Review: Audeze LCD-2 (revisions 1 & 2)

vs Audio-Technica AD2000, AKG K701, Grado HP1000, HiFiMan HE-6, JH

Audio JH13, Sennheiser HD800, Sony Qualia 010, Stax SR-507, & Stax OII MKI
USA retail prices at press time:
AKG K701: $349.00
Audeze LCD-2 r1: discontinued
Audeze LCD-2 r2: $945.00
Audio-Technica AD2000: $729.99 (imported)
Grado HP1000: discontinued
HiFiMan HE-6: $1199.00
JH Audio JH13: $1099.00
Sennheiser HD800: $1799.95
Sony Qualia 010: discontinued
Stax SR-007 (OII MKI): discontinued
Stax SR-507: $1099.99
written by: Asr on Head-Fi.org
originally published on April 11, 2011
updated on December 11, 2011
Notes file supplementary to this review (highly recommended reading for anyone who wants the
in-depth details of how most of the headphones directly compared to each other):
http://www.crystalsynth.net/audioreviews/lcd2_notes.pdf

[ Intro ]
Not much really needs to be said to "intro" this reviewit's basically just a multi-way review of
the above listed headphones, which were all owned at different points in time. Every comparison
below was a simultaneous one though, and notes from every listening session were saved over
the course of a few months. My review process is always at least several months (to get familiar
with the equipment being evaluated) and this review was no exception.
A big disclaimer I want to add: the HiFiMan HE-6 and Stax SR-507 were the only headphones
that did not get extensive listening time. I had the HE-6 in-house (on loan from another Head-Fi
member) for only a couple of weeks, and the SR-507 has been in my possession for just over a
week as I write this. So my opinion of the HE-6 and SR-507 should not be considered finalized.
This was originally a review of the LCD-2 r1 (revision 1). Review update on December 11,
2011, was for a new section covering the r2 (revision 2), see the new section below.
1 of 9

Finally, 2 previous reviews that provide additional context on my opinion of the Senn HD800,
Beyer T1, and JH Audio JH13 IEMs:
T1 vs HD800: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/511201/review-beyerdynamic-t1-vssennheiser-hd800
JH13: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/482773/review-jh-audio-jh13
[ Reviewer Biases & Info ]
My view of a headphone system is "source first" followed by headphones and then amp. In other
words, a source of highest quality possible (assuming recordings of high quality also) should be
paired with the most preferential-sounding headphone(s), to be driven by the most technicallyoptimal amp. In my view, the most technically-optimal amp is the one that provides sufficient
power for all headphones being used without inflecting its own sonic signature, or minimally at
least.
Some portions of the review below refer to the sound of live instruments. As an FYI to put those
references into the proper context, I'm a trained violinist (learned via the Suzuki method for 12
years starting at age 6, then quit lessons at 18 and have been playing on and off since, and I'm 30
now) and have had the opportunity several times to play in a symphony orchestra, and I've
attended classical-music concerts as well.
[ Equipment Setup ]
- Source component: Plinius CD-101 (CD player) (power cord: Signal Cable Silver Resolution
Referencedirectly into wall)
- Analog interconnects: Analysis Plus Silver Oval RCA & XLR
- Headphone amplifiers: HeadAmp GS-X and Nugget Audio B22 for the dynamic headphones,
where noted. HeadAmp Blue Hawaii SE for the Stax SR-507 and SR-007 (OII MKI).
[ Evaluation Music ]
CDs by the following artists/bands, by genre:
- Americana/Bluegrass/Folk: Alison Krauss & Union Station, Priscilla Ahn, Sierra Hull
- Blues: Eric Clapton, Eva Cassidy
- Classical: Hilary Hahn (Bach), Julia Fischer (Bach), Carlos Kleiber & VPO (Beethoven),
Pierre Boulez & VPO (Mahler)
- Electronica/Trip-Hop: Massive Attack, Orbital, The Crystal Method, The Prodigy, Trifonic,
Zero 7, Zero One
- Jazz: Dave Brubeck, Lee Morgan, Steve Kuhn, Tord Gustavsen
- Rock: Led Zeppelin, Porcupine Tree, Radiohead, Tool
- Metal: Emperor, Helloween, In Flames, Megadeth, Nightwish, Symphony X
Specific tracks on the CDs are given in the review notes (see the PDF, linked at the top).

