[TheMiddleSky]

Happy Friday
I`ve been looking at the Burson Soloist but I need a more "practical" one-stop amp/DAC for the Audeze MM500
I`m still looking at the $500+ range factoring in the cost of new cables

MINI XLR COPPER PCUHD PREMIUM CABLES by Meze​

Will the :

Monolith Desktop Headphone Amplifier and DAC with THX AAA Technology (Dual AKM 4493 DACs & Dual AAA-788 Modules)​

Or

iFi NEO iDSD Desktop DAC​

Burr-Brown (musical) vs AKM 4493(analytical) DAC's

or an equivalent choice

Much appreciated
Stef

Having listen to many THX based amps, none of them focus on musicality and solid impact/bite in term of character. Haven't tried the ifi though.

If you don't mind second hand, actually Questyle CMA600i (already discontinued from Questyle) would be a good pairing with MM-500.

If I may suggest, skip the cable upgrade and focus to own best dac/amp possible to get first (I'm a 100% cable believer btw)

 

[Stefti]

Thanks, Middle Sky
That`s more like it! and also has a USB in for the DAP
Much appreciated
Stef

 

[Stefti]

Thanks, Ham Sandwich
Great recommendation
Agree the Meze cable is an overkill
The Liquid gold it`s on sale at @$800 right now and has all the ports I need
Fantastic!
Stef

 

[baneand]

Hey guys, for those who own both mm-500 and focal clear MG - in my region I have option to get the MG for about 1400$ and mm-500 for 2100$ which is big difference.
How do you compare those two? I only see they are both highly analytical and small staged but I didn't find more detailed comparison.

 

[Stefti]

@ Baneand
I tried the MG and sounded warmer/darker than the MM500, brighter /analytical
I own the MM 500 (waiting for a good sale for an Amp/Dac to go with it)
To me, it`s like a Stethoscope for vocals (Blues Jazz Opera), the Amp will provide more imaging (I assume)
It`s an (easier) Planer to drive but still a Planer! vs the MG (dynamic)
If you consider Dynamic check the Meze 109, with proper amplification is truly resolving (but a lot less $$$!!)
I eventually settled for the MM500 because of my musical preference and the performance with amplification blew me away
It`s subjective, we all have different ears

 

[silversurfer616]

Hey guys, for those who own both mm-500 and focal clear MG - in my region I have option to get the MG for about 1400$ and mm-500 for 2100$ which is big difference.
How do you compare those two? I only see they are both highly analytical and small staged but I didn't find more detailed comparison.

Had the MG and the Clear and sold both. MG was too dark and Clear was ok but unnecessary when one has the Utopia.
MM-500 is more on the bright side considering it’s an Audeze headphone. What I love about it is the layering and holographic soundstage which is wide enough depending on amp. It’s a very good headphone but somehow flying under the radar….probably too cheap for the audiophile snobs.

 

[baneand]

@ Baneand
I tried the MG and sounded warmer/darker than the MM500, brighter /analytical
I own the MM 500 (waiting for a good sale for an Amp/Dac to go with it)
To me, it`s like a Stethoscope for vocals (Blues Jazz Opera), the Amp will provide more imaging (I assume)
It`s an (easier) Planer to drive but still a Planer! vs the MG (dynamic)
If you consider Dynamic check the Meze 109, with proper amplification is truly resolving (but a lot less $$$!!)
I eventually settled for the MM500 because of my musical preference and the performance with amplification blew me away
It`s subjective, we all have different ears

Thanks for info! I was also thinking about 109 but read few posts when people say it is less detailed than Clear, so I started looking more, you know how it all goes when watching too many reviews and read posts also I like planars because of their low end extension, I like to boost the region from 40-80Hz when I am listening to drum and bass. Read about mm-500 it is balanced out of the box but it takes EQ nicely. And also it is great for jazz like you said, and I like jazz too.

Had the MG and the Clear and sold both. MG was too dark and Clear was ok but unnecessary when one has the Utopia.
MM-500 is more on the bright side considering it’s an Audeze headphone. What I love about it is the layering and holographic soundstage which is wide enough depending on amp. It’s a very good headphone but somehow flying under the radar….probably too cheap for the audiophile snobs.

I am happy you said that about soundstage, people usually say "claustrophobic" when they review the mm, so your post is motivating me more to buy them.

