Background

See here for background. And here for my recent review of the HiFi Man HE-500 headphones. They were nice - more than nice, in some ways one of the best headphones I've ever heard - but not the headphones for me due to their midrange voicing.

My quest for the ultimate headphone (or at least a headphone that sounds as good as the Magnepan 3.6 speakers in my tuned room) led me to the Audeze LCD-2F . I ordered a pair from my favorite headphone place, the friendly knowledgable folks in Montana, also known as Headroom.

Initial Impressions

They're bigger and bulkier than the HD-600 I've been listening to for the past 15 years. But unlike the HE-500, they are very comfortable; once on the head the mass seems to disappear and the angled comfy earpads are about perfect, and I forgot I was wearing them. ... Except 6 hours later my ears and skin around them got a bit warm and sweaty, needed to remove the LCD-2F and let my head breathe. But not too many people will be wearing them for 6 hours straight.

Like the HE-500, the LCD-2F have high build quality made of metal. But they are less industrial than the HE-500, which reminded me of David Clark headsets for pilots. The real wood housings and soft leather (not fake pleather) finish don't scream expensive, decadent but rather subtly whisper it. The headband adjusters stay in place nicely, better than those of the HE-500 which easily slip adjustment. They arrived in what appears to be a Pelican protective case that is rugged and practical and blows away any other case you can imagine. They come with leather earpads (and decadently super soft and comfy they are, I almost said snuggly), though they can be ordered with suede. There's no performance related reason to get the suede, it's offered for vegans or other people who don't like leather products. The cable is high quality and rugged, and blessedly free of the sensitive microphonics that the HE-500 have.

I'm not a big believer in break-in. I believe it's more about breaking in the listener's expectations, though I've read that planar magnetic drivers like those in the LCD-2F can loosen up and gain a touch more bass extension during the first few hours. But given the LCD-2F's ruler flat frequency response well below 20 Hz, I doubted this would be an issue.

The LCD-2F are surprisingly efficient, especially for a planar magnetic. Their voltage sensitivity (which is a useful guide for knowing how they'll respond to a given volume setting on an amp) is rated at 0.225 Vrms for 90 dB SPL. This is right in between the HD-580 and HD-600, which are nearly identical in efficiency. However, subjectively the LCD-2F are a bit louder than the HD-580 at the same volume setting. I'd estimate 2-3 dB louder, which is nearly half the power or 33% less voltage for the same level. I was surprised such a big subjective difference measured the same. It could be different frequency response, but I doubt that since the LCD-2F and HD-600 have similar response curves in the midrange, where most volume sensitivity is noticed.

NOTE: later I found out that my LCD-2 were one of the first Fazor versions, and the specs by Headroom were based on the prior model. The Fazor model has several design changes / improvements over the prior LCD-2 known as the "2.2". They are also more sensitive: 0.114 V for 90 dB SPL. That's 6 dB louder at the same volume setting compared to the prior LCD-2, which is 3.6 dB louder than the HD-580 at the same volume setting. My subjective guess of 2-3 dB was pretty close!

How I Reviewed

Throughout this review, I had the LCD-2Fs and HD-600s side by side on my amp, and switched back and forth repeatedly on the same musical selections. All switches OFF, no adjustments to the sound, just my CD Player playing directly into the MOH amp through my ladder stepped attenuator switchbox, which really doesn't count because it drives the output to the MOH bypassing the attenuators, so there is only a single switch in the signal path. I adjusted volume slightly between them to achieve subjectively the same SPL due to their difference in efficiency.

I occasionally compared both headphones with the Maggies, which I consider my reference, as they have flat response, neutral tonality and vanishingly low distortion. They measure +/- 4 dB from 30 Hz to 20 kHz at the listening position in my tuned room.

The Sound: Part 1

My first impression when I put them on was, "Hmmmm... this isn't that different from the HD-600 (which is A GOOD THING)". My next thoughts were:

It was as if someone had taken a set of Magnepan 3.6 speakers and:

If that sounds like Sonic Nirvana, you're right. In my book, that's exactly what it is.

The Sound: Part 2 (Bass Response)

The bass response of the LCD-2F is virtually identical to the HE-500. I waxed poetically about how incredible it is. Rather than repeat those words, suffice to say they apply to the LCD-2F as well. This bassy goodness extends from the barely audible subsonic well into the lower mids.

Where the LCD-2F differs from the HE-500 is how well the bass response integrates with the mids. With the HE-500 they're completely different. The LCD-2F integrates them so seamlessly it is like sounds in nature.

The bass response of a planar magnetic - speaker or headphone - is about as good as human kind can devise. Speed, articulation, timbre, linearity, all there in spades. The Magneplanar 3.6 maintain this down to about 30 Hz, then they gently fade away. That's about 1/2 octave above the threshold of human hearing. The LCD-2F take it all the way down well into to the subsonic with a virtually perfectly flat response curve. It is not boosted - it does not jump out at the listner, nor is it even noticeable at first. Neither is it attenuated.

