you can find the HD650's for $299 on amazon and $329 at pro Audio Star brand new (although I cannot tell if they are the newer version with the silver lining inside the grills).
-
Mikoss did you try the mods that purrin posted in the other thread?
-
I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree here. The HD650's are competent but the LCD-3's to me seemed more detailed and overall better at most everything except for maybe long term comfort.
I had fantastic results with the Balancing Act and LCD-3's so maybe it's the benefit of the BA in the mix.
-
If I had LCD-3, they would have to be Don-modded. I actually heard the LCD-3 almost too bright with his mods. But if you have the LCD-3 sounding good in your system and nothing is missing, enjoy! I went down the road of HDXX0 so didn't need to try that path but if you already have LCD-3 and want to see how far they can go (beyond the TP, etc.)...dBel had the knowledge.
-
It depends on which LCD3s.
Veiled LCD3s?
A-Grade LCD3s?
B-Grade LCD3s?
Fazors?
No amount of modding will help.
-
What are your reference tracks for testing?
I tend to swear by the first minute of Dire Straits' "Money For Nothing" and the old James Brown & The JB's from the old mono days for quick listening tests. JB had one of the best sound guys in the music business.
-
It depends on which LCD3s.
Veiled LCD3s?
A-Grade LCD3s?
B-Grade LCD3s?
Fazors?
:)p1
No amount of modding will help.
So I should send in my LCD-2r2, now down to a C-grade, have them Fazored on RMA, sell them to ZDfx and let him phaser them on the disintegration setting. walk the plank2 :boom: Bill?
-
You need a better amp for your LCD-3. The Cavalli Liquid Carbon will likely do it and let you finally hear what the LCD-3 can do in comparison to the HD650/HD600.
I own a HD580 and HD600. Both from about 15 years ago. I also have an LCD-2r2 from Sept 2011 (it's all wood, no metal triangle cable mount thing). My LCD-2r2 is probably on the veiled side compared to modern LCD-2. I haven't done a lot of comparisons with other LCD-2 versions against my LCD-2. I don't have access to enough other LCD-2's to really be doing that.
Even with my potentially (and likely) veiled LCD-2r2 I hear more micro-detail with it than my HD600 or HD580. I also hear a more cohesive and deeper soundstage. The trick is to use a very good amp for the LCD-2. Use and amp that suits the LCD-2 well and you'll hear what it can do. With the right amp the LCD-2 will shine. The Audeze headphones need a good and synergistic amp to let them do the soundstage and micro-detail they are capable of.
I'm now using a Cavalli Liquid Fire because it suits the LCD-2 and other Audeze headphones so well. The Liquid Fire gets the drivers to disappear. It gets the headphones to sound like there are no drivers by my ears. The drivers seem to disappear. A lot of amps make the Audeze headphone sound like the drivers are right by my ears with the sound constrained by the ear cups and pumped at my ears. The Cavalli lets the sound escape and sound free of the ear cups. And the sound is able to be in front of my ear. Centered at my temples or even out in front of my forehead. Not many amps can do that. The Cavalli can, and so can the Balancing Act, and a few others. The amps that can do that are special. This sort of sound though does depend on the quality of the recording. Don't try to hear this with modern pop music. The HD600 also gets a lot of the same benefits when driven by the Liquid Fire. Deep soundstage, ear cups disappear, etc. It is a neat amp for that. And demonstrates that the HD600 does scale with better amps.
I've also ordered a Liquid Carbon. I haven't heard one yet. Bought it just knowing it would be good. I don't know how much of the Liquid Fire style deep soundstage it will do. I suspect some. Other Cavalli amps I've heard have some of that too. It seems to be part of the Cavalli sound. So wait till you get the Liquid Carbon. You might find that the Audeze actually can do soundstage and not sound like drivers right next to your ears.
