Fit and Comfort

Seen above is the Audeze MM-500 placed on a mannequin head to help show how these headphones would look on the human head. Note that the head is slightly under average sized, so account for the discrepancies accordingly. As with all headphones, getting a good fit and seal is crucial, so make sure to properly use the various pivot points, along with the height adjustability of the headband and ear cups. This section is mostly a summary of the points expanded upon in more detail on the previous page, but I have to immediately bring up a potential dealbreaker here. The new headband system may be simpler, but it has resulted in more complaints about comfort and a high clamp force compared to the previous one. This was true with the LCD-5 also, to the point where Audeze ended up making a replacement headband which was slightly more comfortable in this regard, since it's not feasible to bend the carbon fiber headband used there. With the MM-500 and its spring steel band, I'd argue even those with an average-sized head like myself will feel the clamp force and associated pressure to where I couldn't really enjoy my first listening session after ~15-20 min. I immediately started to slowly stretch out the headband on either side by carefully holding the rest of the headphones in place, and this might involve some trial and error before you are comfortable with the MM-500 on your head having a balance of decent clamping pressure without breaking the seal. The spring steel will also naturally break into shape around your head over time, but I suspect many will end up taking things into their own hand before then and even here some with larger heads may find it uncomfortable regardless. This is the only issue I have with the MM-500 as far as fit and comfort goes—having holes cut into the support band to avoid hot spots on the top of your head would be nice, but not a must-have here. I also appreciate how much smaller the MM-500 is compared to the older LCD headphones, and this shows all the more with the weight savings. At just shy of 500 g, the MM-500 is not a light set at all. But when you realize the LCD-X weighs ~615 g then the MM-500 is a big step in the right direction. It also helps that the ear pads and suspension band help distribute this mass more evenly to where, once I had the clamping force issue settled in, the MM-500 was a joy to put on and listen to with a secure fit and seal every single time for hours on end as needed. Keep in mind that these are still open-back headphones and thus best used in a quiet environment.

Audio Performance

Audio Hardware

I recommend going through the equivalent section on this page to better understand Audeze's planar magnetic driver design. The MM-500 effectively gets a slightly cut-down, more easily manufactured version of the LCD-5 drivers here, including a 90 mm diaphragm but with the simpler Uniforce voice coil implementation, not the innovative Parallel Uniforce on the LCD-5. We also have Neodymium N50 Fluxor magnets and Fazor waveguides here, with the magnets being single-sided to further help reduce headphone mass, and the new Fazors further tone down unwanted resonances in the ear canals. The goal is to have a uniformly-driven set of drivers with ultra-low distortion and accurate audio reproduction, which bodes well for people wanting to use the MM-500 for more than just listening to music at home. This also means the MM-500 has to be configured to work well with professional and prosumer equipment, some of which may not be as powerful as recent consumer-grade releases, weirdly enough. The cable terminating in 6.35 mm is a good example of Audeze aiming for increased compatibility with professional gear, and helping further is the part where the MM-500 is far more efficient than most planar magnetic driver headphones on the market. Indeed, with an average rated impedance of just 18 Ω and a rated sensitivity of 100 dB/mW, the MM-500 can even be used with a decent portable DAC/amp, let alone music consoles in recording studios. A linear impedance curve also means the output impedance of your source is less likely to influence the tonality of the MM-500. I suspect the vast majority of users will pair the MM-500 with a good solid-state chain, especially if you prioritize accuracy over pure musicality. Having the MM-500 be built like a tank also helps justify its use as a work tool.

Frequency Response Measurement and Listening

I will mention that I have a general preference for a warm-neutral signature emphasizing a slightly elevated bass and smooth treble range with detailed mids and good tonal separation. I also generally prefer instrumental music over vocals, with favored genres including jazz and classical music.


Our current headphones test setup uses a set of two custom in-ear microphones for the two channels. These microphones closely adhere to the IEC711 class, but have been tweaked to be more reliable in the >10 kHz frequency range, the precise issue with my previous setup, that is otherwise still very good and will continue to be used for IEMs and earphones. Two soft silicone pinnae are installed on the sides, separated by a distance matching my head, and multiple "height" adapters have been 3D-printed for further customization based on fit, head size and shape. Each set of microphones has an XLR output I separately adapted to 3.5 mm. I used a transparent source—the Aune S17 Pro Class A amplifier fed off the Gustard A26 DAC—for measurements and listening after confirming it was not a bottleneck in any way. This artificial head simulator feeds the microphone lines into a reference USB sound card, which in turn goes to a laptop that has ARTA and REW running. I begin with an impulse measurement to test for signal fidelity, calibrate the sound card and channel output, account for floor noise, and finally test the frequency response of each channel separately. Octave smoothing is at the 1/12th setting, netting a good balance of detail and signal-to-noise ratio. The default tuning was used for testing, and no app or program-based EQ settings were chosen, unless specifically mentioned. Each sample of interest is measured at least thrice with separate mounts to account for any fit issues, and an average is taken of the individual measurements for statistical accuracy.


I've recently separated my IEMs and headphones database to avoid people confusing them, so you can find my headphone frequency response measurements on this link now. As before, you can choose from different preference targets there, including two from Harman Kardon developed after years of R&D. The Harman 2018 over-ear target in particular is a reference curve many headphone makers aim for now, but I find it too bass-boosted. As such, I am opting for the Harman 2018 curve with the bass target from the Harman 2013 curve, which is what is being referred to as the "Harman Combined" target. You will also note immediately the exceptional channel matching on offer here. It's very difficult to get large planar magnetic drivers this close, let alone the entire combination including the ear pads too, and this is a randomly chosen retail unit to make it all the better. Good job, Audeze!

