Grado PS500e Review and Measurements (and SR80X too)

These are the PS500e. @rfernand sent them to me for science. Based on memory from a long time ago, I thought they were bassier. Maybe I was thinking PS1 or maybe the PS500e I heard were from of an amp with higher output impedance. Tonally, the PS500e, with the included L cush pads, measure with the classic Grado frequency response, tilted upwards, some midrange emphasis (although less crunchy), and punchy midbass (with tube amps). Being from the e series, there's a bit of sssss in the mid-treble above the sibilance area that emphasizes definition similar to the RS2e. The high end is quite airy too. Despite the bright tonal balance, I find the PS500e to be quite livable even with the L cush pads without the coarseness compared to the lower end Grados (where I prefer the F pads). Perhaps the wood inner cups (the outer are metal obviously) helps to mollify the edge or coarse of the highs.



Here's a frequency response measurement of the PS500e.

Grado PS500e
L cush (stock) pads
Frequency Response (GRN = Left, RED = Right)
compensated response where straight horizontal line across indicates perceptual neutral
not the same as Sean Olive's Harmon consumer preference curve


Let's compare to other headphones

Grado PS500e (GRN = Left, RED = Right)
Grado RS2e (GRY)
Frequency Response



Grado PS500e (GRN = Left, RED = Right)
Grado SR80X with S cush (GRY)
Frequency Response


Grado PS500e (GRN = Left, RED = Right)
JAR600 (GRY)
Frequency Response


Note: The JAR600 or Jupiter Audio Research 600 is my reference for a neutral headphone when I am in the mood for a neutral, sound. Nope, it's not perfect, but it's close. I think @CEE TEE at Nitsch Audio may have a few pairs for sale in the USA.

 

PS500e
CSD L


PS500e
CSD R


Now this is interesting. The PS500e exchanges the ringing that we typically see in the mids and upper mids with ringing in the highs. The ringing is shorted lived and dies before the 2ms. So maybe this explains why I found the highs "livable". The clean mids and short lived ringing in the highs could explain why so many have a stated preference for the PS500e to other Grados. The PS500e despite having similar FR has different CSD measurements showing different decay characteristics. (This is a prime example of why frequency response doesn't tell us everything, and why we need suites of measurements to give us the fuller picture).

For comparison, here's the RS2X CSD.

 

I am evaluating the PS500e with the F-cush right now and comparing to RS2X with F-cush. The PS500e is subjectively less emphasized in mids, less crunchy, and more airy in the highs. The differences are not huge. The PS500e is still a Grado. FR measurements are very similar and don't explain the small subjective differences, but we already know FR doesn't explain everything.

PS500e F cush (YEL)
RS2X F cush (GRY)
Frequency Response

 

PS500e L cush
Left channel
Distortion (db) at 100db SPL


PS500e L cush
Right channel
Distortion (db) at 100db SPL


For reference, let's compare to SR325X and SR80X using the same L cush pads for apple to apples.

SR325X


SR80X L cush


SR80X does surprisingly well even though it sounds dirtier and less refined. Point #2. Measurements can give us indications of how something may sound, but they don't tell us everything. More measurements can give us more indicators, more of an idea how something may sound, but they still don't tell us everything. Anyone who claims a piece of gear to be objectively perfect based on one or even 10 measurements doesn't understand the limitations of measurements: specific measurements only measure specific aspects of sound, of which there are infinite.

 

Same as above, but using a variant for THD calculations (tweaked a bit from that), and THD(merv) in %

PS500e
THD(merv)


SR325X


SR80X
THD(merv)

 

And RS1X (L cush) for fun.

 

The latest RS X series is a slight step up from the prior E series with respect to resolution. The PS500E is on par with RS2E, which really isn't that far behind. They are so close in technical ability in that the best way to think about it shouldn't be how far behind, but rather how do they differ tonally.

PS500e will be brighter in the highs, flatter in the mids with less of that characteristic Grado mid sound. At least this was my subjective impression. The PS500e also measured with a bit more midbass, but I'm not sure I noticed this. The PS500e sort of part way bridges the L cush Grados and the big bowl Grados like the GS1000/3000. The GS1000/3000 are tipped up at the extremes with very flat mids.

I figure there is a reason why the "PS".

 

Grado PS500E
Stock Bowl Pads
Attack and Decay Envelopes from 10-cycle Bursts


Some really nice crisp attacks without overshoot with the exception of the 4.8kHz which is expected. The PS500E is still has Grado DNA.

 

SR325X for comparison, stock F-pads, but which has more of a classic Grado timbre and attack. The PS500E is smoother and less grainy.

 

It's an upgrade. I'd place the technical capabilities of the PS500e to somewhere in-between RS2X and SR325X, but closer to RS2X. There is actually a decent gap between the SR325X and RS2X, even more than RS2e to SR325e.

However, be aware that the PS500e is slightly different in tuning from the SR series and RS2X, as explained earlier in this thread.

@rfernand: I need to get them back to you! Didn't you ask how they fared with the Pietus? I can't remember.