Links

 RD-X impressions thread on SBAF

Quotes

“These are overall the best Audeze headphones I have ever heard. It's not even close. Tonally it's the best. Technical performance, maybe the LCD-4 just pips it a bit (and this was a handpicked LCD-4 from a dozen)…What's important is that the music from these headphones speak to me, convey the music emotionally….I'm not really big ortho fan, but this one really won me over. The RD-X is responsive like a traditional dynamic. With most planars, I always get the sense that small signals get absorbed into the tensioned diaphragm. This doesn't happen here. There's plenty of plankton, down to the orientation of the magnetic particles that constitute tape hiss. With respect to timbre, there's no plastickiness, heard on the LCD2C or many of the mid-level HFMs. There is a very good sense of openness while stock Audezes tend toward claustrophobic.”

- Purr1n, SBAF (he has not yet heard my other modded headphones listed here FWIW)


“I'm going to start by sounding a bit gushy - because I really enjoyed their excellent tonality. It sounded so well balanced across the whole spectrum, while completely avoiding the mistake of being neutral-boring. They seem to tilt slightly warm via the LauX but not in an overly-smoothed way…and although I don't have a ton of experience with planars, these are the best planar mids I've heard, reminding me of the HD650's, especially listening to female vocals, but with better extension in both highs and lows…As far as technicalities - resolution wise, these seemed really comparable to my Focal Clears. In fact, [the RD-X] seems to best them in terms of clarity, with both a better sense of layering and separation. The [RD-X] also sounded a tad faster to me as well. The stage still felt wider with the Clears, which is not what they're known for. But even then I was pleasantly surprised with how open & wide the RD-X sounded, even with everything feeling a bit closer to the front rows. “

-Soups, SBAF


“What is described as the Audeze House Sound to my ears isn't present. If you were looking to turn your Audeze headphone into a neutral sound this mod feels like the ticket”

-CaptainCope, SBAF


“The sound of the modded LCD-X was, in big picture terms, similar in general presentation to the HD650, but seemingly clearer, faster, and with better quality bass. I don't necessarily perceive a "Sennheiser veil" with the HD650 in normal listening, particularly with my OTL amps, but I can see where the term comes from in comparison to this headphone.”

-scblock, SBAF


“Texture is so, so good - this was the first thing that jumped out at me. The timbre sounds like the HD6* family - reminiscent of the Auteur. I believe that the typically clean ortho CSDs and smooth FR translates into outstanding separation and microdetail - in this case, it presents without sounding oversharpened/too vivid. Decay is noticeably good (I don't think I usually pick up on this, but this stood out). The bass is extremely tight but is not heavyweight (or even Audeze) slam. It's definitely playing a different game - more like "open baffle big ass woofer bass" than any headphone bass I've heard. The midrange/treble smoothness I recall from my ortho-curious days is there, but with a healthy injection of Sennheiser richness. Staging is the Golidlocks weapon of this thing - I've probably heard every flavor of staging and this gets it big enough without being HD800 unnatural, right down middle between blobby and overly diffuse, it just kinda sounds right - nothing stands out, and I've heard enough headphones to consider this to be a very good thing.”

-joshvar, SBAF


“I am going to be brief, because these are just awesome and gave me faith in planars again….I know @rhythmdevils uses many good vocal recordings as a reference, and I think this shows. Never have I heard more lifelike vocals from headphones...Many planars to me have issue with the treble in one way or another. Most of them are too much treble or peaky or harsh treble in the high mids (LCD-2 Classic), or the upper highs (HE-500). or wonky plastic mids (HE-5xx), or just unbalanced between lows and highs (LCD-5SE/LCD-XC). For the [RD-X there] were none of that. MOST of the time I had no issues and just sailed right along with great details and tone and almost somewhat speaker-like presentation.”