2 of 9

[ Audeze LCD-2, overall ]

LCD-2 w/ 2010 stock and ADZ-5 cables. Amps: GS-X in unbalanced mode and B22.
When I first got the Audeze LCD-2 in September 2010, I was unimpressed. It was dark-sounding
(not a whole lot of treble quantity), closed-in (not much "air" to the sound, which made it
borderline suffocating to me), and it lacked general bass drive. But my amp at that time, a
Rockhopper-built M3, might not have been optimal for it. Later on in early 2011, with the
HeadAmp GS-X and the Moon Audio Silver Dragon XLR re-cable, the LCD-2 turned into
something much more promising when driven in balanced mode. It had very solid & physical
bass, actually even better than my Audio-Technica AD2000very deep, heavy, and lowsounding, not just in the lowest bass but throughout the mid-bass and up into the mid-range. I'd
call the LCD-2's overall bass & mid-range almost sneaky in a waydoing a subtle yet fantastic
job at making you think vocalists and instruments like acoustic double-bass, bass guitar, etc, are
right there in front of you because of how low, full, & "fat" they are, whereas most other
headphones just lack that presence factor. The only other headphones in the round-up that
offered a similar type of presence factor were the Grado HP1000 and Stax OII MKI.
There are 4 headphone "classes" that I personally define: excellent, above-average, average, and
below-average. For reference, there are only a few headphones I classify as excellent: Qualia
010, OII MKI, and JH13 (IEMs). (Not that I think they're flawless though.) I'd classify the LCD2 as above-average, in the company of headphones like the Beyerdynamic T1, Grado HP1000,
and Sennheiser HD800. I don't think any of these headphones to be "better" than one another per
sethey all have their trade-offs, the LCD-2 included.
So what I mean by my "above-average" classification is that the LCD-2 is very goodit's just
not the best of the best that I've heard. I've heard the LCD-2 on a variety of amps so farSPL
Auditor, Rockhopper-built M3, Schiit Asgard, Avenson Audio Headphone Amp, HeadAmp
Gilmore Lite & GS-X, and Nugget-built B22. The best I've heard from the LCD-2 has been with
the GS-X in balanced mode and the B22. And with those two amps, the LCD-2's sound can be
summed up as bassy, full, assertive/direct, and fast (as in impulse response). It's one of the most
mid-range-focused headphones I've heard with a heavy slant towards the mids, mid-bass, & bass
in general, and it offers a sufficiently different sound than any of the other headphones that were
compared that one could easily find an excuse to own it along with any of the others. But if one
can afford to buy only one headphone, or just a few at most, I'd call the LCD-2 an instant
recommendation for anyone who doesn't really like treble very much and is seeking bass & midrange more, for listening to music like classical/soundtracks, jazz, electronica/trip-hop, pop/rock,
and/or metal. Not that I think the LCD-2 excels at any one of those genres, but it handles them
all to varying degrees of success.
[ LCD-2, revision 2 ]
LCD-2 r2 w/ Moon Audio Silver Dragon XLR on HeadAmp GS-X. Also with stock ADZ-6
cable on Schiit Audio Lyr.

