LCD-2.1 vs LCD-2 fazor 2016 drivers mini comparison

Impressions are from a Chord Mojo into a Lyr 2



Build quality is similar, the 2.1's are rosewood with a metal and foam headband and stiffer leather ear pads while the LCD-2F are Shedua composite with lamb leather ear pads and headband.



Enough of that bollocks this is all about sound for me.



First I noticed coming from the 2016 edition to the older 2.1's was everything sounded more cohesive, less forced and strained. The 2016 edition have a weird timbre from the newer material. Vocals sound like they are trying to force through but end up being strained, grainy. The LCD-2.1 present vocals in a natural way, think effortless. The 2.1 are even smoother than the HD650 but take a step back in terms of intimacy and only a tad. When I first received the 2016 Editions I liked them but I'm one of those people that see faults the more I spend, I believe our ears can get used to any sound even if we dislike it, if we use that headphone only. I tend to see faults over time. The vocal issues I noticed pretty quickly but I also found it improved from the previous fazor models.



Bass - Now the bass on both models are great in texture, tone and extension. The 2.1 has the most impact, and the most luscious bass I've heard! it's juicy and oh so euphoric with incredible texture. The 2016 has equally good extension but the bass in more dull, lacking impact and excitement and I noticed it also left out some bass in a certain track. The 2.1 gave me the elevated bass that was in the track. Those newer models just don't have the same charm and bass addictive slam the older ones had.



Mids - I'm going to straight up say it, the 2.1 has mids that the 2016 fazors wish they could had. I know Audeze wanted to improve the LCD lifespan with better materials but the chosen materials just don't sound right especially for vocal. Like I mentioned above the vocals just sound wrong, lacking character and just don't grab you like the HD650, HE-500 and Pre fazor LCD-2 or LCD-3 do. The 2.1's mids are effortless, engaging, hauntingly realistic and tonally correct! I could swim in the mids they are they smooth and inviting. The 2016's have a nice amount of air around voices and I wouldn't say they are bad, AKG headphones have a weird timbre to voices and the 2016 are superior in that aspect.



Treble - Now here's where things are interesting. The 2.1 has a more cohesive treble but a lower in level treble. For me I don't look for a treble that is high or dark, I look for it's transition into the treble. 99% of headphone these days or even past do not do this very well. The HD650 did it well, LCD-2.1 does it well; even the HD800 minus that 6k peak the actual treble it's self transitions well but not as well as the others I mentioned IMO. The 2016 has a higher in level treble but it also rebounds straight up from a upper mid dip which will always make the headphone sound less together and whole. The 2016 sounds nice and spacious, never harsh; slightly grainy and unrefined. The 2.1 has a smoother more rolled off treble but I hear more detail to it's treble, I feel the new materials do Audeze no favours.



Others aspects - The soundstage is close but the 2016 has a more airy presentation where the 2.1 has a more full, smokey presentation. I hear the 2016 as trying to be more neutral but instead it just takes away what made the original Audeze so great. I can absolutely mix with both and I have. I find the 2.1 to produce bass more accurately and overall give me a better idea of how the recording sounds.. Imaging is about on par but the 2016 edition will give a clearer image due to it's leaner, more spacious presentation. The 2016 doesn't bring any emotions, I spent more time admiring it's bass clarity than being dragged into the music - they are a bit boring. The 2.1 gives me goosebumps, I don't care about the technical aspects anymore when I listen to them. The 2.1 has better resolution and micro detail the 2016 sounds like it struggles in that aspect. When compared to the HD650 the 2016 edition also doesn't do micro detail as well and only beats them in bass texture and extension. The 2.1 and HD650 are close but the 2.1 just edges it due to it's lusher presentation.



That's about it, I wasn't even going to do a comparison but I always feel you need to give back to the community. Any more question feel free.

 

How well do you think the LCD-2F responds to EQ?

 

Not very. While I don't have a 2.1 on hand to compare to, all of this stuff rang true with me for the 2016 fazor and the issues don't seem to be found in the frequency response

 

Sorry for late reply. I tried to EQ the 2016 to sound like the 2.2 and 2.1 but like the chap above mentioned it's not the FR. The issues are the new materials on the drivers. I liked the 2016 edition, it had a clean sound, decent imaging depth but had a weird thing going on with it's left to right that wasn't noticeable until compared them to the 2.1. They just didn't pull me into the music and I found myself preferring the Nighthawk and HD650 over the fazor models past and present. The 2.1 is without a doubt my fav headphone to listen to. I'd take them over all the modern planars like the LCD-4, HEK and HEX.

Sadly I know it's msot probably a matter of time before the 2.1 kick the bucket but least I get to experience that lush engaging sound until then. I find my NH to have a similar lush sound but more along the lines of a lush TH900 with better resolution to my ears and a more smooth response.

 

Having 2.1's, I very much agree with your overall statements. My previous nr.1 HD650 got close to no ear-time after I got them. Mids are on par with HD6x0's, but bass has more slam, accuracy and less mid-bass boost. (The lower bass regions seem to generally appeal to me more.) I think it's still the best lows I've heard in a headphone. I find the treble better too compared to HD600/HD650 (I compared all three side-by-side with Lyr 2). It's clearer and seems to extend further, don't know if it's true though. 2.1's are surprisingly coherent FR-wise, but sound "too good" for serious audio-work vs more sterile and middy HD600.

I've bought the new fatter Audeze leather pads and found them a hefty improvement in not only comfort but bass too. With their better seal the bass is stronger, more felt (in overall bass energy and amount of "fun", they remind me more of HD650 than HD600 now). So yeah, the stock pads are clearly better on the new models, besides the leather headband and smarter entries for the cable. Weird enough, I find the fat-padded LCD more comfortable than HD6x0's! Yeah, there's the weight, but the pads are just much more pillowy and nice on my head.

While testing the Sines in a local shop I had a listen to the recent LCD-2, LCD-X and LCD-4. The dearest of them sounded pretty good and balanced FR-wise, but not a lot of fun. X had too much highs for me and something wrong up there too. There's no way I'd replace my HD600's with them for mixing/mastering. The 2016 LCD-2 was a huge meh. The relaxingly smooth, effortless and punchy sound of 2.1 just wasn't there. As said before, they're trying to be something else than the originals. Amount of treble or soundstage doesn't make a headphone better, it's all about the whole. I'm not sure they should keep selling these very different models under the same model name.

The fun part about me testing the new Audeze models was, that the salesman was actually trying to sell me the new LCD-4 cable all along - for 300 euros, no less.