One test I use for detail is solo violin. I have been using Hilary Hahn's recording of the Bach Partitas as a demo reference for a while. So I've heard it with a variety of headphones and gear. With the LCD-2, compared to the HD600, I hear more of the texture of the bow on the strings, more of the effect of the fingers on the strings, more of the notes bending due to the fingers hitting the strings and from vibrato. I just hear more of what is being put in to the music. I hear more of the performance. The performance and the music is much more involving when listening to the LCD-2r2 compared to my HD600. The tonality with the LCD-2 is off compared to the HD600. There is no denying that. The LCD-2 is not neutral. But I'd much rather listen to that CD with my LCD-2 than my HD600. The LCD-2 is just much more musical. The trick though is to use a good amp. With an average schitty amp I will EQ my LCD-2. With a good amp like the Liquid Fire I don't feel the need to EQ it.
With a good amp and the LCD-2 I'm also able to hear the ambiance and space and the room in the recording. The headphone is capable of letting you hear that. And hear that better than I do with the HD600. The trick is to use a good amp that synergizes with the Audeze headphones. And Cavalli amps seem to hit that synergy. My fingers are crossed that the Liquid Carbon will too.
I consider the HD600 to be my neutral reference. But I listen mostly to my LCD-2r2 because it's musical and I hear more of the music and more of the recording with it than I do with the HD600. To me my LCD-2r2 has much more micro-detail than my HD600 and better more cohesive soundstage too. My LCD-2r2 has its faults. But for now I can live with it since it does music in a way that can suit me. I'm on the look for something better to me.
-
The LCD2r2, given a decent pair, is pretty darn resolving. I'd put those just a notch under the HD800 in terms of resolution. A recent LCD2 Fazor we heard was veiled to shit. Modding it just made it brighter and could not fix the slow muffled sound. We directly compared that to HD650, HD600, LCDr2 (Craig's A Grade) on the EC Studio/Yggy at the Bay Area meet.
-
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).
-
The FR response doesn't have much to do with resolution or plankton if you know what to listen for. The Uber LCD3 and two grade A LCD3s I had were easily just behind the HD800 in terms of plankton.
The AD2000 which is elevated between 4-6kHz doesn't do shit in terms of plankton.
Sennheiser just makes a great headphone in the HD600/HD650, especially the newer production ones it seems. Most folks just aren't aware how madly it scales, especially once throw the TOTL DACs/amps at it.
-
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.
-
The new LCDs sound a lot closer to the LCDX tonally to me which were the first to use the new material.
Precisely
-
I may have gotten lucky getting my LCD-2r2 when I did and getting the pair I did. I've generally been satisfied with its detail resolution. It gives me noticeably more detail than I hear with my HD600. I should give it a careful comparison with a new LCD-2 Fazor and see how it compares in detail resolution and in tone and in soundstage.
-
One guy here called Audeze concerning possible veiled LCD2r2 and they persuaded him that Fazor is for losers, I mean iPhones.
-
One guy here called Audeze concerning possible veiled LCD2r2 and they persuaded him that Fazor is for losers, I mean iPhones.
:) It was not me!
So do I keep the LC2r2 C-grade pre-Fazor and see if the BW and possible upgraded DAC gives it any help at all or risk having it really really sound like shitty shit shit when they replace the drivers with a Fazor? Seems either way I get screwed again. Or I could get creative and turn it into a $1000 Christmas tree ornament. poo
-
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.
-
I may have gotten lucky getting my LCD-2r2 when I did and getting the pair I did. I've generally been satisfied with its detail resolution. It gives me noticeably more detail than I hear with my HD600. I should give it a careful comparison with a new LCD-2 Fazor and see how it compares in detail resolution and in tone and in soundstage.
I would love to hear you thoughts on this as I am going around in circles as to what to do with my pair. Except put they up for sale perhaps. zero, you wanna buy another pair of headphones? :) Bill can mod them!!
-
I would love to hear you thoughts on this as I am going around in circles as to what to do with my pair. Except put they up for sale perhaps. zero, you wanna buy another pair of headphones? :) Bill can mod them!!