I was a bit concerned about the LCD-2F bass response because I read reviewers talking about it being "tilted toward the bass" having "big bass". I don't like big bass because it sounds unnatural and overwhelms the music. I would not say the LCD-2F have big bass. As Goldilocks would say, it is "just right". Bass reproduction simply doesn't get any better than this, no matter what you listen to or how much money you spend.

The Sound: Part 3 (Treble Response)

The LCD-2F treble response is about as amazing as its bass. While the HE-500 and LCD-2F are roughly equal in the bass department, the LCD-2F pulls slightly ahead in the treble. The HE-500 has excellent treble, though it seems to favor some frequencies over others. The LCD-2F treble response sounds natural and linear all the way to the threshold of hearing.

Take a great recording of mandolin, harp or similar plucked instrument. The HE-500 makes it sound stunning: crisp and clean, though somewhat crisper than reality not quite natural. The LCD-2F makes it sound natural and realistic. The crispness and detail is there, but it doesn't jump out at you like it does on the HE-500; you have to listen for it. Both the HE-500 and LCD-2F capture the timbre or voice of these plucked instruments, but the LCD-2F captures it more realistically.

The LCD-2F has just a touch more of this extreme high frequency than reality, a touch more than the Magnapan 3.6 have, a touch less than the HE-500 have. But this emphasis is subtle enough it doesn't detract from the overall sound.

When it comes to treble, a good recording of castanets separates the top tier from the also-rans. The HE-500, LCD-2F and Magnepan all 3 do an excellent job. The HD-600 pales in comparison here. Castanets make its rolloff of extreme treble quite noticeable.

I would put the LCD-2F's treble response on par with my Magnepans, and that is no small compliment. It is the only sound transducer of any kind for which that I can say that.

One more observation that is critical for people like me who love and live for natural acoustic music: the LCD-2F integration of the midrange to the treble is so masterful it's invisible. In this aspect it's actually superior to the Magnepans (did I actually say that?), which have a subtle change in voicing from the midrange to the tweeter. As subtle as it is, it doesn't detract from the music, but the LCD-2F doesn't have even so much as a hint of this.

The Sound: Part 4 (Midrange Response)

Midrange of the LCD-2F is not quite on par with the bass or treble, but that's not saying much considering the bass and treble are among the best I've ever heard in any transducer of any kind. I was going to say the mids are slightly recessed, but that overstates it.

The LCD-2F mids are significantly less forward than the HD-600 (which are a touch too forward for my taste). The LCD-2F mids are slightly less forward than the Magnepans. Reality, to my ears, is somewhere between the Maggies and the LCD-2F. The former overstate it, the latter understate it, but only slightly and by roughly equal degrees.

I would call the LCD-2F versus Magnepan midrange two different but nearly equally compelling versions of the truth. Why "nearly"? Because I have to give a nod to the Magnepans. Their midrange is slightly more forward than reality, but only a hair's breadth more. The LCD-2F are slightly less forward than reality, but perhaps two hairs breadth.

Put differently, the Maggies are like listening to the live instruments from the front row. The LCD-2F are like listening from middle section 10 - 15 rows back. When it comes to small ensemble acoustic music, I'm a front row kind of guy. By comparison, the HD-600 are like sitting next to the violin in rehearsal, but without the extreme high frequency "air" you would hear that close. It's more forward than reality with a hint of nasal or boxy.

I came to this conclusion after listening to about 50 different recordings of voices and acoustic instruments in natural spaces. The LCD-2F and Magnepans both capture:

The difference is, the LCD-2F is a touch softer. In objective terms, I believe the LCD-2F midrange is slightly attenuated. But the attenuation is so linear and smooth it doesn't impair the voicing or timbre. Put differently, one could say the Magnepan midrange is a touch more forward, but linear enough it doesn't impair the voicing or timbre.

Reality - the true timbre - lies somewhere in between the two.

The Sound: Part 5 (Dynamics and Purity)

The LCD-2F has great dynamics, both micro and macro, across the spectrum. The macro dynamics are big and effortless, comparable to the HD-600 which also does well in this area. Yet the LCD-2F handles micro dynamics better, which enhances its natural realism. For example, the brief quiet spaces between the plucks of a mandolin or harp seem quieter/darker on the LCD-2F. This could be a psychoacoustic interpretation of an objectively different aspect of the sound; for example, better damping or cleaner transient attack.

All 3 of the transducers I'm talking about here: LCD-2F, HD-600 and Magnepan 3.6, have unusually low distortion. It's hard to hear harmonic distortion in most music because the instruments we hear have many harmonics, and harmonic distortion only slightly alters the levels of these harmonics which are already there. However, there are some sounds that have a very pure spectrum and make it less difficult (though still not easy) to hear harmonic distortion. The most obvious case is a pure sine wave. Play one at 500 Hz or 1,000 Hz and any harmonic distortion is readily apparent. But these absolutely pure tones don't exist in nature. However, there are a few natural instruments that get close. One of these is the flute, especially in the top octaves of its range. If you look at its spectrum it's close to a pure sine wave; the harmonics are lower in level compared to the fundamental, than any other instrument I've seen. The LCD-2F reproduce this sound with better purity than most other speakers and headphones, whose higher harmonic distortion, which is normally inaudible, becomes audible in this kind of music.

