Meze Liric 2 Review – Closed-Back Maximiser

Sound –

Tonality –

If you thought the Liric II would make only incremental changes given the similarities in driver, you’d be sorely mistaken. Indeed, a gentle U-shaped character remains, however, beyond this you’ll find the Liric II is immediately more tonally correct and balanced in its approach. It isn’t a neutral headphone that said, offering a lightly warm tone with a mild mid and upper-bass hump and a slightly laid-back centre midrange giving it a coherent character reminiscent of the company’s open-backs. The treble has a small emphasis around 6kHz for crispness before falling off into a darker background. The very top sees a boost in the upper treble for sparkle and micro detail presence giving that bonafide high-end headphone listening experience. Overall, the new incarnation of the Liric is more coherent, more balanced and, most importantly, more natural making it notably more versatile than its predecessor.

Bass –

If you load up a frequency response of the Liric 2 and compare it to the original, the two may look quite evenly matched in the bass department. However, the listening experience is surprisingly different. Which you’ll prefer definitely comes down to personal preference. Most notably, the 2^nd generation model features a more balanced, even tuning, toning down the isolated deep-bass hump and providing a smoother transition into the midrange. It has a hair more mid and upper-bass sounding slightly warmer and richer also a bit fuzzier around the edges. I did find the 2nd generation model has a bit less bass overall than the Liric providing a more balanced impression. On the flipside, the original is tonally cleaner and bassier which gives it better separation but also saps mid-bass texture and body. Accordingly, the Liric 2 does sound more even-handed and more consistent track to track so it is a timbral upgrade.

Contrarily, the Liric 2 misses out on earpad airflow system. As the differences in tuning are not so substantial within the sub-bass, I can only posit that this is what is responsible for the original model offering better dynamics and general kick and slam. The Liric 2 is decidedly more light-footed. Though not lacking, it doesn’t have quite the dynamism and impact properties of its predecessor and some competitors like the DCA E3. In return, it is a more nuanced headphone. Bass is slightly quicker decaying, tighter and more defined. There is noticeably more mid-bass texture and the Liric 2 is more responsive on complex tracks. Altogether, the Liric 2 offers a more balanced interpretation of the original with a tuning that is more reminiscent of the company’s open-back flagships. It introduces a more technical nature, just a little bloom but also more richness which lays the foundation for a more coherent over contrasted overall sound profile.

Mids –

While the timbral upgrades in the bass department came with caveats, the midrange changes will undoubtedly be welcomed by the majority. The chief complaint with the original was that its vocals sounded diminished and strained on certain tracks due to a 1kHz hump and subsequent dip. This gave it a roomy voicing that enabled higher separation at the expense of timbre. I found this especially evident on female vocals though male vocals did have an especially clear and defined expression. By contrast, the Liric 2 smooths this out much like in the bass. A gentle 2kHz dip remains, but Meze has removed the 1kHz hump entirely, introducing a more articulate lower-treble in its stead. This is a more tonally pleasing way to enhance clarity and, accordingly, vocals sound far more natural and balanced, and bass steals less of the spotlight.

The changes to tuning both in the upper bass and midrange itself have resulted in less honkiness and a more coherent voicing. The voicing is now lightly warm and full but never veiled nor recessed or lacking clarity due to the increase in articulation. A gentle U-shape remains with vocals taking a small step back, however, they are always presented with ample size, power and weight. Once again, the Liric 2 is more consistent in its voicing track to track. I find it to be a lot more ear-pleasing than the original and simply a pleasant tuning in general that swings neither too far warm nor revealing. The imaging performance and resolving power are improved too. The lower treble bump helps to bring small details to the fore without introducing too much sharpness or sibilance. The reduced room presence permits a better layering performance with a darker background and superior distance projection.

