[Happy Camper]

You guys are killing me.

 

 

[K3cT]

We had a local meet yesterday and there were LCD2, HE6 and HE500 so I spent some quality time with them and here are my short impressions. 
 
First of all, I would say that the HE500 is very pleasant sounding and I even prefer its tonal balance compared to the HE6 as it's more balanced. Sometimes with the HE6, as amazing as its treble is, it could be a little too overbearing and not to mention that its center image is a bit recessed. There are no such issues with the HE500 though which is an awesome thing. It seems to be very midrange-oriented, which is full-bodied and very organic. Actually it reminds me a bit of a vintage NAD RP18 tonal-wise. It's also very easy to drive which makes choosing a companion amplifier a much easier affair. 
 
BUT not everything is perfect though. Transparency-wise, the HE500 sounds more colored and closed-in compared to the LCD2 and HE6. I also thought that its detail retrieval, separation and frequency extension are also a step or two below the two older orthodynamics. In short, although the HE500 has a very nice tonal balance which may be preferable over the LCD2 or HE6, it clearly falls short in terms of technicalities. It also doesn't scale as well as them amplification-wise. 
 
That being said, I would conclude that if you're a discerning listener who likes to hear the tiniest of details, extension and technical accomplishments in your music then perhaps it's wiser to save up for the LCD2 or HE6 as they are clearly better in this aspect. However if you could disregard the technical side for a very pleasant, very musical tonal balance then perhaps the HE500 may suit you better. 
 
P.S. I noticed that some people are asking whether the HE500 sounds like the LCD2. The answer is no, the HE500 is definitely closer to the HE6 in this regard. 

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

I find the HE-500 quite transparent with a good sense of depth and excellent width to the sound. The male and female voice have a fullness that brings real life into the sound. In a number of respects, the tonal balance for one, I like them somewhat better than the HE-6. Bass reproduction is better than what I thought it would be after having read some of the comments. Also high frequency response is natural, extended and realistic. I have found that violin is sweet, not syrupy and some of the best I have heard on headphones or speakers. I love Hendrix on them. Nothing ever congests or collapses but stays open dynamic and the way I love to hear Hendrix. 

Just to be clear - I think the HE-500 are VERY transparent - just not quite to the level of the HE-6 and LCD-2, which are transparency champs - but they are only a whisker short of this.  And again I do think the HE-500 are more transparent than either the Beyer T1 or the Senn HD800.
 
Been listening to them a lot over the weekend so far - really really impressed.  No problem driving them from the WA6 at all.  And they really are almost as good as the flagship HE-6, with as you said John maybe a slightly more appealing tonal balance.  VERY natural sounding, especially on vocals, as you also mentioned.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Less bass presence than the HE-4? Hmm.... glad I went with the HE-4 which is just shy of where I usually like my sub bass (though it still has plenty, and mid bass hits hard for me). So I was correct in my assumption that the HE-500 was gonna be more bass and mid forward, with less treble than the others. So it looks like Hifiman has all their bases covered.


Bass and Treble: HE-4 (the mids are NOT far behind)
Bass and Mids: HE-500
Balanced: HE5-LE
Balanced with more Mids and Treble refinement: HE-6

There's an HE for everyone!

 

[brasewel]

Do these headphones prefer tubes or SS? I would be pairing them with my RSA Apache.

 

[Skylab]

I've been using them with both, and thought they were fine fine with either one.

 

 

[shinn]

Quote:

We had a local meet yesterday and there were LCD2, HE6 and HE500 so I spent some quality time with them and here are my short impressions. 
 
First of all, I would say that the HE500 is very pleasant sounding and I even prefer its tonal balance compared to the HE6 as it's more balanced. Sometimes with the HE6, as amazing as its treble is, it could be a little too overbearing and not to mention that its center image is a bit recessed. There are no such issues with the HE500 though which is an awesome thing. It seems to be very midrange-oriented, which is full-bodied and very organic. Actually it reminds me a bit of a vintage NAD RP18 tonal-wise. It's also very easy to drive which makes choosing a companion amplifier a much easier affair. 
 
