Regarding the cable is this dual 2.5mm, single 2.5mm or 3.5mm ?
Audeze MM-100
- Thread starter DigitalJust
- Start date
eightthree
Head-Fier
Agree on LCD-2C association. LDC-2C doesn't sound like a reference/mixing headphone. I had it and sold it a week later as I primarily use headphones for work with audio. Have been saving money for MM-500 but now MM-100 news has dropped and I'll probably buy them first.
pk4425
1000+ Head-Fier
Yep. I'm just hoping that the noisy show floor, brief listening time, etc., led to this comp and that more detailed, private listening will reveal a more neutral, balanced signature.
Don't get me wrong: The LCD-2C are kick-ass headphones, especially with rock and metal tracks infected by the studio loudness wars or recorded with a ton of instrumental tracks. They're very forgiving of harsh recordings due to the lack of technicalities and rolled-off treble.
But I'm expecting something closer to the MM-500 or LCD-X 2021 with the MM-100, not the LCD-2C.
JAnonymous5150
Headphoneus Supremus
FWIW, I just texted my friend that demoed the MM-100s at Axpona and asked what he thought about an LCD-2 comparison and he said" Hmm, that's not what I was hearing. As I said before, noisy show floors can hide issues, but the MM-100s sounded much more balanced like you'd expect from something in the same family as the MM-500s. It was hard to get an accurate idea of technical abilities, but I'm comfortable saying that these will be much closer to the MM-500s in tuning than any member of the LCD-2 clan that I've ever heard."
FWIW, the guy that said this is someone whose opinions I trust. I don't know if that matters to you guys, but I figured I'd mention it.
pk4425
1000+ Head-Fier
Mega, man. Very reassuring.
I was suspicious of a comparison to the LCD-2C from the moment I read it. That would make no sense, as the LCD-2C is the closest Audeze music headphone still in production -- LCD-1 is dead, right? -- to the price range of the MM-100. It would make no sense for Audeze to use very similar tuning for the two lowest-price music-oriented cans in its over-ear arsenal.
bwardrop
Head-Fier
Messaged a guy attending Axpona and he agreed to give a first impression of the M-100.
“All I can say, being an owner of a LCD-X for several years now, wow. Ok, it’s no LCD-X, but it has enough of that bass texture and it is quite snappy. Couple that with a reduced weight and a $400 price tag, I think this things gonna disrupt the mid-fi planar market.”
He posted about a bunch of other cans he tried if you want more context here’s a link to the thread:
https://old.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/12noywz/axpona_day_1/
“All I can say, being an owner of a LCD-X for several years now, wow. Ok, it’s no LCD-X, but it has enough of that bass texture and it is quite snappy. Couple that with a reduced weight and a $400 price tag, I think this things gonna disrupt the mid-fi planar market.”
He posted about a bunch of other cans he tried if you want more context here’s a link to the thread:
https://old.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/12noywz/axpona_day_1/
Since the driver in M-100 has been adapted from an existing Audeze headphone, perhaps somebody could ask them which headphone was the donor. This would probably give some indication as to the sound / character / limitations of M-100.
It hardly would 'cause the adapted driver wasn't simply borrowed but scaled down. Which means a new driver with new characteristics anyway. The original driver was probably the MM-500. However, it has been scaled down and most likely retuned. Based on the initial impressions the sound is to be expected between the LCD-X and the MM-500. If they don't screw up resolution too much, that would be a really blissful piece of tech for extraordinary low price. Although I wouldn't want to raise expectations and hope for too much. I'll wait for some more or less elaborate impressions.
Conclusions based on assumptions are .....
Not particularly useful.
They clearly stated that the driver is NOT from M-500.
Not particularly useful.
They clearly stated that the driver is NOT from M-500.
Of course it's not. They did not borrow it from any headphone at all. I though I made it quite clear. They initially stated that the driver was completely new and unique to the MM-100:
The confusion started with Sankar's interview where he said that they've 'adapted' it from another headphone. But he also mentioned that they've scaled it down. So even if it's adapted from the MM-500, it's NOT a MM-500 driver. There is no contradiction here.
Last edited:
Whatever, language gymnastics we apply, the driver is not built specifically for MM-100.
It is adapted / scaled down (or up) from an existing headphone (not MM-500).
To me it is not new nor unique. Just adapted. But at the price (399$), I am not surprised nor disappointed.
It is adapted / scaled down (or up) from an existing headphone (not MM-500).
To me it is not new nor unique. Just adapted. But at the price (399$), I am not surprised nor disappointed.
So you don't believe the Audeze representative who said it was actually unique? OK, you have the right to do so but this becomes your personal assumption which is not particularly useful as you said. For me, based on what I heard from Audeze, the driver was both 'adapted' and 'unique'. Both of these words were used to describe the MM-100 driver and both came from the Audeze's reps. Again, there is no contradiction here. However, upon those facts, no one from Audeze will tell you what was the original adapted driver. Because it's already a different one.
I don't make assumptions, just listen to what Audeze has to say.
These are assumptions:
These are assumptions:
No, these were not my assumptions when I talked facts. The first fact about the scaled down driver came from Sankar's interview. Retuning a new driver is an inevitable process, although I used the phrase 'most likely' to be on a safe side. The second fact about the unique driver was again from the Audeze's representative. Where have you seen assumptions here? Blame Audeze's reps then, not me.
Users who are viewing this thread