Highs –

The original Liric balanced out its punchy bass performance with a stronger mid-upper treble presence. This gave it a more contrasted and clarity-focused overall presentation. Looking over the marketing material, Meze has spent most attention attenuating the treble peak in order to achieve greater coherence. In listening, they’ve achieved just that. The mid-treble is much cleaner, darker and generally less fatiguing. While the Liric does have more note clarity, the Liric II is a technical step up due to its greater note body, texture and fine detail retrieval. This is because the Liric II is once again more linear in its approach. Rather than an isolated emphasis, it introduces a more present lower treble that upholds detail presence and focus in the context of its darker background. This is paired with a similar upper-treble tuning and extension.

Overall, this means that the Liric II has more bite in the foreground and its notes have a more defined leading edge. As the background is cleaner, there is less brittleness and notes sound more damped and with a more accurate note body. The dark background greatly enhances the perception of distance and layering, aiding a more organised image. While notes don’t have the same shimmer and air as before, the Liric II sounds more natural whilst upholding an extended, energetic and sparkly upper treble that injects some zing into its sound. Some may find this results in a slightly tizzy sound lacking some note weight, but I didn’t object to the timbral changes personally and toning down the mid-treble means you get less of an overbearing sense of brightness than before.

Soundstage –

The Liric provided a very impressive staging performance for a closed-back headphone. The Liric II showcases many of the same properties whilst introducing more accurate imaging. Dimensions are roughly identical with the Liric having a smidgeon more width, the Liric II more depth. The imaging, however, is vastly different. The Liric II sounds more layered and delineates better between its layers. With its darker background, fine details pop more. In addition, the vocal image is far more focused and centred. On the flipside, the original Liric showcased better separation due to its thinner and cooler voicing. This gives the impression of a more open albeit diffuse sound in direct comparison. Subjectively, the Liric II doesn’t stands out as being as immediately spacious as its predecessor due to its higher coherence. However, under scrutiny, it’s apparent that the Liric II offers the more accurate rendition and is no less capable in terms of space when called for by the track.

Driveability –

The Liric II offers a sizable jump in impedance and has a lower sensitivity than its predecessor at 61 Ohms and 100Db respectively. Despite requiring noticeably more voltage than the original, it is still an easy headphone to drive that sings well from portable sources whilst scaling nicely on desktop gear too.

Output Impedance Sensitivity

Besides a drop in overall volume, adding an in-line 20-Ohm impedance adaptor to my audio chain resulted in no change to frequency response. This suggests a flat impedance curve as is expected from a planar magnetic design. While this does mean you can enjoy the Liric II from tube amps, due to the differences in the way they deliver power as compared to a solid state amplifier, they are not generally recommended for planar magnetic headphones that tend to be more current-hungry. Subjectively, the Liric II played well with my xDuoo TA-26 but it wasn’t my preferred pairing due to its already warmer sound profile.

Driving Power

The Liric II does enjoy a bit of power but is substantially easier to drive than many headphones in its class such as the DCA E3. Comparing the DITA Navigator to my desktop stack with THX789, I noticed a bump mostly in bass control and depth and soundstage space on the desktop amp. The Navigator provided a good experience still and I didn’t feel as though the headphone sounded too compressed or dynamically constrained. I still had plenty volume headroom meaning I didn’t have to push the portable source to its limits and invoke excessive distortion to achieve my desired listening volume. By comparison, the DCA E3 sounded considerably restrained by the portable source. The Liric II scales nicely but plays very well with portable sources despite being slightly less efficient than the original model.

Suggested Pair Ups

Although the Liric II still has a relatively open and crisp treble response, I found it sounded best from more neutral leaning sources which maximised separation. It enjoys a stable sound signature from high output impedance sources and doesn’t require excessive driving power, pairing well with the more powerful dongle-style DAC/AMPs out there alongside midrange DAPs and above. A good desktop amp is still the best way to enjoy what these headphones can do however, considering they are designed for portable use, this is a good showing. While I wouldn’t advise pairing the Liric II with a warmer source enhancing the low-end, those that smooth off the treble are still a pleasant pairing. Ample treble energy is already present and toning this down a smidgeon may be to some listener’s preferences.

Next Page: Comparisons & Verdict