-Azimuth, SBAF


From technicality perspectives, the bottomline is RD-X was no worse than OG in any single criterion. Improved air flow coupled with advanced damping brought interesting changes to the OG. TBH most things sound highly realistic and come with a great sense of authentic space. Here are some definite gains I could hear over the OG:

* A bit wrap-arounding but larger soundstage
* Clearer separation and layering
* Tighter (not necessarily more impactful) attacks in transient
* More natural energy decays
* Less ambiguous in nuance retrievals
* More effortless, more wet, more liquid
* More lively sounding

-Vtory, SBAF


“General Thoughts:
Great staging, its deep and wide and haunting at times
Tight and clean bass
Vocals are nicely pulled forward
Best to use high quality recordings with these but not going to kill you with bad ones.
Weight, its high, but not going to ruin you
Precision – Notes have fast starts and stops and clear delineation
Cymbals and snare hits are crisp
Loses out on some of the sub bass rumble but its CLEAN and delineated
Quite Comfortable
Love the left to right panning of tracks
Spacious sounding, outside of head
Presents all those lovely spatial cues fluidly and naturally

Compared to Ether Flow 1.1

RD-X more resolving and forward
RD-X more precise
RD-X is more impactful and seems more dynamic driver based in comparison
RD-X more expansive/wider stage
RD-X Faster
RD-X much easier to drive
Ether more sub-bass
Ether bass is more diffuse
Ether smoother overall
Ether Lighter, more comfortable”

-Ksorota, SBAF


“I would describe the RD-X as a "fun-neutral" tuning that I feel is highly sought after but rarely achieved. What immediately struck me was how balanced these sound from top to bottom with a very even tonality from bass through treble. 9 times out of 10 I find a neutral, flatish tuning to be "boring" with a low engagement factor that doesn't really tug my heartstrings, but RD-X somehow seems to buck that trend. I hear these as neutral for sure, but there is just enough of that meaty planar low-end and tastefully elevated lower midrange that makes these a highly engaging, yet extremely well-balanced listen. Sure bass could slam a bit more, but there is excellent extension down low and I wonder if much more would disrupt the magic balance I hear across the entire frequency range. On the other end of the spectrum, I anticipated I would take issue with the treble tuning, but I was mistaken. Upper frequencies are detailed and shimmery with high-hats sounding very life-like and natural with none of the tizz or metallic quality you hear with artificially boosted highs. I am very sensitive to treble fatigue and I am pleased to say that after a few multi-hour sessions nothing I heard gave me any issues. On to the midrange... a majority of what I listen to is indie and classic rock with male vocals so lower mids tuning is extremely important to me. These really do exhibit that kind of magical quality to vocals that I hear with the HD650, but on the RD-X they don't stand out like a sore thumb since the well extended, high quality bass and treble seems to balance everything out.

Maybe I should have led with this, but other than the balance, the other thing that immediately stood out to me on the RD-X is the stage, openness, and overall clarity of these headphones. I hear a lot of space and separation that allows the music to breath without forcing you to focus on details and technicalities. I still hear RD-X as a smooth headphone overall, but the details present themselves in a non-analytical way that I really like.”

-jaker782, SBAF


“The RD-X are excellent headphones. They’re neutral, not too warm or dry or wet, neither soggy nor parched. Their sound is well balanced. The bass is tight but nicely textured and gives the pleasing sense of moving air. The mids are even and smooth and forward enough to make vocals sound lovely and clear. And the treble has a lovely clarity and sweetness, with plenty of air and the ability to do justice to the overtones of acoustic guitars. There’s lovely sparkle. There’s lots of space and air for music to breathe openly and expansively, without being conspicuously large or diffuse in its staging. And there’s lots of awesome impact, slam, and macrodynamic strength. These are fun but also nicely tuned headphones. They may not be as resolving as the other RD-Audezes, but the resolution is entirely in keeping with, if not better, the Auteur Classic and Clear. These are probably my favorite sub-$2k headphones.”

-Tchoulipitas, SBAF


“The highlight for me is absolutely is the treble, which is extraordinary. Smooth, extended and rich are how I would describe it. Highs are FAR smoother than on LCD-X, and offer better timbre - cymbals are shiny and have heaps of metallic richness. Rides are just gorgeous through these. Across all genres and tracks, the RD-X has the best treble response I’ve ever heard in a headphone, it’s as simple as that. Headphone vs speaker listening is a very different experience, but I’d even rate RD-X as among the best treble I’ve ever heard either way, in the top 3 or 4. I want to trasnplant these highs to every other transducer I have.”

-futuresound, SBAF

Instead of a shopping cart, I have a waiting list which you can join. It is non committal. I will email you when your name comes up and you can go ahead with an order or not. I do this to ensure that I don't accept too many orders to handle because it's just me doing this all by hand. This way I only take payment on headphones I am ready to modify and no one ever gets left paying and waiting endlessly for modifications.