Audeze was able to achieve headphones tuning closer to its goals with the updated driver tech developed and released with the 2021 iterations of the LCD-X and LCD-XC, and we've seen subsequent releases adopt more pinna gain that is closer to neutral than recessed as was the case before. As such, you will see a lot of people talk about older Audeze headphones that sounded warmer and bassier as a result of the upper mids and treble being less pronounced. While that is no doubt enjoyable for many audiophiles, especially combined with the fantastic bass impact and slam those planar magnetic drivers put out, that older tuning also wasn't ideal for accurate music playback if you wanted to use Audeze headphones for mixing and mastering, or even simply having most vocals and some instruments come off natural in the ears. EQ was certainly an option then as it is now, but I am admittedly a fan of the newer Audeze headphone tuning, and it also works better with my music library. The MM-500 has been developed as a collaboration with Manny for years even before the revised LCD-X, let alone the LCD-5, so there is no doubt some of his feedback went into making this be tuned very similar to the LCD-5 in particular. So for those of you who liked what they saw with the LCD-5 but could not afford it, the MM-500 is a viable solution.

What this means is the MM-500 will sound neutral or mid-forward depending on how you perceive them. This is not a bassy set, albeit the nice bass extension all the way down helps. I noticed a slight dip in the sub-bass and this, combined with the mid-bass being slightly more pronounced, still adds some warmth to bass guitars and drums. I also found this helping with some weight behind the tones in the mids proper, so this is still a slightly colored tuning that will work well for audiophiles who prefer it. There is exceptional detail retrieval here, albeit not to the mind-boggling extent the LCD-5 is able to present, and there is basically no distortion felt or measured even at unhealthy levels of listening volumes. This allows you to use EQ as you desire, which can be handy to fill out the gaps in the treble where many instrument resonant frequencies are found. Besides the LCD-5, I found the MM-500 to sound like a super Sennheiser HD 650 too as a result. This comparison also holds valid if you prioritize soundstage though, with the MM-500 having a very closed-off staging area confined to the ears. Manny says he prefers a smaller soundstage in general to allow him to pick up any faults in the mix easier, so I get this being useful again as a tool. It does mean that instruments and female vocals may not have that ethereal presence despite the upper mids being more pronounced than the lower treble. Imaging is very accurate throughout—more so in front, there is generally a forward presentation here—as is channel separation and layering. In fact, you will immediately notice how even similar instruments can be easily distinguished in an orchestral recording—everything is tight and controlled.

Not everything is glowy though. I mentioned the narrower and shorter soundstage could be irksome for potential customers, and there's also the part where the ear gain is actually noticeably higher than the regions before and after. This can add some glare to vocals, especially for opera singers, but can be a boon for jazz/instrumental music lovers with everything sounding prominent. I'd say the MM-500 handles treble smoother than the LCD-5 too, but it's not necessarily a strong point out of the box. It's relatively smooth sounding, but goes more down the relaxed route to be somewhat dark in the end for me. If you found open-back planar magnetic sets to be overly bright and fatiguing, this could be the set for you though. I ended up boosting the lower and mid-treble up slightly via EQ to better enjoy my classical music collection, especially for piano tracks. Doing so also helped add more engagement to faster synth music too; your mileage may vary. Then there's also the part where the MM-500 could be too snappy and tight for some people. If you like that hang time for trailing ends of tones that some dynamic driver sets provide, this might be too "fast" sounding instead. It's not actually the speed at which music is played back here, but rather how fundamental and harmonic tones play back which results in said feeling.


When the MM-500 was being teased even before its public launch, nearly everyone was wondering if this was a successor to the famed LCD-X which has been Audeze's most popular product over the years. You will notice how I even framed my coverage of the LCD-X from a pro audio perspective, especially with support from audio mixing and sound personalization tools—be it first-party (Audeze Reveal+) or otherwise. While the MM-500 costs $500 (~42%) more, I have no doubt that it is a better product for professionals intending to mix on headphones. It's just that much more detailed, which makes it easier to pick out any flaws. The upper treble is more emphasized on the LCD-X, but not in a way of adding any detail as much as giving you a taste of the planar magnetic air and sparkle which can be too much for some. The LCD-X is significantly warmer and might well be more to the liking of those who prefer the older Audeze tuning though. On the flip side, the LCD-X is larger and heavier, so the MM-500 wins out in terms of comfort over long usage sessions. But I would absolutely give the LCD-X a point for initial comfort out of the box thanks to its more amenable clamp force.

Then there's the other camp of open-back planar magnetic headphones tuning which leans more neutral-bright. HIFIMAN is the poster child here, with the HE1000se having recently received a massive price cut to where it competes directly with the MM-500. This is a larger, lighter, more comfortable set which is more open-sounding and has a much larger soundstage, albeit it results in a more diffused sound which lends itself more for classical music playback than mixing them in the first place. It's also very detailed, possibly even more so than the MM-500, but ends up being too much in some places. A lot of this is to do with the overly bright tuning that is fatiguing to me, and the treble is too airy and peaky too compared to the far smoother and relaxed sound of the MM-500. The HE1000se also manages to make the MM-500 sound more dynamic by comparison, which is not the Audeze set's strength in the first place. I'd argue the tougher competition is from the HE1000 Stealth. Confusingly similar name aside, it costs slightly less and is tuned warmer with a smoother treble presentation to where I quite enjoy it. It does trade off some of the resolution from the HE1000se though, but retains most of the other strengths to where you should definitely compare the two before deciding whether the HE1000 Stealth or the MM-500 is for you. Unfortunately I do not have any competing dynamic driver sets here to talk about—the Sennheiser HD 800 S, Focal Clear MG, or the ZMF Auteur Classic/Atrium would perhaps be something to consider too.