BUT not everything is perfect though. Transparency-wise, the HE500 sounds more colored and closed-in compared to the LCD2 and HE6. I also thought that its detail retrieval, separation and frequency extension are also a step or two below the two older orthodynamics. In short, although the HE500 has a very nice tonal balance which may be preferable over the LCD2 or HE6, it clearly falls short in terms of technicalities. It also doesn't scale as well as them amplification-wise. 
 
That being said, I would conclude that if you're a discerning listener who likes to hear the tiniest of details, extension and technical accomplishments in your music then perhaps it's wiser to save up for the LCD2 or HE6 as they are clearly better in this aspect. However if you could disregard the technical side for a very pleasant, very musical tonal balance then perhaps the HE500 may suit you better. 
 
P.S. I noticed that some people are asking whether the HE500 sounds like the LCD2. The answer is no, the HE500 is definitely closer to the HE6 in this regard. 

Did you mean by closed-in is smaller soundstage than the LCD-2?
And its treble extension even a step or two below the supposed-to-be darker LCD-2?
Thanks.

 

[K3cT]

No, I don't think the HE500 has a smaller soundstage than the LCD2. The latter has a noticeably better imaging than the HE500 and yes, the LCD2 extends higher than the HE500. Both of these factors make the LCD2 somewhat less closed sounding than the HE500. 

 

[shinn]

Quote:

No, I don't think the HE500 has a smaller soundstage than the LCD2. The latter has a noticeably better imaging than the HE500 and yes, the LCD2 extends higher than the HE500. Both of these factors make the LCD2 somewhat less closed sounding than the HE500. 

How about treble presence/brightness of those two?
 

 

[K3cT]

I would say that the LCD2 is brighter. 

 

[baka1969]

Quote:Originally Posted by K3cT 

"I would say that the LCD2 is brighter."

I've found the HE6 brighter than the LCD2 by a good margin. You're saying the LCD2 is brighter than the HE500? Does that make the HE500 quite dark sounding? To me that would make the HE6 and HE500 as very different sounding.

I've listened to the HE500 (HE6p), HE6 and LCD2 close together and didn't find that to be the case at all. Unless Fang dramatically changed the sound signature since I heard them in January. If anything I found the HE500 (HE6p) to fit between the both but closer to the HE6.


Plus the soundstage is more closed off than the LCD2? If this is all true, Fang changed the HE500 to an entirely different headphone from the pre-production sample I heard.

 

[jamato8]

To my ears there is no way the HE-500 is closed in sounding nor is it not extended both on the high frequencies and low. Detail retrieval is not the same as the HE-6, which can be a bit tilted up on the upper frequencies, which would emphasize this area. In comparison to the LCD-2 the 500 are a little more open sounding but I changed the LCD-2 to Twag V2, which for me opened them up so this may be comparing to an LCD-2 that is more open compared to what some others hear. Male and female voice is reproduced extremely well with what I can say is an organic character, meaning natural sounding. 
 
The HE-500 do require some burn in time and for me, have changed more in sound than any other phone I have owned having gone through a stage of sibilance, slight muddiness or lack of clarity and transparency, and sounding somewhat closed in to improving greatly in all areas mentioned to a point that these areas are no longer of concern. 

 

[Skylab]

John, how much burn in did you find they needed?

 

 

[jamato8]

Around 120 hours of signal to even out. The HE-6 and the LCD-2 needed no more than a couple of hours. 

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Around 120 hours of signal to even out. The HE-6 and the LCD-2 needed no more than a couple of hours. 

Fascinating.  My experience with the HE-6 and LCD-2 was identical - very little change.  I have only put about 40 hours on the HE-500.  I will have to run them in more.  But they are pretty darned good as they are!  I've noticed no real change in the first 40 hours, though.