Audeze MM-500 Headphones
=======================================================================
Review written by Jeremy B. (
@jb77)
A Special Thank You!
To Mr. Todd Green owner of Todd The Vinyl Junkie
https://www.ttvjaudio.com/default.asp
Preface
A little about me, I am
not a professional reviewer, as I do this for the ‘fun’ of audio. I have been interested in audio for as long as I can remember, originally my interest started in home theater/surround audio. In time that interest grew into 2-channel audio and now personal audio/headphones.
Introduction
As I start this review off, I wanted to give A special Thank You to Todd Green, The MM-500 is on a kind loan from Todd As part of his loaner review program.
This introduction is based on my initial exposure and time I had with the Audeze MM-500. I did the initial impressions exclusively on my Chord Hugo TT 2.
Note: As with all audio gear this is my personal subjective opinion. Everyone has their own preferences, which in turn makes everyone’s review subjective to their tastes and opinions.
*Relevant information and specifications can be found on Audeze’s website.
https://www.audeze.com/products/mm-500
First Impressions & (TLDR)
I was able to spend a little time with the MM-500’s and honestly it has the best (for my preferences) out of the box tuning of any Audeze I have heard, including besting the LCD5. This is the first Audeze I feel does not need EQ period. Back when I had the LCD5 I was a bit disappointed in its performance at first. This was not the case with the MM-500, yes the LCD5 is the technically superior headphone but for me it
needed EQ to sound its best. Not the case with the MM-500, yes EQ can Bring out more of its performance but for me it was not necessary and even after finding a good EQ profile, I preferred to listen with the MM-500 stock turning.
Overall Impressions
The MM-500 honestly remind me of the Sennheiser HD 650. The MM-500’s are probably the closest to a planar version of the Sennheiser’s I have heard yet. What I mean by this comparison, there is simply some sonic similarities that remind me of it, not saying that it sounds exactly like the Sennheiser’s.
Build Quality
10 of 10
The build quality is excellent. The headphones feel very solid and though they don’t use the same premium materials as the LCD5. The MM-500’s are a very well made headphone.
Comfort
7 of 10
Like the LCD5, comfort will be an issue for some. Yes they are light weight especially compared to other Audeze however the clamp is intense. The comfort does improve a bit after wearing them for a while, as the pad seem to conform more. With the LCD5 Audeze addressed the clamp issue with an optional larger headband, however I am unaware if this same option is available for the MM-500.
Sound quality
7.5 of 10
Without EQ they are a very enjoyable headphone with a more Studio neutral yet at the same time mid-focus tuning
8 of 10 (with EQ)
With EQ you can bring out more of the performance of the MM-500 but as mentioned above, I honestly prefer it without EQ.
Gear I used for review:
Chord Hugo TT 2 (as a ‘all in one’ using the onboard amp)
Holo Audio Spring 2 DAC
Quicksilver Audio Headphone Amp (transfer coupled tube amp)
Schiit Lyr 3 (hybrid tube amp)
On to sound quality, the part that most of us care about. This part of the review will be a bit short as I will be focusing a bit more on comparisons.
Detail/Resolution: I’ll start off with Detail/Resolution, The MM-500’s have good detail retrieval for their price point, it’s not as good as flagships like the Focal Utopia. Though the MM-500’s will dive into your recordings dig out detail and some of the fine nuances of your tracks.
Soundstage: The MM-500’s have a good soundstage, it’s not the widest but it does hit all three axis, (width, depth and height). It’s a bit more holographic in its presentation. Soundstage is something that is very subjective on what people enjoy, some really enjoy an intimate soundstage and others look for the ‘biggest’ soundstage they can find. The MM-500’s are in the middle. Though because of the way the soundstage is presented in this headphone, it is very “lifelike” it gives you a sense of being “there”.
Imaging: This is another strong point of the MM-500’s, as the imaging and separation of instruments is really good. Each instrument has its own ‘space’ in the recording that can be pinpointed while listening. This was a treat for orchestral and classical genres.
Treble: the MM 500 have a more relaxed, but detailed, sounding treble. It’s just an overall enjoyable headphone for people who like it’s tuning.
Midrange: stock, the midrange is the star of the show as it is fantastic. The midrange like the treble has a good amount of detail and will start to show you the micro details and nuances the track has to offer. This definitely has the best midrange of other Audezes I have heard.