I don't need another LCD2r2. I am thinking of flying down to SF for the July meet. I'll bring my LCD2r2 if come. That way people in the know will get to hear it and tell me how it is.
-
If I go Hammy I'll bring mine and we can compare.
-
hammy how come I haven't seen you post here before your avatar is awsome :)p2
-
I usually only post when I have something interesting or constructive to add. Which doesn't happen much cause most folks here are more knowledgeable than I. The recent talk of the HD600/HD650 and the comparison to the LCD2 or LCD3 got me to de-lurk.
-
I usually only post when I have something interesting or constructive to add. Which doesn't happen much cause most folks here are more knowledgeable than I. The recent talk of the HD600/HD650 and the comparison to the LCD2 or LCD3 got me to de-lurk.
a delicious take on life.
-
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 not sure so much about the frequency response, given to my ears the HD600 is a bit elevated in that 2-6KHz region where as the HD650 is not. Unless you were just going for, "both have a greater presence here than the Audezes." Which they probably do. Granted, the generally balanced, smooth FR of both certainly don't hurt and probably do play at least some sort of role in plankton retrieval. I think it more likely comes down to low distortion, quick decay/clean CSDs, and so on when coupled with the FR, though none of those separately or together necessarily paint the full picture either.
I own a HD580 and HD600. Both from about 15 years ago. I also have an LCD-2r2 from Sept 2011 (it's all wood, no metal triangle cable mount thing). My LCD-2r2 is probably on the veiled side compared to modern LCD-2. I haven't done a lot of comparisons with other LCD-2 versions against my LCD-2. I don't have access to enough other LCD-2's to really be doing that. Even with my potentially (and likely) veiled LCD-2r2 I hear more micro-detail with it than my HD600 or HD580...
So, given these are older HD580s and HD600s, maybe the newer versions of the Senns would sound less veiled to you?
-
So, given these are older HD580s and HD600s, maybe the newer versions of the Senns would sound less veiled to you?
Yes, that is quite possible. Which gives me a good excuse to get a new one to try at home where I can give it a good listen. Now to decide between an HD600 and an HD650...
-
HD650 is a tad bit bassier, tad bit darker, potentially slightly better refined, but it doesn't have the slight emphasis in the 2-6KHz range like the HD600 that may or may not bother you (doesn't bother most).
-
I just wish there were an easy way to figure out what grade one's LCD2.2 is. Mine is the only one I've heard, and I live far away from meets. I've always thought it's excellent and that it's kept pace with the other headphones I've tried. Perhaps I'll really pit my new HD650 against this bitch and see how it fares.
-
I just wish there were an easy way to figure out what grade one's LCD2.2 is. Mine is the only one I've heard, and I live far away from meets. I've always thought it's excellent and that it's kept pace with the other headphones I've tried. Perhaps I'll really pit my new HD650 against this bitch and see how it fares.
Wondering whether your LCD2.2 is good or bad will lead to Audiophilia Nervosa. And that's not a healthy condition.
I don't worry about it too much. It's good to me and I'm currently satisfied with it. I trust my ears to know that it doesn't completely suck. If someone has a better LCD2r2 than mine that doesn't make mine worse. One way that I judge the value of gear to me is on my personal goosebump scale. Music played using certain gear is able to give me goosebumps as I listen. Better gear on that scale gives me more goosebumps. That measure has lead me well as I've tried to find gear. It hasn't lead me astray yet. My LCD2r2 rates highly on my goosebump scale. To me it's a good headphone. I know and recognize its faults. Its faults do frustrate me at times. But it gives me goosebumps and good listening enjoyment. And that's good value to me. I'm on the lookout for a headphone that is technically better but that headphone also needs to rate very highly on my goosebump scale. It's not easy to find a headphone like that.
-
Wondering whether your LCD2.2 is good or bad will lead to Audiophilia Nervosa. And that's not a healthy condition.
