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.
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.