Seeing as they measure so close to the LCD-5 and many people are noticing better technical performance with the LCD-5 what does this tell us if anything?
How easy would it be to run blind tests swapping the LCD-5 and MM500 on peoples’ heads?
The clamp and weight is different enough that it would be tricky to do - also the pads are different, and would be recognizable with how the surface area comes into contact with the side of the head.
I find this very interesting given how closely they measure and how meaningfully more ‘technical’ the LCD-5 sounds. But still, I think some within the community would immediately point to subtle differences in the FR, maybe even in the upper treble, as being responsible. Personally, I’m not convinced this is enough to explain the subjective difference, but that’s not to say I couldn’t be convinced.
2 Likes
Nice to see you here too buddy!
CanJam SoCal will be the first time I get t to try them out myself.
Very excited to do so!
1 Like
But those upper treble differences are meaningful. I don’t know why audiophiles downplay the importance of the tuning in that region given it is the spot where the biggest difference is found among individuals (HRTF wise). Shifting those peaks around changes how imaging is perceived. This is readily apparent if you play a lot with IEMs and different tips that measure slightly differently.
The idea that clarity is some mystical audio property that’s independent of frequency response is silly to me because it’s not supported by anything. And where would that extra information be coming from?
Would be interesting to also show the overlay of the LCD-X to the MM-500
2 Likes
MM-500 are great headphones for the price looking forward to comparing more with other headphones.
It’s usually because these rigs aren’t rated for accuracy at the upper treble frequencies. The thing is, I’m not discounting those differences, and you can actually hear them.
In fact, you can generally explain the heard difference in tonal balance between the two by using the graph. You can also explain why the MM-500 sounds less ‘glarey’ in the upper mids by using the graph. What you can’t explain, at least not in a way that’s consistently predictive or that doesn’t have many counterexamples, is why the LCD-5 sounds meaningfully more ‘technical’ by using the graph.
There’s also nothing to say the difference isn’t just down to FR differences at the ear drum (even after EQ if you want), and there are very real and tangible reasons to expect that to be the case for circumaural sealed front designs like this one.
And, for some reason folks love to imagine that statements of uncertainty around how predictive a graph is immediately amount to a belief in magic, but I’d argue much of the time that’s not the case (and also why you will likely continue to talk past one another on this topic). The point is rather that unfortunately you still have to actually listen to the headphones to make the judgment about which is “better” in this instance.
5 Likes
I don’t consider myself an objectivist in that sense. I think an actual objectivist would be someone like oratory, an acoustical engineer who has vast knowledge in this field. I am a subjectivist that rejects the audiophile dogma because I have yet to hear a sound difference in headphones that isn’t perfectly explainable by differences, often small, in tuning. In fact I would argue the reason why a majority of audiophiles disagree that frequency response (especially subjective FR) = detail/clarity/etc is that they frame or conceptualize what they hear differently, based on common audiophile myths that they are exposed to immediately after entering the hobby.
I don’t think there’s much room for interpretation when it comes to sound. We already know that humans perceive details based on how specific frequencies relate to one another. That’s how we tell the difference between a piano and a violin playing the same note. If a headphone can reproduce those complex tones accurately then we can say that headphone has clarity. That would be the most consistent definition of detail or sound quality.
Sure, but this is more of an information problem, or lack thereof. It’s easier to give descriptions of the experience in terms of resolution/detail than it is an analysis of the fine-grained FR information or potential HRTF-matching (which also hasn’t been demonstrated to be correlated with qualities audiophiles are after). Moreover, I don’t think we can be so confident that what we see on a graph is going to perfectly correlate either. You can’t know that the rig HRTF matches yours, or that the indicated result is going to necessarily correlate with how it’s heard by or measured at the eardrums of individual people.
So to say the result you see on a graph is uniquely all there is, which is what many assume it to be, is also missing an important bit of information… or in other words, until we start measuring at the eardrums of individual people, we should probably be extra careful about what we attribute expected differences to.
To be clear, I’m not saying it’s not all just FR at the ear drum, merely that what I see as the difference between these two headphones on the graph isn’t sufficient to explain the differences I hear between them, and I think this is likely to be a common theme with these.
3 Likes
I agree. Does the MM-500 have any harsh peaks in the treble/upper treble?
I like the Sundara a lot but I am considering a potential upgrade for one major reason. A lot of these Hifiman planars seem to have an upper treble peak that’s quite annoying (around 8-11K) which is a shame because the FR is so close to ideal otherwise with a very full sounding treble response (other than some lacking extension perhaps).
If you index hard for tonal balance, I actually think Sundara is one of the very best you could get. MM-500 is quite smooth in the treble but like, it’s still a bit hot in the upper mids, and I don’t know if overall the tuning is better than Sundara for most people. So, you might like it, but at the same time it’s hard to know if it’s a “worth it” upgrade, if you know what I mean.
1 Like
I’ve found that upper treble response on Sundara sounds significantly different depending amplification. Sundara’s high end with a Schiit Heresy can be occasionally grating but other amps (like Phonitor XE, K9 Pro ESS, Ferrum Oor) make the same material sound more smooth using the same Source + DAC.
Conventional wisdom here is to upgrade headphones before upgrading source equipment but I think people are really sleeping on how well the Sundara scales. I regularly reach for the Sundara + Ferrum stack in my studio over Utopia and other much more expensive headphones I’ve had and sold.
Looking forward to checking out the MM-500 at some point!
2 Likes
Same. It’s a very exciting release for Audeze that will hopefully be easier to swallow for those who aren’t all mid heads.
The LCD-5 was too fatiguing for me, and outside of the upper mids hopefully the MM-500 won’t be.
It’s funny because I’d describe these as being more mid-centric than the others because of the upper mid to treble balance, but I get what you mean.
Agree to agree! Haha.
For those who haven’t seen it yet - the review is up. Check it out here:
10 Likes
Great write-up! Between the X 2021 and MM-500, which has better macro dynamics/bass slam? The X isn’t amazing in this department, but it takes a bass shelf like a champ, which does help the perceived punch. If the MM-500 is at least equal, it might be the headphone I’m after simply due to it having less weight and more ear gain.
2 Likes
Interesting read… thanks… wonder how the MM-500 would compare to the LCD-5 if it had the same ear pads… and I wonder how does the MM-500 and LCD-5 compare to the LCD-4…
Yeah they’re not that different in that area, and I tend to agree that’s not what these are all about. They both take a bass shelf just fine as well.
3 Likes
I assume EQ can also fix the hotness at 3k? I’ve been a huge fan of the LCD-X 2021 except for comfort and I’m very drawn to these, but it’s strange to hear that they sound so different when Audezes take EQ so well. I currently boost the mids in the X, so I’m surprised that headphones with mids already boosted would be a big departure. But I guess I might need to audition them.