I can understand people not liking the Lambdas for not having enough weight behind them compared to dynamics or orthos, or for being too bright, but calling them less resolving than the HD650s honestly just baffles me.  I can hear far deeper into the mix with a Lambda than the HD650.

You might not like, believe or want to hear this, but if you are using an O2 to pair with them then that's one reason you could feel that way. My Leckerton even with the older 209 opamps slaughtered the O2 in resolution.

You might not like, believe or want to hear this, but if you are using an O2 to pair with them then that's one reason you could feel that way. My Leckerton even with the older 209 opamps slaughtered the O2 in resolution.

I would like to thank Anaxilus for all the posts discussing the virtues of Leckerton. As a direct result I acquired a UHA-6S mkII. Initially I thought what a nice USB upgrade from ODac+O2. Then  I discovered the spdif input. You see, I bought an iBasso dx90. Now that was a reasonably decent improvement over my portable devices' native headphone output. But the dx90 has a spdif output. You see where this is going. dx90 as digital music server and Leckerton doing the heavy lifting. Now I have a portable system that kicks butt and takes names. Thank-you.

We need a better way to explain "resolution" to planar people...I think Marv, Anax, ultra and I all hear it but we keep running into this descriptor conundrum when trying to explain it.

Resolution is NOT macro-clarity. The Stax provide more of that due to their ultra-clean and synthetic plastic timbre. And possibly slight FR accentuation in the upper mids.

Resolution is NOT treble spikes that "enhance" detail. This isn't even worth addressing...none of us think Grados, AT's, etc. are resolving. You can't add resolution by EQing the treble up.

Resolution is NOT "speed". Things can attack really fast and then decay really quickly and evenly, but still be missing all of that musical information beneath and around it. Which leads me to....

Resolution is, as I have come to define it independently from what I hear as well as what I glean from others, the ability to portray information on the recording. The ability to render the picture/frame in its entirety if we want to use the video analogy. It's not a big leap to extend that definition to include both microdetail (plankton, inner-whatever, etc) and spatial information (ambient cues, precise imaging, etc.)

If we can all agree on this definition (feel free to add your interpretations guys), then the Lambdas are certainly a few notches below the HD6xx in terms of providing that resolution. Yes they sound nice and clean and clear, but they just aren't as resolving. It fucking baffles me how people can say a headphone like that is resolving...clearly we're listening to different things or have very definitions/interpretations. Hope that all makes sense

I'll take $50 off the money you owe me for gear if you write a terms glossary for Changstar.

We could really use one.

I can understand people not liking the Lambdas for not having enough weight behind them compared to dynamics or orthos, or for being too bright, but calling them less resolving than the HD650s honestly just baffles me.  I can hear far deeper into the mix with a Lambda than the HD650.

You and me both (and every comparison of the headphones I've ever read up to about a month or two ago).

OJ, I pretty much agree with your definitions and have no idea what you're hearing. :p