3 of 9

The r1 LCD-2 that was originally used for this review was sold shortly after it was written, in
April 2011. The primary reason I sold it was due to its relatively mediocre sonic performance, at
least for me. After the r2 was introduced, I decided I wanted to try it and finally bought one in
October 2011, so my impressions of the r2 are now about 2 months ongoing (as I write this new
section, it's December 2011).
Without a direct comparison to the r1, which I was unable to do, I can't say with any certainty
how the two revisions compared to each other. But I will say that the r2 seemed to sound very
similar to the r1 that I previously owned, and more to the point, just about as goodI'd say it
retained the "very good" quality level that I gave to the r1. Having now heard the r1 and r2
both in the exact same way, balanced on the GS-XI'd also argue that the LCD-2 benefits from
balanced operation, because the r2 sounded just as good, if not better, than the r1, when balanced
on my GS-X.
In spite of not having any experience of the r2 directly versus the r1, I feel that this review as
originally written completely applies to my thoughts on the r2 in addition to the r1, and I mean
that in both the good and bad implications. It means that for every aspect that I thought was good
about the r1, I thought the r2 was just as good; but for every aspect I thought was less than
stellar, I didnt think any of them were fixed with the r2 eitherspecifically the areas in which I
criticized the r1 versus my electrostatic system (OII/BHSE). Scale, dynamics (including
intensity), clarity, soundstage, etc, were not significantly improved on the r2 enough that any of
them were rectified for me. My conclusion was that the OII/BHSE absolutely sonically crushed
the r2 in the same way it crushed the r1.
The Schiit Lyr was an informative experience for me as wellproving to me that an amp with
loads of power output doesn't necessarily translate to better sound. I thought the HeadAmp GS-X
in balanced mode (2W @ 32 Ohms in balanced mode) sonically crushed the Schiit Lyr (6W @
32 Ohms) and the r2 sounded significantly better on the GS-X than it did the Lyr. I wrote a
review of the Schiit Lyr and it can be found here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/580636/mini-reviewschiit-lyr
[ vs AKG K701 ]
LCD-2 w/ Moon Audio Silver Dragon XLR. K701 w/ SAA Equinox XLR. Amp: GS-X, in
balanced mode.
The K701 was my original favorite headphone before the AD2K (below)I owned it from April
2006 up to January of this year. Over that time my opinion of it grew increasingly negative
though, and at my peak of negative opinion, I thought it was one of the most average headphones
I still had. Not that it was terrible, but it just didn't do anything especially good, for any type of
music. So the LCD-2 really had almost nothing to go up against for me here. In almost all cases,
it eclipsed the K701, offering much more natural tonality on orchestral instruments with a more
realistic soundstage, more powerful and filling bass & mid-range, more overall clarity, a faster
impulse response, and more diffusion (forced "separation" between musical layers to spread
them out from each other more). The only thing the K701 really brought to the table was its
usual forward female vocals but even that I don't consider a good quality on every music type, or
4 of 9

every female vocalist for that matter (as it tends to deepen upper-register voices, Alison Krauss
being just one example).
[ vs Audio-Technica AD2000 ]
LCD-2 w/ 2010 stock cable. AD2K w/ APS V3. Amp: GS-X, in unbalanced mode.
I've owned the AD2000 (AD2K for short) since June 2006 and it's become my #1 favorite
headphone of all time. It started out as my headphone preference for electronica/trip-hop but is
now also my preference for metal. One of the biggest reasons I like it as much as I do is due to
its forward-moving, insistent soundnot a quality I've heard from any other headphones to date.
It's hard to explain this forward-moving insistent qualitythere's an extreme tightness to its
sound overall, and on fast music it really keeps up the tempo (the musical term for "speed"). On
fast music especially, it has the drive of something running really fast, like a runner leaping over
endless hurdles without running out of breath. On complex, heavy bass lines, it can charge
through like it's Superman smashing through boulders.
The LCD-2 had a lot going up against here simply because I've had the AD2K for years and have
gotten so used to it, I couldn't imagine liking anything else for electronica/trip-hop & metal. So it
was a huge surprise when I found that the LCD-2 did really well on those music types toogood
enough that I'd absolutely recommend it for those music types. It could easily come in at a #2
favorite spot if I added one. For all intents & purposes, it approximately matched the AD2K's
impulse response (audibly, that is), while adding an appreciated dose of heavy, deep, & physical
bass. I've never thought the AD2K to really lack bass, but against the LCD-2, it sounded lightweight in comparisonbut at the same time, the AD2K also had more treble quantity than the
LCD-2, so it was somewhat of a trade-off. I wouldn't really say the LCD-2 is great for every subgenre of electronica thoughI thought it was best on breakbeat, trance, & techno (though a
disclaimer here as I don't listen to every sub-genre).
I wouldn't say either of the headphones was better than the other but I still prefer the AD2K, at
least for the music types mentioned. It has a forward/up-close, very assertive & direct sound
that's addictive for metal in particularits insistent quality really makes the fast drumming in
most of metal really stand out. I consider the LCD-2 more versatile though, as it handled other
genres relatively well too, in addition to electronica/trip-hop & metalclassical & jazz
specifically, which I don't listen to at all on the AD2K, because its mid-range makes acoustic
instruments sound unnatural.
[ vs Grado HP1000/HP2 ]
LCD-2 w/ Moon Audio Silver Dragon XLR. HP2 w/ APureSound V3 XLR. Amp: GS-X, in
balanced mode.
Among all the headphones that I've heard to date, none have matched the HP1000's "living soul"
x-factor, but the LCD-2 got the closest. This is an extremely unexplainable aspect of the HP1000
thoughyou have to hear it to understand it, and while the LCD-2 got very close, it still didn't
deliver a true breath-of-life quality to orchestral music. The only other headphone I've heard to
5 of 9