This purity can also be evident with some kinds of vocals. Ancient vocals performed in the traditional manner often differ from modern in 2 key ways:

Most of the music we listen to today uses an equal tempered scale in which every note in the chromatic scale is the exact same frequency ratio to the prior note (the 12th root of 2 or about 5.9% higher). This makes it easy to tune pianos and design the keyholes on woodwinds so they can be played in every key. However, it also means intervals like 3rd, 4ths, 5ths, etc. are slightly off from what they should be. For example, a minor 3rd should be 6/5 = 1.2:1 in frequency. But with an equal tempered scale it is 1.18921:1, which is off by almost 1%. The human ear is very discerning of pitch differences especially with sustained notes. This is a big difference that is easily audible especially to a trained listener. As some have put it, the equal tempered scale is so called because it makes all the intervals more or less equally out of tune! Our modern ears have gotten used to this, and we rarely if ever hear perfect intervals anyway, so we don't notice.

Most ancient music was performed using just temperament. Here, the ratios between consecutive notes are not the same. Instruments tuned or designed for just temperament can play in only 1 key. But the intervals are all "perfect". This perfection of harmonic intervals is so unusual to our modern ears, the purity of ancient music can send chills down one's spine.

I believe the excessive use of vibrato in modern music serves to hide the imperfection of these intervals (and in some cases hide the imperfection of the singer's intonation!).

Regardless of one's taste in music, ancient music is a good test of any audio system, especially transducers, because its harmonic purity reveals distortions that are much harder to hear with any other kind of music. Listening to Hildegard of Bingen and Monteverdi on the LCD-2F brings out harmonic purity that many transducers veil with subtle distortion.

Conclusions

I came to the LCD-2F with some reservations, based on a less than perfect experience with the HE-500 (another planar magnetic) and reviews that labeled the LCD-2F as "laid back" or "dark" in character. My LCD-2F are Rev 2 Fazor, which use a thinner diaphragm and additional Fazor grid, having slightly higher upper mid / treble response compared to the original LCD-2F that came out a few years ago. But nevertheless, the description "dark" colored my expectations. But the more and deeper I listened to them, the more they proved to be "high fidelity" in the most pure and true way. Most high end speakers and headphones claim to be "high fidelity". But what they really are is a caricature of high fidelity, with euphonic distortion designed into them to prove to the listener how "great" they sound. Yet fidelity means fidelity to something. The most pure and true something is reality: the sound of nature, the sound of acoustic instruments being played in natural spaces. In that sense, the LCD-2F (and the Magnepans) are about as high fidelity as human minds and hands can devise. They don't scream it out at you, but neither does nature. Instead they have a sound that drew me in and captured me with its realism. They step aside and let the music through with no editorializing.

I wish I could find a headphone with this sonic realism for less than a kilobuck. As an engineer, I feel it should be possible to build it for half the price, especially as the LCD-2F have decadent touches like natural wood and leather construction. How much cheaper would they be with plastic and vinyl? This construction probably wouldn't impact the sound (then again perhaps it might). However, HiFi Man and Audeze are exactly this: small companies founded by engineers to create the best possible sound at the lowest price using practical yet innovative engineering. The high end of the headphone market is the Stax SR-009 upwards of $10,000 by the time you get the special amp needed to drive them.

This makes one wonder, what exactly does "high end" mean? The most expensive? Or the best engineered regardless of cost? They are often quite different. For example, I challenge anyone to show how the Stax SR-009 is significantly better in objective terms, than the best headphones from Audeze, Hifi Man, Sennheiser or Focal at less than half the cost. People certainly might prefer the Stax, but preferences can be based on anything, not necessarily measurable audio or engineering characteristics. People can just as well prefer a $30 pair of IEMs or trendy looking Beats.

When I say HiFi Man or Audeze are high end, I mean "best engineered regardless of cost". I tried the HE-500, which are only 2/3 the price of the LCD-2F, and while they're a great headphone, they just don't have convincingly realistic midrange voicing. The HD-600 do have convincing realistic midrange voicing, but they have upper bass resonance, rolled off deep bass and high frequencies. In short, there are some fine headphones under 1 kilobuck but they all have significant limitations. I use the word "significant" carefully. Everything made by the hand of man has limitations and the LCD-2F (and Maggies) are no exception. Yet the Audeze LCD-2F is the first and only headphone I've heard with no significant limitations. The Magnepan 3.6 are in the same category. You can spend a lot more on speakers, but you can't get much better engineering or measured performance. If that's what you're looking for in a headphone, I don't think you can find it at a lower price than the 2014 Audeze LCD-2 Fazor. I certainly couldn't.