 

[panoptikon]

Thanks for info! I was also thinking about 109 but read few posts when people say it is less detailed than Clear, so I started looking more, you know how it all goes when watching too many reviews and read posts also I like planars because of their low end extension, I like to boost the region from 40-80Hz when I am listening to drum and bass. Read about mm-500 it is balanced out of the box but it takes EQ nicely. And also it is great for jazz like you said, and I like jazz too.


I am happy you said that about soundstage, people usually say "claustrophobic" when they review the mm, so your post is motivating me more to buy them.

It’s not ”claustrophobic” at all (where did you read that?). However, it focuses more on precision than extension.

 

[Butterfinger]

is the mm-500 as detailed and realistic sounding as the MX4?

 

[TheMiddleSky]

is the mm-500 as detailed and realistic sounding as the MX4?

Tonal balance wise, I would put MM500 above MX4 in term of "realism". MM-500 has less colour in sound, combine with better transparency and speed as well.

For someone who prefer fuller bass punch, MX4 is way to go.

It’s a very good headphone but somehow flying under the radar….probably too cheap for the audiophile snobs.

Very very true. One very capable headphone for the price. Coming from summit fi stuff, if I have to purchase under $2K headphone, MM-500 is my absolute choice.

 

[chris.d.m.]

I agree these are a very solid Audeze offering. I’m mostly using them mix-wise in the studio, But find them an enjoyable listen generally.
I prefer not to EQ if possible but do find that for my taste they benefit from a few DB boost broad Q around 60-80 and, a slight boost round 8K as well.

A bit surprised there’s not more chat about them, and not sure if there’s anything that’s a fair comparison accuracy and enjoyment wise, in their price range.

 

[Stefti]

Where are you getting the idea that AKM 4493 based DACs are analytical? Have you listened to any or are you just going by reviews done by others? I have the Monolith Liquid Gold X amp that has an integrated AKM AK4493EQ based DAC, and the DAC is not what I consider analytical at all. I consider the AKM based DACs I've heard to be too velvet glove to be any flavor of analytical.

It's also not necessary to be buying a $350 cable for the Audeze headphones. The stock cables from Audeze for $150 are plenty good enough and are what I use.

I've ordered a MM-500 and will be getting it in a couple days. I'll be using it with the Monolith Liquid Gold X and Liquid Platinum, along with my other Cavalli amps.

Hi Ham Sandwich.
I received the (Liquid gold x)and used it with the non-balance MM500 cable(for now) and I`m very surprised and truly pleased, what a difference!
I`ve never heard vocals so (alive) before and instrument separation (depending on the source) are incredible. Even grand Piano Live is kept very clean and composed (the Piano is an absolute monster in the tonality range, which is better listened to by large speakers)but when I listened to

Jeff Beck: Performing This Week... Live at Ronnie Scott's​

I fell off the chair!
Thank you again
Best regards
Stef

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Hi Ham Sandwich.
I received the (Liquid gold x)and used it with the non-balance MM500 cable(for now) and I`m very surprised and truly pleased, what a difference!
I`ve never heard vocals so (alive) before and instrument separation (depending on the source) are incredible. Even grand Piano Live is kept very clean and composed (the Piano is an absolute monster in the tonality range, which is better listened to by large speakers)but when I listened to

Jeff Beck: Performing This Week... Live at Ronnie Scott's​

I fell off the chair!
Thank you again
Best regards
Stef

Awesome! The MM-500 pairs really well with the Liquid Gold X amp. But get yourself a balanced cable for the MM-500. The Liquid Gold X sounds better using the balanced headphone jack. The Audeze balanced cable is $150, or you can get a third-party balanced cable.

The Liquid Gold X amp really pairs well with planars. It's able to drive the headphones in a way that just sounds good and natural, and as you said "alive".

 

[listenerwww]

Finished my review of these last week. Like them a lot, tbh.

 

[LoryWiv]

Finished my review of these last week. Like them a lot, tbh.

Excellent review @listenerwww, thank you so much. I've owned MM-500 for several months and enjoy them very much. At times they feel a bit bass-light but I am a PEQ novice and there are none for MM-500 suggested yet at my usual "go to" https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/tree/master/results, where for other HP's I can download a pre-set and load it into HQPlayer matrix pipeline. Any thoughts about how to bring up the bass a bit without disrupting the overall character would be welcomed. Again, thanks for a very comprehensive and well-organized, well-written review!