Bass: Bass on the MM-500 has good detail throughout the low end, not as detailed as the LCD5’s but close and with slightly better impact and punch. However, this is not a “base-heads” headphone. You can improve upon its punch and slam with EQ, but there are other headphones that are better for “base-heads”.
Summary: Without a doubt the MM-500s are my favorite “out of box” tuned, Audeze headphones.
Comparisons
-Vs LCDXC (2021 version)
Obviously not a fair comparison (closed vs open) I added this comparison because the LCDXC (also referring to the LCDX 2021) are the company’s previous “studio tuned” headphones. While the MM 500 will have a more relaxed treble presentation, and a more natural mid range and timbre in general. In comparison the LCDXC is more on the neutral bright side. I could see people who enjoy the LCDXC possibly enjoying the MM 500 as a differently, tuned open back companion. Or I could see people who enjoy the MM-500 might enjoy the LCDXC as a closed back option. Additional note the LCDXC is a headphone that greatly benefits from EQ. After EQ the LCDXC is an outstanding closed back headphone.
Detail/Resolution: detail capabilities of the LCDXC are very good it does a very good job of displaying the macro and micro details available in the track. This is one of the better detail and resolution capable close back headphones. Compared to the MM-500, the MM-500 Is more relaxed on the upper end and detail resolution is ever so slightly better than the LCDXC.
Soundstage: The trend of this comparison will really express how much the LCDXC benefits from EQ. Stock (at least in my experience) the soundstage is a bit more compressed. After EQ the sound stage seems to open up and gives a really good open space for a close back headphone.
Imaging: As expected for a quality planner magnetic driver, imaging capabilities are quite good especially for closed back. As the LCDXC offers great instrument separation and blackness of background for each of those instruments. The MM-500 is slightly better in my experience.
Treble: Treble is quite good on the LCDXC, as it is detailed and extended with a good amount of air. Though the MM-500 will appeal to those who like a more neutral or mid focused tuning compared and more bright tuning of the LCDXC.
Midrange: Stock the mid range is OK on the LCDXC though after EQ the headphone comes alive. After EQ the midrange offers a really good presentation, that is a bit more on the neutral side. With very good resolution capabilities showcasing the micro and macro details of the recording. Again the MM-500 is slightly better.
Bass: Bass on the LCDXC in stock configuration is quite lethargic and lacking punch and slam. This headphone greatly benefits from EQ, as after EQ the LCDXC really comes to life. You end up with a headphone that has really good extension and punch and slam. The MM-500 is still better in bass especially regarding bass detail, though the LCDXC after EQ is a very fun and engaging headphone.
Preference (stock)
- [x] MM-500
- [ ] LCDXC
Preference (EQ’ed)
- [x] MM-500
- [ ] LCDXC
-Vs RAD-0 (standard/default tuning)
This was an interesting comparison as these are both outstanding headphones for different reasons. overall the sound tuning of the MM-500 is more neutral tuned than the RAD-0 being more neutral-warm with a slight mid forward tilt (to my ear). Soundstage is similar on both as they both have a more intimate presentation. Detail is better on the RAD-0. They both use competent drivers that take EQ very well (for those who like to EQ). I could see this comparison coming down to more of a tuning preference on what someone might enjoy more. I also liken the RAD-0 to ZMF headphones, especially the Verite open.
Detail/Resolution: Detail on the RAD-0 is quite good and is better then the MM-500. You are able to enjoy the micro-details the track has to offer, though with EQ these stand out a bit more due to the tonality change.
Soundstage: The RAD-0 has good but not great soundstage as it’s a bit more intimate, compared to the MM-500. Which is a slightly wider stage also the MM-500 has a bit more forward depth compared to the RAD-0 as the RAD-0 is more width then depth in its presentation.
Imaging: Imaging is good, but feels like it is slightly held back by the more intimate sound stage, especially compared to other planar magnetic headphones. The MM-500 gets close to the RAD-0. But the RAD-0 is still slightly better.
Treble: Treble is very enjoyable on the RAD-0. It offers great detail with an OK amount of air, that is neither harsh nor sibilant. With the addition of EQ the RAD-0 shines even further, showcasing a bit more air and upper extension wile maintaining a smooth presentation that is not harsh or sibilant. Compared to the MM-500 (both stock tuning and EQ’d) the RAD-0 is more enjoyable.
