1 Context

I have been asked to write a short review comparing H1 and H2 and I have also included AK 240. To be honest, I have bought H2 because I was fed-up carrying always the 12V power adaptor with me, given I am travelling a lot, always carrying H1 and LCD-X with me (or alternatively LCD 4). I was not really happy with he sound of Mojo vs H1 because it was not structured enough. So my expectations vis a vis H2 were increentally not enormous. (Note: I did not have my LCD 4 at hand and will test later)

2 User Interface / Usability

The most important area of progress wrt H1 is clearly its usability and user interface. The fact that I can charge it on my lap top is highly aprecated, and in contrast to mojo, it shuts off when not used. To some minor degree, its form is nicer and it does not have (the agruably typical British) oddities of H1, as for example the power switch of H1. It is also nice that H2 remembers its input after switching off and it has also a remote (which I firat disregared, but must say it is handy)


3 Test Set-up

I have used Cowon Plenue P1 as input via optical and was comparinh H1 and H2 using both LCD 2 and campfire vega. The set up means that both devices get the same digital audio stream via optical input. In a first step the two Hugos were calibrated (i.e. same sound level). I used several of my favourite sound tracks to test, such as

Mozart - Le Nozze: either Kleiber or Currentzis both 24/96
Mozart - Don Giovanni - Giuliani 1961 or Currentzis both 24/96
Meistersinger - Karajan 16/44
Rinaldo - there is a very nice (very high quality recoding) with Cecila Bartoli 16/44
Tamerlano - Xavier Sabato 24/96
Verdi - Rigoletto w Pavarotti 24/96

I think it is worth noting that the type of Music used (i.e. Classical opera) consists generically analog sound and song and you can quite easily compare reproduction with original (going to the Opera such www.roh.org.uk). On the other hand a lot of operas are sound wise quite "crowded" which means you can easily see how well the DAC/head-phone can resolve this. As an interesting side remark: some of the above records have been recorded in the late 50' to early 70', analog R2R in a very high quality)

4 Sound

The most important question: is there a material difference been H1 and H2 - no. The difference between the two is not huge, certainly smaller than between H1 and Mojo, but it is clear that H2 sounds objectively more neutral (whilte filter), which manifests in a better timing and more accurate expression. It is also slightly less harsh. Again the difference between H1 and H2 to AK 240 is very materal, as can be found in many reviews.

I havee also read through the other reviews and largely share thenic characterisations, hence I will not repeat them. Overall I am very satisfied with Hugo 2, even more so since it is easily transportable.

5 Conclusion

H2 is great, but if someone owns H1, the sonic difference between the two is not material enough to necessarity upgrade. On the other hand when travelling much and always forgetting the 12V plug, this is really an option you should consider. Side remark, both Hugos are clearly better suited to drive LCD 2 than the AK 240. The difference with Campfire reduces but is still material.

6 Teaser

This is an update to the review I wrote shortly after purchasing the TH500RP. By now I have these cans for over a year and I listen about 25% of the time with them (10% EL8 Open and the reminder LCD2 and LCDX). Mine has serial #419
 

Besides the TH500, I own Audeze EL8, LCD2.2, LCD-X, TH900, HD650 and a Bayer DT1350 and the Oppo PM3
 
In short I would consider the following order of quality
 
PM3 < TH500 < LCD-X.
 
All of these three cans are quite neutral and you will see the respective differences when you compare them directly. 
My impression is actually limited to the type of music I am listening to - mostly classical music and opera. Having said this, I prefer a quite balanced sound, which does not overstate, nor understate the different part of the spectrum.  All the the can above (with the exception of possibly LCD2 / HD 650) fulfil this requirement to bigger or lesser degree. I am going to discuss the following three cans: PM3, TH500, LCD-X.
 
As said all of them are in mu view quite neutral and have a similar sound signature. The warmest representation of the three is the PM3 and the most neutral possibly the LCD-X (had difficulties to make a pick between TH500 and LCD-X). This means that the TH500 is in my eyes really good. [A good indicator of a headphone is to just play your preferred piece and listen to it - you will immediately find outliers - both positive and negative.] From the three can the TH500 surprised me most positively. You would expect a very good sound from a LCD-X; the TH500 is almost there.
 
Now where are the differences between the three.
 
a) The resolution of both TH500 and LCD-X is higher than with Oppo PM3 (on a stand-allone basis difficult to judge - it becomes only apparent when directly comparing them)
b) The bass of the PM3 is possibly overstated - but not as precise as LCD-X
c) The bass of the TH500 is precise as the LCD-X up to a certain degree. If you push it too hard (-say the thunderstorm in Handels Rinaldo), you will see that the bigger transductors of the LCD-X will outperform. I think this is a not too big sin, since a lot of dynamic cans have the same flaw and you do not listen every day to music massive amounts of energy in the 10 -25 Hz spectrum.
 
d) The mids are very good for all three cans - TH500 and LCD-X winning in terms of precision over PM3
 
e) Highs: Same as d), here the TH500 has 'slightly' less energy. (but by far more than the LCD2 for example)
 
Conclusion:
I like the TH500 quite a lot and do not really understand the negative comments I have read in the thread before. If you like either PM3 or LCD-X you will almost certainly enjoy the TH500. In particular the price seems to be very competitive. You get about 95% (say) of the performance of the LCD-X for a fraction of its price. With respect to PM3 there is quite an improvement in quality (however PM3 is closed and TH500 is open)
 
Now where is the dark side?
 
a) The TH500 needs considerable amount of power. The sensitivity is in the order of the one of LCD2 and you almost certainly do not want to run it via your iPhone. It works very well with Chord's Hugo (TH500: c93dB per 1mW, PM3: c102dB per 1mW, LCD-X: c103dB per 1mW) 
 
b) The weight of the can is something personal. The TH500 is quite light (as the TH900). So it is not that heavy as the LCD-X.
 
Comment on sources:
 
I have used the cans with Chord Mojo, Hugo and AK 240 and the TH500 plays very well with all of them. Given the higher power available from Hugo the latter one outperforms vs the others, but AK240 works well (sound level at about 124 / 150 vs TH900 with 90/150). This might indicate that TH500 can not play excessively loud with AK 240.
 
In terms of sound quality the order is as follows AK240 < Mojo < Hugo. Having said this I almost ever use AK 240 stand alone when travelling but use mainly Hugo when working at the Mac.