match or exceed the HP1000 in this aspect is the Stax OII MKI when amped by the HeadAmp
BHSE.
It's tricky to sum up the LCD-2 vs HP1000, as there were various subtle differences. So although
this glosses over the finer details, the HP2 could be described as a version of the LCD-2 with:
more natural tonality on strings, brass, & woodwind instruments; more treble; a more solid,
tighter bass component; more bombast when the recording calls for it; a substantially "richer"
and deeper mid-range with a greater degree of texture; a smaller, compressed soundstage; and a
more "integrated" type of imaging that made the orchestra sound less like disparate instrument
sections and more like a unified body of sections all playing together. All of these aspects made
the HP2 sound really good with jazz too, maybe even better than the LCD-2, as it provided more
of an intimate setup with the jazz group, throwing you right in with the group (almost as if
making you another group member to jam along with them), instead of sitting back from a
distance, as the LCD-2 did instead.
[ vs HiFiMan HE-6 ]
LCD-2 w/ ADZ-5 cable. Amp: B22.
The only thing I conclusively came away with after this comparison was a dislike and negative
opinion of the HE-6. I found very few redeeming qualities to this headphone.
The one headphone the HE-6 reminded me most of was the Qualia 010 due to a loosely-similar
treble response, but IMO the Qualia's treble is king and the HE-6 nowhere near matched it. The
Qualia had the clearest, cleanest treble I've ever heard from headphones, with true razor
precision, and the HE-6 simply lacked this quality. It failed to deliver clean high-speed zings, for
example, or proper metallic sheens, on bluegrass-type music. The HE-6 did have a very wide,
deep, & open soundstage, but that too is eclipsed by the Qualia. So as far as the HE-6 and Qualia
go, I think anyone who actually likes the HE-6's treble or soundstage and wants even more
would likely find a lot to like from the Qualia.
The HE-6 to me fell in the same trap as the Qualia didI thought it fared best with bluegrass &
ambient electronica due to the treble response and insufficient balance of mid-range & bass. Like
the Qualia, the HE-6 was relatively thin in the mid-range (though probably not as thin as the
Qualia) and did not have very much bassthough more bass than the Qualia. This made it
completely unsuitable to me for every type of music that wasn't bluegrass or ambient
electronicafor classical it made violins too screechy, for jazz it made brass instruments too
weak-sounding & distant, for electronica it lacked bass power & force, and for rock & metal it
was way too thin- and passive-sounding. It was just way too much of a weak-sounding
headphone overall. The LCD-2 in contrast was a polar opposite with its full & heavy mid-range
and bass, almost like a yin-yang relationship.
The HE-6 was a poor-fitting headphone as well on my small-ish head and I was never able to get
a secure fit with it. At the lowest adjustment it still didn't fit my head and I had to put a hand
towel under the headband to situate the earcups high enough to level with my ears.

