[Duckman]

I'm pretty certain it's not the chain. Could be my particular set of cans; or it could be me.
 
 Will give it more time.
 
 
Quote:

 
At least you received a cable and oil kit with yours.
 
I dont find the rev2 bright in any way. They still have the least amount of high treble of all the cans I have tested. I also dont find them fatiguing at all. They dont have any sibilance that I hear unless it is in the music. If they are fatiguing, I would think it is something in your chain more than the can. The rev2 will show the flaws in your setup. If you can, go to a meet or meet up with someone that has some different equipment you can try in your chain. Of course, some people might not be use to or tolerant of the higher clarity, detail, and extension. Some people dont like detail as they think it takes away from the musicality. If you are use to more warm or mushy sound, detail can be fatiguing.

 

 

[MacedonianHero]

I'm pretty certain it's not the chain. Could be my particular set of cans; or it could be me.
 
 Will give it more time.
 
 


 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you also have the version 1 too? So if there's no harshness with them on your setup, but with the version 2, I'd conclude it wasn't your setup, but rather the headphones.

 

[jdkJake]

I'm in! 

 
Decided to see what the fuss was all about. I actually received these Rev1's back in April. Finally getting some serious time with them.
 

 
Current evaluation chain: either NAD T-585 or AMB Gamma2 into a Cavalli EHHA Rev A.
 
Very, VERY nice!
 
A nice progression from a primarily HD-650/HF-2 situation. Somewhat aspects of both, yet still a sound onto itself. Bass control and depth that needs to be heard to be believed. Extended, yet never harsh highs. Sweet, sweet, SWEET mids! Best mids I have ever heard period.
 
Much more listening ahead of me, but, so far, these are a keeper!!
 

 

[jax]

Quote:

Seems like it almost has to be in the material you're listening to, or the cans are defective.  There's not a harsh bone in their body.
 

 
 
Kwkarth - are you basing that response on having heard the r.2 LCD-2?  My understanding was that is what the OP was asking about. 
 
I'd say they definitely begin to infringe on my own sensitivity to some aspect of the sound spectrum, or perhaps some other area of presentation is exacerbating that for me with r.2.  That never occurred to me with the r.1.  It is not nearly as bad as the HE-5, which was a full on assault to my hearing and would give me a headache in short order.  But it is a very similar effect...the beginnings of the same kind of fatigue.   It didn't matter what material I was listening to on them, though some might be worse than others, the cumulative effect of listening over time to even a random mix will have this effect with certain cans.  The r.2 most definitely has an edge to it this way for me.  I found if I went in and knocked down a bit of the high-frequencies via an equalizer it did help some. 
 
That said, I would not have described the presentation as "harsh" - it is more lit up...illuminated.  It has more energy and clarity to it, and seems to be resolving more of the details that I ever recall hearing in the r.1 (a very nice thing, but could also contribute to, or be a signature of, some aspect of the presentation that is bothering the OP).  Notes seem to hang and decay longer than before.  Leading edges are more sharply defined.   I'll say it again - the r.2 does not occur to me as the same headphones, but a variation on the theme with a markedly different presentation. 
 

 
 

 

[Duckman]

Yes, the Rev1's are smooth as silk, or like a comfortable old shirt
 
I've pretty much concluded as you said, but still hold out hope that the edginess may calm down a little, because the benefits brought by the Rev2 are not inconsiderable.
 
I think I agree with those who say the sound is significantly different to the Rev1.
 
Quote:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you also have the version 1 too? So if there's no harshness with them on your setup, but with the version 2, I'd conclude it wasn't your setup, but rather the headphones.

 

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Agreed, it could definitely use some more treble imo. The HE500 is incredible for piano, the first thing I noticed when I fired up some Classical.

I'm certainly glad there are both the LCD-2 and HE500 versions of treble response.  I see no reason for Audeze to try to make an HE500.

 
Quote:

 
Visualguy, you seem to be assuming that Audeze had a "road to Damascus" revelation one day and set out to rectify the "deficiency" you and others have identified in the Rev1. That's highly dubious speculation. The Rev2 came about soon after the driver failures of Rev1, so it's most likely Audeze were searching for alternative suppliers/materials and ended up with a slightly brighter, tighter phone that also promised to be more reliable. A change in suppliers or materials can bring about such a change in any product at any time, and it may not always be an improvement. Now I know Audeze have posted that they have "responded" to customers complaints about a dark sound, but I doubt it somehow. The Rev1 was still selling well, and the overwhelming thrust of the forums, at least this forum, was positive. Audeze had deliberately tailored this sound and it proved to be enormously popular, a natural upgrade for all the 650 owners like me who had nowhere else to go; why risk alienating a huge customer base when everything was going so well? However, if you're forced to seek out more reliable materials, and they just happen to take the phone in the direction a number of rather vocal customers wanted it to go, isn't it kind of good PR to say you're "responding" to customer comments? I've criticised Audeze for the implications of that sentence on the assumption it was true, but on reflection, nah, I don't really believe it; it came at just too convenient a time.
 
Of course, if it does turn out to be true you can replace my skepticism with my original criticism.

