Long awaited $399 planar from Audeze.
Intro
Audeze’s current flagship, the LCD-5, seems to have marked a new direction in their ‘house sound’ when it was released in 2021. Their previous models have been known for lush and warm vocals with weighty bass. The LCD-5 defies these descriptors, opting instead for a forward, energetic, and overall much more ‘neutral’ sound profile. This shift is further evident in their subsequent release, the MM500, a collaboration with American mixing engineer Manny Marroquin.
After a (considerable) delay, Audeze appears to have finally begun shipping out their entry-level product to this line: the MM100 Pro, first announced back in early 2023. Pitched as a professional studio headphone, expectations are for it to align with the MM500/LCD-5 sound profile. So how does it sound?
For the full suite of measurements, see the end of the article.
Specs & Comfort
Price: US$ 399
Transducer size: 90 mm (advertised)
Transducer type: planar magnetic
Earpad size: 100 mm
Earpad fitting mechanism: glued-on
Sensitivity: 98 dB/mw @1kHz
Impedance: 15Ω @1kHz (measured), flat with slight tilt <300Hz (18Ω @20Hz)
Connector: single 3.5 mm TRS
Weight: 474 grams
Clamping force: medium-high
Headband swivel: YES (approx. 120°)
Comfort: 4/10 (clampy; slight weighty; tricky headband adjustment; strong pressure-like feeling when worn, similar to ‘eardrum suck’)
Mesurement & Sound
link to the frequency response measurement & more comparisons
Tonal balance:
Overall, the MM100’s sound profile is fairly neutral yet not without colourations, particularly in the upper mids and highs. It is immediately clear that the MM100 aligns with Audeze’s new tuning, as found in the LCD-5. Vocals are presented with a forward and articulate manner, though their timbre and texture lean towards a drier rendition. Instrumentation is generally well-represented, with the exception of some higher-pitched instruments that tend to sound slightly more intense than usual.
The bass is clean and tight, with a decent sense of immediacy. It doesn’t match the scale of impact of top-tier planars, but is competitive within its price range. Compared to the Hifiman Sundara, the MM100 hits a bit harder, although the bass may not be as atmospheric as the Moondrop Para. Among budget to mid-fi planar headphones, the MM100’s bass performance is exemplary, though it doesn’t quite reach the heights of the LCD-2 or the Hifiman HE6se.
The midrange is articulate and forward. The midrange presence feels mostly realistic, but there are a few quirks in its way of presentation. It leans towards the ‘shouty’ and ‘breathy’ side, which perhaps is in line with what one might expect from a tuning designed for professional use.
Vocals generally do not come across as particularly coloured, but some female vocals can seem ‘polished’ yet ‘dry’. This can be explained by the MM100’s frequency response. The lower mids are mostly linear, but there’s a discernible imbalance between the lower and upper vocal frequencies. The dip around 4-5kHz, characteristic of Audeze’s ‘house tuning’, imparts a ‘polished’ quality to vocals, subtlt reduces the sense of texture and bite. This feature is seen on most Audeze headphones including their more ‘musical’ offerings like the LCD-2/3/4, and even their earlier ‘pro’ model, the LCD-X. I must say I expected a more linear presentation, as found on the LCD-5. By comparison, vocal texture on the Sennheiser HD600 is still quite a bit more realistic, although it’s not as articulate as the MM100.
The treble is generally clear but somewhat uneven. It leans to the sparkly side but there’re a few regions of recession, making it a tricky headphone to describe in one sentence.
Instruments are generally clean and crisp, but others, like the violin, may lack a bit of sharpness. The MM100 is quite linear up to about 4kHz, but then becomes quite uneven. As a whole, the mid-treble region around 5-8khz is relatively recessed, a feature also seen in the flagship LCD-5. The result is that some percussion instruments, like the ride cymbal, can appear dry and brittle. While so, there’s a discernible peak around 6kHz (personally I hear it around 6.3kHz), which accentuates some vocal sibilances.
Moving futher up, the upper treble can get a bit hot for bright recordings, with more strident sibilance tones and crash cymbal hits feeling overly energetic. It’s not as splashy as the Para, but still, the excess energy stands out relative to the more subdued mid-treble. This imbalance results in instruments having subdued lower harmonics and accentuated higher oder ones, leading to the de-emphasis of body/fullness while there’s extra sparkle/sheen.