Midrange: The midrange response on these headphones is simply wonderful. It has a slight mid-forward tilt. It is very resolving in the midrange that really showcases the micro-details. It also really shines with vocals. With EQ it expands on the enjoyment level. Compared to the MM-500 the MM-500 is a bit more neutral. If you enjoy a bit more warmth the RAD-0 will be better suited.
Bass: Bass on the RAD-0 is done very well. Some will consider them slightly bass light though this is easily fixed with EQ. The RAD-0 is detailed in the entire presentation of the bass response. In comparison, the MM-500 has similar, but not the same traits in the base, though not quite up to the level of the RAD-0. With EQ both the RAD-0 and MM-500 are exemplary performers that will deliver all that wonderful punch and slam with really good base detail.
Preference (stock)
- [ ] MM-500
- [x] RAD-0
Preference (EQ’ed)
- [ ] MM-500
- [x] RAD-0
-Vs HifiMan Arya (v3 stealth magnets)(Not pictured)
The Arya is a fantastic headphones, especially for the price. The Arya have a neutral/neutral bright tuning which some will not like. In comparison, the MM-500 have a more neutral, almost neutral warm tuning, and in my opinion have a better timbre.
Detail/Resolution: The detail and resolution capabilities are very good on the Arya’s. The Arya’s really punch above their price point for how well they can present the micro details of the recording. The MM-500 have good detail as well but it is not as apparent as it is on the Arya’s.
Soundstage: I do agree with others who say the Arya V1 and V2 have a wider stage compared to the V3 stealth magnets edition. However the difference is not huge and the V3 still has a superb soundstage that is wide with good depth. The Arya’s soundstage is wider compared to the MM-500. Though the MM-500’s have slightly better depth.
Imaging: outside of detail and resolution, imaging is the star of the show for the Arya’s. The imaging capabilities are absolutely phenomenal, it can show you each and every instrument within it’s own space, with clear separation between them. The MM-500 are not quite as good as the Arya’s.
Treble: The Arya’s have great treble extension, with really good air and separation without being harsh or sibilant. In my opinion an improvement over the V2. Though the Arya is a neutral/neutral bright tuned headphone. Those who prefer a warmer signature may not care for the treble on the Arya, or the Arya’s in general. Compared to the MM-500 I like the treble presentation more on the Arya’s.
Midrange: Midrange on the Arya’s is also quite good. It is highly detailed with a good overall presentation though it is a bit more on the neutral side. It still makes for a very enjoyable experience. As good as the midrange is on the Arya’s it simply can’t compete with the MM-500 for midrange enjoyment.
Bass: Bass is actually quite good on the V3 stealth magnet edition. It is definitely an improvement over the V2. It has more than adequate impact for most genres and easily could be used as an all rounder headphone, though it would not be first pick for bass heavy music. Bass on the MM-500 is simply different.
Preference (stock)
- [ ] MM-500
- [x] Arya
-Vs HEDDphone
I consider the HEDDphone to be one of the best values for performance in its category. The HEDDphone’s AMT driver technology is very impressive, it has a physicality throughout the entire frequency response that is unmatched by any other headphone I’ve heard thus far. This makes for an extremely fun and engaging experience. The driver is also capable of very good detail retrieval, imaging, and flat out speed. The main downside to the HEDDphone is it’s overall size and weight, as it is a very large and heavy headphone, clamp is also aggressively strong. Though over time the clamp has lessened. I added a suspension strap that helped significantly with overall comfort. If you can deal with the comfort issues the HEDDphone really does punch well above its weight and gets very close to the detail and overall performance levels of the Focal Utopia’s.
Detail/Resolution: The detail and resolution capabilities of the HEDDphone’s are extremely good they get close to competing with the likes of the Focal Utopia’s. This is where the HEDDphone is such a good value, as technical performance is excellent. Comparing to the MM-500 the MM-500 can not match the overall detail and resolution capabilities of the HEDDphone it’s not a huge margin but it’s definitely there.
Soundstage: Soundstage on the HEDDphone’s is very impressive, it’s a very wide stage though it lacks depth in its overall presentation. Not including the lack of depth it is actually a very speaker like presentation that further adds to the enjoyment of the HEDDphone. In comparison the MM-500 have a deeper stage but they do not match the width of the HEDDphone.
Imaging: imaging is another strong suit of the HEDDphone. The image placement is exceptional and has a very good separation of instruments etc. The MM-500 is good for imaging and separation but not quite to the same level.