I don't worry about it too much. It's good to me and I'm currently satisfied with it. I trust my ears to know that it doesn't completely suck. If someone has a better LCD2r2 than mine that doesn't make mine worse. One way that I judge the value of gear to me is on my personal goosebump scale. Music played using certain gear is able to give me goosebumps as I listen. Better gear on that scale gives me more goosebumps. That measure has lead me well as I've tried to find gear. It hasn't lead me astray yet. My LCD2r2 rates highly on my goosebump scale. To me it's a good headphone. I know and recognize its faults. Its faults do frustrate me at times. But it gives me goosebumps and good listening enjoyment. And that's good value to me. I'm on the lookout for a headphone that is technically better but that headphone also needs to rate very highly on my goosebump scale. It's not easy to find a headphone like that.
I think this is good advice. I have something like the goosebump scale and the LCD-2.2 has always scored very high on that. I'd call it the "fuck yeah" scale. The result of the very unscientific comparison of the LCD-2.2 with the HD650 was that the former resolves like a muhfucker, as does the latter. Both resolve more than the HE-500 I have, I think. I'd say my LCD-2.2 is roughly = to my HD650, though the HD650 might handle congested passages a bit better. I'd need to listen more to figure that out. Listened to both out of my UHA-6S MKII with GO450 as DAC. Low-gain in each case. But there are a lot of things I'm not controlling for, so my impressions are worth very little.
-
Why would you listen to the HD650 from the Leckerton on low gain? What volume do you listen at?
-
Ok, this is good to know. I've wanted to ask about gain settings but was worried it was n00bish. When I'm monitoring the dB level (with just an iPhone 6, but I've no idea how precise that is - my suspicion is that it isn't exceedingly so), I usually max out in the high 80s. Sometimes I might push it into the 90s, but not for long. I was operating with the idea that you'd up the gain setting only if you ran out of gain on the low setting. Usually, I don't push the dial much past noon (if I do) on low gain with the HD650. If I engage the high gain setting, then the dial would hover around nine - sometimes past, sometimes before.
-
Use high gain on those HD650s, set them free! ;)
-
Use high gain on those HD650s, set them free!
I'm going to go ahead and ask the n00b question: How should one choose the gain setting on an amp for the HD650? Is it a tradeoff between more gain is better until the volume knob is so low that channel imbalance rears its head? I have a Magni 2 (non uber, but has a gain switch)...
-
I'm going to go ahead and ask the n00b question: How should one choose the gain setting on an amp for the HD650? Is it a tradeoff between more gain is better until the volume knob is so low that channel imbalance rears its head? I have a Magni 2 (non uber, but has a gain switch)...
Oh god, that's a loaded question. You'll have to think about headphone specs, linear drive need, dynamic capability of the phone in question, listening preferences and capabilities, feedback usage in the amps topology, channel imbalance and Miller capacitance of the potentiometer in use versus your HRTF.
Put more simply, there are a couple ways you can look at it. Use the most gain you can unless noise, distortion, high volume and channel imbalance becomes an audible problem for you. In that case, use the least amount of gain you can without missing more lively dynamics, micro-detail, body and low end presence. Typically in more basic amps, feedback is used to lower distortion, but in a way that's actually adding one form of distortion to cancel out the other. So you could wind up with a weird conundrum where you reduce noise and measured distortion, but it doesn't sound as clear and open. How interesting is that? Yeah, trade-offs kind of suck.
-
I'm going to go ahead and ask the n00b question: How should one choose the gain setting on an amp for the HD650? Is it a tradeoff between more gain is better until the volume knob is so low that channel imbalance rears its head? I have a Magni 2 (non uber, but has a gain switch)...
not picking on you lmader, but going to poke some fun at this common question.
ok, this is the advanced pyrate method for determining optimal gain switch settings. Use at your own risk. I will not take any responsibility for misuse or abuse of this method. This method only works for male geeks. The following equipment is required:
1. Hardwood seat stool approximately 80 cm high
2. Sound Level Meter with max SPL capture mode
3. Tripod for SLM positioning
4. Darts varying in range of 14 to 32 grams
5. Dartboard
6. 8.8 Kg sledgehammer
Position the hardwood seat stool in the center of a room, maintaining a 100 cm sphere of clearance in all directions excepting the floor.