As a result, I find the treble quality somewhat unrefined. The Hifiman Sundara has a similar issue, but to a lesser extent. One might argue that this is intentional of the MM100’s tuning, namely to help locating treble issues in the mix. But I believe a more linear response would be more beneficial.
Other qualities:
- Soundstage and Imaging:
The soundstage of the MM100 is mediocre at best. Its lateral definition leaves much to be desired, almost creating a ‘three-blobed’ effect where elements of the music are divided into side images rather than being diffused across the field. Vocals and midrange instruments tend to be very intimate. The portrayal of depth is not impressive either. The layering, particularly of instruments, tends to congest, especially noticeable in orchestral pieces. The Moondrop Para is a better headphone in this aspect, followed by the Hifiman Sundara.
When it comes to imaging, the MM100 is satisfactory for the price. The central image is solid and well-defined, though it may lack the ‘sharpness’ necessary for distinctive separation. Midrange instruments and vocals often dominate the imaging space more than usual. Aside from these nuances, the imaging quality of the MM100 is decent, aligning closely with that of the Moondrop Para.
- Clarity:
The MM100 offers commendable clarity and resolution, particularly for the midrange sounds, like acoustic guitars and male vocals. Most female vocals are fine. However, as we move up to the upper mids and treble, a sense of compression emerges. Lower pitched instruments tend to have their presence emphasised, while it’s the other way around for higher pitched ones. For example, electric guitar distortion may come across as a bit thick, while violins may seem a little lackluster. The level of clarity comes back up in the upper treble, especially with instruments like crash cymbals. The sense of air and extension is admirable for its price.
In its price category, the MM100 holds its ground very well, competing closely with headphones such as the Sundara, and even those in a slightly higher bracket like the LCD-2C and the Ananda. The Moondrop Para is a formidable rival, offering superior resolution especially for complex passages.
- Dynamics and Impact:
The dynamic qualities of the MM100 are satisfactorily for the price. A notable strength of the MM100’s dynamics is how crisp and snappy the edge of attack is. However, the overall sound can come across as somewhat compressed, like a tight envelop. The energy typically concentrate in the midrange frequencies. This focus results in the contrast between louder and softer elements becoming somewhat blurred. It is more pronounced on modern genres featuring lots of instruments, where the subtler elements are often overshadowed by more dominant components in the mix, such as the electric guitar or the vocalist. Still, compared to models like the DCA Aeon Open X, the MM100 offers greater contrast, but the Moondrop Para surpasses both in this aspect.
Regarding impact, the MM100 performs nicely. While it may not deliver the most potent planar bass, and the quantity of bass is moderate rather than impressive, it certainly doesn’t feel limp. The headphone’s strong clamping force, combined with a fully sealed front volume through glued-on pleather pads, undoutedly enhance the perception of bass impact and slam. Notably, breaking the seal reduces the bass impact, making it different from some planar headphones with lower diaphragm stress/f0 frequency. With an intact seal, the impact is adequate – not extraordinary, but not disappointing either. It edges out the Sundara, but doesn’t quite get to the level of the HE6se.
Conclusion and value:
So, who is the Audeze MM100 for, and is it a good choice in its price point?
Well, it does come close to a neutral sound as a whole. Yet the case isn’t so straightforward here. It’s subdued in certain frequencies while accentuating others. These deviations, while not extreme, may be a concern for those seeking a purely ‘monitor-style’, uncoloured sound, making EQ mandatory.
Sure, most producers would likely EQ their headphones anyway, and there’s a valid argument that studio headphones should emphasise certain elements to help locating issues in the mix. I would argue that a more linear response is preferrable, but I see this is disputable.
Nevertheless, for those who prefer planar headphones and seek a versatile option for both pro and personal use, the MM100 is indeed one of the best available. Compared to traditional studio headphones, it is undoutedly superior in areas like clarity and bass extension. The downside is that the timbre could be more natural, falling short of expectations for a truly neutral tuning. Here’s how the MM100 compares to some of the typical studio headphones I measured.