Treble: The treble on the HEDDphone is very detailed and well presented without being harsh or sibilant, however I do prefer EQ for the HEDDphone, which (for me) takes the capabilities to another level. With EQ it gets even closer to the performance level of the Focal Utopia. Compared to the MM-500 the HEDDphone is better, however timbre is not as good as the MM-500.
Midrange: The midrange response on the HEDDphone is simply wonderful, it presents itself nicely without being really forward or recessed. It comes across as more flat or linear. Agin I prefer EQ as just with the treble, it takes the HEDDpone’s to another level. As good as the HEDDphone is, the timbre is slightly off compared to the MM-500.
Bass: I’ll start off by saying the bass on the MM-500’s is different both stock and EQ’ed. It’s a bit hard to put into words how the bass sounds/feel’s on the HEDDphone. As the AMT driver still gives you a physicality to the bass/sub bass, though it comes across not as punchy (I know that doesn’t make sense but it is hard to describe). Side note the HEDDphone does need to be amped correctly to sound its best. Aforementioned was before EQ, once you use EQ the HEDDphone’s bass response becomes more punchy, but again it’s different then other driver types in its physicality.
Preference (stock)
- [ ] MM-500
- [x] HEDDphone
Preference (EQ’ed)
- [ ] MM-500
- [x] HEDDphone
-Vs HifiMan HE6SE v2 (Adorama edition)(Not pictured)
While the HE6SE doesn’t quite compete technically with the MM-500, the HE6SE has this attention grabbing ‘angry sound’ (angry in a fun way) which makes the MM-500 sound gentle in comparison. The HE6SE (when powered correctly) has a level of sub-bass that the MM-500 can’t match and makes the HE6SE an amazingly fun experience *Side note, the HE6SE are a headphone I do not EQ.
Detail/Resolution: the HE6SE are good at detail retrieval however they are not detail monster, they do dive into your recordings and dig out detail, though they are not a class leader by any means. Seek other headphones if your goal is to get the most detail retrieval possible. In comparison to the MM-500 the MM-500 are the better headphones for detail retrieval.
Soundstage: the soundstage on the HE6SE is good but it’s not it’s stand out feature. the MM-500 soundstage is better, what I mean by that, it does hit all three axis, it has width, depth and height. Some really enjoy an intimate soundstage and others look for the ‘biggest’ soundstage they can find. The MM-500’s are in the middle.
Imaging: the HE6SE’s have good but not excellent imaging. The standout winner here is the MM-500.
Treble: This is one area that you will know if you are powering the HE6SE correctly, as (in my experience) if underpowered the treble becomes harsh and sibilant, however when powered correctly the harshness and sibilants drastically improves and opens up to a much more enjoyable experience. It still has a bit of a treble push on ‘problem’ tracks, but not to the point of being sibilant. Compared to the MM-500 the MM-500’s are the stand out winner as there is no issue with fatigue. The MM-500’s are more detailed in the treble both with and without EQ.
Midrange: The midrange response on these headphones is somewhat similar to the MM-500’s as they have a slight mid forward push, however they are not as detailed or refined as the MM-500. The MM-500 is the standout winner however the HE6SE still offers an enjoyable experience.
Bass: Bass on the HE6SE is the star of the show, in particular the sub base. The HE6SE do it in a way that adds body, weight, and dimension to the sound. As when properly powered this is one of the best headphones I’ve come across for sub bass impact and slam, it is an incredibly fun experience. Compared to the MM-500 the HE6SE is more fun. Now with EQ on the MM-500’s you get closer, but there is still something that the HE6SE just offers (engagement) that is really unmatched outside of the HE6 family.
Preference (stock)
- [x] MM-500
- [ ] HE6SE v2 (I don’t EQ the HE6SE)
Preference (EQ’ed)
- [x] MM-500
- [ ] HE6SE v2 (I don’t EQ the HE6SE)
-Vs LCD2C
I only have this on here to say that I highly prefer the MM-500s over the stock or EQ’ed LCD-2C
Preference (stock)
- [x] MM-500
- [ ] LCD2C
Preference (EQ’ed)
- [x] MM-500
- [ ] LCD2C
Final Thoughts
In my opinion, the MM-500 have the best out-of-the-box, tuning and timbre of any other Audezes you can buy. For the most part they ‘play’ well with whatever types of recordings you throw at them. They will scale well when you play hi-res files, yet they also play very well with CD quality. The MM-500’s allow multiple genres of music to sound excellent on them. They make great ‘all-rounders’.
-Jeremy B. (@jb77)