6 of 9

[ vs JH Audio JH13 ]
LCD-2 w/ ADZ-5 cable. Amp: GS-X, in unbalanced mode.
If there was one thing that this comparison proved, it's that the JH13 was a far easier headphone
load, and that the GS-X under-drove the LCD-2 in unbalanced mode. But the GS-X is probably
the only amp in the world that can drive both of them realistically, because it has unity gain for
the JH13 and High gain + balanced output for the LCD-2. How did they compare, though? The
frequency balance was very similar, but the JH13 had lower, more powerful bass. The biggest
difference though was that the JH13 was more closed-in (not as much "air" within the
soundstage) while the LCD-2 was more open-sounding with more "air" between
instruments/layers in comparison.
Despite sounding more similar to each other than any other headphones should sound (not that
they were identical-sounding though, just relatively close), I'd say the JH13 and LCD-2 serve
separate functional purposes, considering one is an IEM and the other is a full-size headphone.
The JH13 can sound really good directly out of a DAP, but it clearly takes high-power
amplification to begin to get good sound out of the LCD-2.
[ vs Sennheiser HD800 ]
LCD-2 w/ 2010 stock & ADZ-5 cable. Amp: B22.
Like the HE-6, the HD800 was somewhat of a treble-tilted headphone. It was better balanced
throughout though, with more mid-range & bass quantity. The HD800 had a smaller soundstage
than the HE-6, with less depth in particular that made it sound more closed-in. So for anyone
who thinks the HD800's soundstage to be large, that should put the HE-6 in perspective, as I
thought its soundstage was even bigger with substantially more depth and diffusion (resulting in
more "air" throughout).
Like the HE-6, I thought the HD800 represented another yin-yang to the LCD-2the HD800's
treble tilt versus the LCD-2's mid-range tilt made for a complementary pairing. The HD800's
large amount of soundstage depth & width was another contrast to the LCD-2, which was
compressed in comparison. The LCD-2's soundstage was much more realistic to me though,
despite sounding substantially more closed-in. Its "integrated" imaging was a good contrast from
the diffuse imaging of the HD800.
[ vs Stax SR-507 ]
LCD-2 w/ ADZ-5 cable, amped by B22. SR-507 amped by HeadAmp BHSE.
The SR-507 was more similar to the HE-6 and HD800 than LCD-2, so comparisons were done
against those two headphones instead. And between the three, I was the most impressed by the
SR-507. Qualities the three headphones had in common included relatively strong treble, high
overall clarity throughout the spectrum, and appropriately diffuse imaginglayers were nicely
spread out from each other. It could be said that the SR-507 was the most diffuse though, as its
7 of 9