Priced at US $399, the Audeze MM100 is a formidable entry in the mid-fi planar market. It ranks highly among its peers, though it does come at a higher cost compared to alternatives like the Hifiman Sundara or the Moondrop Para. The crucial consideration is its tuning. With a bit of EQ, the MM100 should be satisfactory for studio work, but its forward mids and occassionally gritty highs might not align with the tastes of those seeking pure musical enjoyment. If, however, this sound signature speaks to you, say you’re a fan of the MM500/LCD5, then the MM100 could well be an excellent choice for this type of sound on a budget. Just bear in mind the fit and clamping force before making the purchase.
Pros: neutral-ish tuning; tight and linear bass; excellent midrange clarity and articulation; air and sparkle; solid build quality;
Cons: somewhat compressed sounding; potentially overbearing midrange; uneven treble and upper-treble can offend some; small soundstage; clampy fit;
Value Grade (assessment on value, NOT sound quality):
Notes on EQ
The MM100 would benefit quite significantly from EQ. Once you adjust the uneveniss in the treble, the tonal improvement is immediately clear. After that, minor tweaks in bass quantity and the level of ear-gain should be sufficient.
My EQ setting for this headphone:
Preamp: -8.5 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 27 Hz Gain 8.5 dB Q 0.500
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 1000 Hz Gain -1.3 dB Q 3.000
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 3000 Hz Gain -3.0 dB Q 3.000
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 5100 Hz Gain 7.5 dB Q 2.500
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 6400 Hz Gain -4.0 dB Q 3.000
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 8800 Hz Gain 3.5 dB Q 2.000
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 12800 Hz Gain -3.0 dB Q 2.000
If you would like to EQ to the Harman Target, there’s an handy AutoEQ function built in Squiglink that you could use as a starting point (I personally do not recommend doing so – ideally you should adjust the filters to suit your own hearing especially in the treble).
MEASUREMENTS
Frequency Response Average (unsmoothed):
Bass extension cutoff is 10hz instead of 20hz on the extende frequency response measurement, so as to fully capture frequencies which though may not outside of the ‘audible range’, may be felt by our ears, bones and muscles and enhance the sense of ‘impact’. The response is obtained by an average of positional variations. The graph is unsmoothed to better show the peaks and dips that might be audible.
Positional Variation:
This graph shows how the tonality might be affected when you wear the headphones differently on the head.
Leakage Test:
This graph demonstrates how a small leakage (simulated using thin-armed glasses) can result in FR change.
Impulse Response:
Impulse response contains information about transducer movement when a test tone is played.
Channel Matching:
Channel matching graphs DOES NOT RELATE TO SOUND PROFILE.
a specialised configuration is used to capture channel differences to mitigate the interference from positioning on rig and the asymmetricity in GRAS pinnae design (legacy of KEMAR).
the Left (blue) and Right (red) channels are measured on a flat plate coupler with an IEC60318-4 ear simulator.
Electric Phase & Impedance:
The above graph shows the measured impedance (green) and electric phase (grey).
END OF THE ARTICLE
Disclaimer: This review is not sponsored or endorsed by any business or related entity. The headphones reviewed are my own unless stated otherwise. Any links or recommendations included are purely informational and do not involve any financial affiliation or endorsement on my part.
the unheard of headphone lab 
Thanks for the incredibly detailed review. I was on the fence between the Hifiman Sundara and the MM-100. I had the chance to try the Sundara at a local store and, while I loved its sound, I hated the fit. Unfortunately they didn’t have the MM-100. Would you say the MM-100 is more comfortable? And between the two, which do you find to be more sibilant?
LikeLike
Hi there, I’m glad you found the review helpful!
In terms of comfort, both the Sundara and the MM-100 have their quirks. The Sundara doesn’t have cup swivel, while the MM-100 is a bit clampy. Personally, I lean slightly towards the Sundara.
As for sibilance, the Sundara tends to be brighter, making it more prone to sibilance, especially for tracks with treble emphasis. However, its treble is quite linear, so it doesn’t overly accentuate sibilance unless the recording does.
The MM-100, on the other hand, has a less linear treble response, which might make certain sibilant frequencies more noticeable in certain songs, but it’s generally less bright comparing to the Sundara.
Hope this helps in making your decision 🙂
LikeLike