Mount the SLM on the tripod, positioning such that the SLM microphone is 100 cm from the stool, aimed at the stool, at the same height as the stool.
Set the SLM for A-weighted, Fast response, Max SPL capture mode.
The inquisitor now positions themselves such that they are on the opposite side of the stool away from the SLM. Now the inquisitor places their [redickted] on the stool and pounds it with the 8.8 Kg sledgehammer.
Note the maximum SPL captured on the SLM. This should be in the range of 100 to 120 dBA.
Multiply the SPL by the 4th root of 2 and divide that result by 5.
Using that result, pick a dart whose weight most closely matches the result. Should be in the range of 14 to 32 g. Standing at regulation distance throw the dart at the dartboard and score.
Add 19 to dartboard score and then divide by 10. Noting the knob positioning of 1 to 10 following the olde analog clock notion of 1 = 7 o'clock, 5 = 12 o'clock and 10 = 5 o'clock, adjust the gain knob to the position most closely matching the last computation.
set the amplifier gain switch to the lowest setting. Plug in headphones. Listen to programme material. If sound level is too low and the gain knob greater than 5, adjust the gain switch to the next setting. If the sound is now too loud, adjust the gain knob downward to a comfortable setting.
-
Oh god, that's a loaded question. You'll have to think about headphone specs, linear drive need, dynamic capability of the phone in question, listening preferences and capabilities, feedback usage in the amps topology, channel imbalance and Miller capacitance of the potentiometer in use versus your HRTF.
Put more simply, there are a couple ways you can look at it. Use the most gain you can unless noise, distortion, high volume and channel imbalance becomes an audible problem for you. In that case, use the least amount of gain you can without missing more lively dynamics, micro-detail, body and low end presence. Typically in more basic amps, feedback is used to lower distortion, but in way that's actually adding one form of distortion to cancel out the other. So you could wind up with a weird conundrum where you reduce noise of measured distortion, but it doesn't sound as clear and open. How interesting is that? Yeah, trade-offs kind of suck.
So I popped the high gain on and pushed it to 80+dB. Sounded authoritative. I think I haven't pushed them that hard before. Yes.
-
how should one choose the gain setting on an amp for the HD650?
You'll have to think about headphone specs, linear drive need, dynamic capability of the phone in question
Well I was asking specifically about the HD650 headphone...
Are there any generalizations, like, do higher impedance cans generally do better with gain, etc. Anyway.
-
In circuits where gain is adjusted by changing feedback, increasing gain decreases feedback. Feedback is wonderful in that it makes everything measure like an Objective 2. Feedback is also wonderful is that it makes circuits work that otherwise wouldn't. Feedback is also bad in that it deadens the sound and collapses the soundstage.
If you have a choice and your volume control has enough room, running higher gain almost always sounds better. There are some exceptions. I've heard amps were the higher gain setting resulted in livelier sound, but also spazztastic treble.
-
Feedback is also bad in that it deadens the sound and collapses the soundstage.
If you have a choice and your volume control has enough room, running higher gain almost always sounds better.
Makes good sense, thanks for that!
-
It's all stuff for accountants, isn't it? Gain and loss?
As I've picked it up, over the years, from various forum contributors, In theory...
Gain is something that happens at the input, to ensure that there is enough, but not too much, signal for the amplifier to do the needful with and
Loss (otherwise known as attenuation) is how we ensure that the amplifier's output is listenable not deafening.
But, I have been told, in practice, it might not be like that at all: it could even be just different ranges of attenuation.