   
 
 

 
My thoughts exactly.  It would be really bad business to take a hugely successful product and change it to target the people who don't like it rather than the people who do.  It would be like a candy company making their candy taste more like broccoli because the salad lovers are complaining.  Audeze has such a niche market.  Their headphone is the only option for a big group of customers in that price range and you can't ask for a better place to be as a company, not to mention a new company with only one product on the market.  Hifiman, Beyer, Sennheiser and Ultrasone (and Stax and Denon to some degree) all have significant competition between each other.  It seems unlikely that Audeze would actually be wanting to move towards that crowded market. The best thing they could do strictly in terms of business is let the treble-heads complain. 
 
Which is why I made the Subaru analogy some pages ago.  Subaru went from being the only option for a huge group of customers who wanted an off-road all utility car, to being just another SUV.  I have talked to countless Subaru owners who don't know what to replace their aging Subaru with because they don't want a Toyat-aru SUV.
 
Let's hope that was just a bit of a PR blunder and not what Audeze was actually thinking when they designed the Rev 2.  Hopefully they are holding to their successful sonic philosophy and simply trying to make it better.
 
edit:  just to be clear, I'm referring to this part of their statement about the Rev.2: "With Rev.2 we are addressing concerns of many customers who feel that original LCD2 has darker high frequency signature than many top of the line headphones."

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

Yes, not a harsh element in the chain. I have the Rev2 burning in today while I'm out; hopefully the rough edges will be knocked off.
 


 

I don't find them fatiguing at all. I'm actually listening to them about 3X more than I did with the r.1.    I actually found those to be fatiguing. With the r.1 I felt as if I alway had to strain a little bit to hear the detail I knew was there but wasn't getting to my ears, as if it was all to slow.   In the end that really wore me down.
 

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

Seems like it almost has to be in the material you're listening to, or the cans are defective.  There's not a harsh bone in their body.
 

The r.1 was definitely more forgiving when it comes to material. 
 
 

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

Good luck...although as I mentioned the v.1s didn't change in any recognizable way with burn-in. As well, don't you have the v.1 to contrast them with on your setup?

This is my third LCD. The first and third LCD did not change whatsoever with burn in but the second set did change for the better after a short time. I have no explanation for it other than perhaps they left Audeze without getting burn in time there.  Because the second pair did change with burn in for the better I took close notice of the third pair but as I said have not noticed any change.
 
 

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

Hi Kevin,
 
I'm using a Metric Halo transport into a Wyred 4 Sound DAC-1, into a Violectric V200.
 


 

How much burn in time do you have on the DAC-1?  
 

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

I'm pretty certain it's not the chain. Could be my particular set of cans; or it could be me.
 
 Will give it more time.
 
 
 

One of the outstanding aspects of the r.1 is the seductive sound. I'm thinking the r.2 is not defective but rather you prefer the sonic character of the r.1 better.  It is its own headphone now. The r.1 and r.2 are different cans which is why I think the r.2 should have been called the LCD-3.   But give the r.2 some time before they go back, you might regret a hasty decision. 
 
 

 

[sferic]

Quote:

Make sure to only use a dry lint free cloth when cleaning the envelope.

I'm all over it. Ob-Comp Envelopes, a small company in Goat Creek, TX makes a specially processed cryogenically treated hyper bargainium seeded ionized dry lint free cloth specifically tuned for the manilla envelopes Audeze uses (their research department works hand in hand with Audeze's OEM supplier). Word is the graphs, and anything contained within this envelope, will have sparkling whites, creamy grayscale tones, and thundering - but not muddy or overbearing - blacks. Only $139. I got a personal email from Jose (the founder) today. I was checking my status on the waiting list and he says it will be, at most, 6 more weeks. I'm psyched!!! Will post photos & impressions as soon as I receive it.

 

[ianmedium]

Pah! You guys with your plain old manilla envelopes, me, well I am special ( well my teachers said I had special needs :blink: ).

My envelope was made from limited edition outer mongolian Yak skin plated with unobtanium and clasp made from the tusks of the almost extinct Nardwar possum. the lining was hand rolled on the thigh of a Female Russian shot putter. I would take pictures but being so valuable I have it in my bank vault!

 

[sferic]

Quote:

Pah! You guys with your plain old manilla envelopes, me, well I am special ( well my teachers said I had special needs

).

My envelope was made from limited edition outer mongolian Yak skin plated with unobtanium and clasp made from the tusks of the almost extinct Nardwar possum. the lining was hand rolled on the thigh of a Female Russian shot putter. I would take pictures but being so valuable I have it in my bank vault!

 
Well at first I thought, meh. Sennheiser has been using envelopes with limited edition outer mongolian Yak skin plated with unobtanium with a clasp made from the the tusks of the almost extinct Nardwar possum for YEARS. And the consensus opinion was that anything in  those envelopes was "fun" but "colored" and not suitable for serious reading. But I have to say, with a lining hand-rolled on the thigh of a Female Russian shot putter, it could counteract the odd-spectrum harmonies. Psychoacoustically, it makes sense. I'm intrigued, but I'll wait for the heavyweights on HF to weigh in before I buy. How much, by the way? And do you have a link where I can buy?
 
 

 

[Duckman]

It was purchased second-hand. 250 hours I was told.
 
Quote:

How much burn in time do you have on the DAC-1?