imaging had the most lateral span from left to right. The SR-507 had the least soundstage depth
though, but I didn't think it was really a negative aspectif anything, it made it sound less fake
and more genuine with respect to the recording. It wasn't quite as good as either the HD800 or
HE-6 in certain, minor aspects, but overall it had the most direct, up-close, & driving sound. The
HE-6 and HD800 were passive- and detached- (HD800) or distant-sounding (HE-6) in
comparison.
The SR-507 also had the fastest impulse response and hence the most precisionfast sequences
of notes were the most cleanly separated on it. For bluegrass music it delivered the most pop and
twang, qualities that were mostly absent on the HE-6 and HD800. I ended up liking the SR-507's
treble the most of the three, primarily because of its precisionthe HD800 was simply too slow
& imprecise, and the HE-6 didn't accentuate note "attacks" very wellwhich included details
like ringing and high-speed "zings".
None of these three headphones (HE-6, HD800, SR-507) were particularly bassy (and the HE-6
had the least amount of bass) but they did have some bass, just not enough that I'd call any of
them satisfactory for music that rides on bass, like electronica/trip-hop. As expected, the LCD2's higher level of bass was a good contrast against them. The LCD-2 had a substantially more
full-bodied mid-range too.
[ vs Stax SR-007 (OII MKI) ]
LCD-2 w/ Moon Audio Silver Dragon XLR & ADZ-5 cable, amped by GS-X & B22
respectively. OII MKI amped by HeadAmp BHSE. Balanced XLR input on LCD-2/GS-X vs
OII/BHSE comparison.
The LCD-2 had an uphill battle against the OII/BHSE, which remains my reference for all
acoustic types of musicin the aspect of tonality & timbre, or whatever you want to call it. It's
also my reference for soundstage accuracy, as the OII reacts to different recordings and grows or
shrinks the soundstage appropriately.
I'll begin by stating that the LCD-2 in balanced mode on the GS-X made for a very fine-sounding
LCD-2. But single-ended on the B22 was definitely betterthe LCD-2 developed more bass
power, more forward drive, and more fill to the bass/mid-range area for an overall slightlythicker soundi.e., even more of that presence factor as previously mentioned.
But as good as the LCD-2 was on the B22, and it was definitely good enough that I'd call the
pairing an optimal one, it was still no match for the OII/BHSE. For classical music specifically,
the LCD-2 completely lacked several qualities. Scale was missingthe sense of the orchestra
sounding big with instruments coming at you from back to front. Dynamic range toothe
various instrument sections all sounded at similar volume levels and nothing was truly quiet or
truly loud. Volume intensity, accurate soundstage width/depth, true clarity, and proper diffusion
weren't there either. The OII provided all of these and in spades at that. Julia Fischer's "Violin
Concerto in E major, 2nd movement" from her Bach Concertos CD is probably the best example
of the OII doing what it does best, especially in the intensity aspect, on her solo violin. The
violin's intensity was completely lost on the LCD-2. It made the solo violin sound merely like a
8 of 9

violin playing. Not that that there was anything wrong with this portrayal, but against the OII
there was simply no peerthe OII made the violin "sing" with subtle rises & falls in intensity,
with the orchestra coming to virtual life at the same time.
No, the LCD-2 could not compete with the OII. There were just too many areas in which the OII
crushed it on sonic merit alone. But considering the relative prices between the LCD-2/B22
(approximately $2K) versus the OII/BHSE (~$6.5K), it's an acceptable compromise for those
unwilling to pay for the high-end electrostatic system. Were there any aspects in which the LCD2 was better than the OII? Oh there were a fewthe LCD-2 was easily the more physical-,
tactile-sounding headphone, with a more direct & assertive sound, and there was that heavy,
deep bass too. In fact, one of my complaints against the electrostatic headphones that I've heard
(which include the SR-X MKIII, SR-404LE, SR-507, and even the OII) is that they lack a sort of
"directness" to the sound, but this was not an issue on the LCD-2.
[ Summary ]
Alex and Sankar at Audeze, whom I've met in person on a few occasions now, came up with a
really good headphone in the LCD-2. They're good guys too and I wouldn't hesitate to
recommend dealing with them.
The LCD-2 did very well in most aspects, all things considered. No single headphone can be all
things to even one person IMO, which is why I own multiple headphones, but for me the LCD-2
nicely filled in a voidan (ortho)dynamic headphone capable of being driven by the HeadAmp
GS-X for classical, jazz, & rock, for times when I don't want to rotate in my electrostatic system.
I consider it a bonus that it just happens to also do electronica/trip-hop and metal just as well too.
The AD2K, SR-507, and OII MKI fill in for its weaknesses nicelyforward-moving drive &
insistence in the case of the AD2K; more treble, diffusion, & clarity in the case of the SR-507;
and dynamic range, intensity, & scale in the case of the OII MKI.
Once again I defer to the Notes file (linked at the top) for in-depth details of every headphone
comparison that was staged. This review was just a scratch on the surface on the iceberg of notes
that were writtenso read the notes if you want the full compilation of everything that went
down for the listening of this review.

9 of 9