To Order:

1. Fill out my waiting list form to join my waiting list
2. When your name comes up on my waiting list, I will send you an email and if you are still interested, you send me your headphones or a brand new pair directly to me for modification.
3. Once I have finished modifying your headphones, I will send you an invoice that covers the modifications, any extras, and shipping.
4. Once this invoice is paid, I will ship you your headphones along with a receipt.
5. You listen to music in a state of bliss :)

Pricing

Shipping

written by earnmyturns, SBAF

I've just finished a stint with @rhythmdevils 's RD-4 driven by Holo May KTE > Stellaris Special. The only orthos I had listened to seriously before are ZMF Caldera open, which don't pair with Stellaris (they do with Schiit Mjolnir-3). My daily drivers with Stellaris are ZMF Atrium open. My other frequently used headphones are Utopia 20202 driven by nickel DSHA-3F (same DAC).

I listen mostly to small ensemble jazz, with some classical thrown in. I reported some impressions on the DNA owners thread, but here's a bit more.

RD-4 stands out most for dense, fast, impactful bass (jazz double bass shines), coherent midrange, and dynamic, tight drums across the frequency range, meaning that the kick drum kicks, the cymbals shimmer, and everything in-between hangs together exceptionally well. Classical piano trio (piano, double bass, drums) is magical, with the piano tonal details excellently rendered, the closest I've heard at home to sitting two tables from the stage at the Village Vanguard.

Transients and tonal density are something else compared with my other headphones; just listening to the Utopias right now and they sound sluggish, thin in comparison. I haven't listened to Stellaris>Atrium since I returned the demo RD-4s, so I don't have a fresh comparison, but from memory, Atrium would be somewhat slower and more rounded, not as punchy.

As you can easily see, I'm an RD-4 convert. Now I just need to find a reliable source for LCD-4s to get on the mod queue.



written by Tchoulipitas, SBAF

The great news is that the RD-4z are also [compared to the RD-4] outstandingly good headphones. They’re slightly different to the RD-4s, better in some ways, worse in others. But, all things considered, they’re on a par with the mk I and mk II and are mainly just a slightly different flavor. I’d recommend them to those who prefer a lighter, faster, snappier sound. And unlike the increasingly rare LCD-4s, the LCD-4z is still being made and can now be had, used, for less than two grand.

The essential differences between the RD-4 mk II and the RD-4z are that the mk II is a bit richer, weightier, and thicker, its bass is fuller and heftier, and its treble a little less ethereal than the RD-4z. On the other hand, the 4z is lighter, snappier, faster, with cleaner transients and better, more precisely and clearly delineated individual leading edge of notes, and a slightly more open and airier sound.

The RD-4z also seems to have more impact and percussiveness; I’m not sure if this is strictly true or if it’s an effect of the snappier transients coupled with the lighter sound making for a stronger contrast when you do get hard-hitting drum strikes. Either way, the mk II has more authoritative bass, but the 4z is snappier and more percussive. The faster transients also make for better textures to sounds, at times. I’m hearing more crackle, growl, grit as well as bite and crunch with electric guitars, and I think this grittier texture comes from the sharper leading edges, too. If you prefer a mellower, softer presentation, the RD-4 mk I, and to a lesser extent, the mk II, are for you; if you prefer more attack and excitement and impact, the 4z could be the better option.

The RD-4z is more open and airier but ever so slightly less resolving.

The RD-4z’s bass is more forward and prominent than the mk II’s. The mk II’s bass is more robust and authoritative, with greater depth and rumble. The 4z’s bass is slightly darker, airier, and bloomier.

I slightly prefer the mk II for timbral fidelity. Vocals are lusher and more liquid from the mk II and lighter, perhaps slightly crisper from the 4z. Brass instruments are both better defined with the mk II, probably thanks to its superior resolution, and weightier, with more crackle and blart; the 4z conveys them in a lighter, thinner way but with a good bite and blare. With the 4z, massed strings sound lighter and sweeter, with more bite as well as sparkle. The mk II, by contrast, presents strings in a smoother, slightly warmer and mellower way, with superb layering and textures, lots of reverberations, and a very tactile sound. From the 4z, the cello has more of a woody, reedy sound, and is less sharp.

Listening to Schubert’s Piano Sonata #21, the RD-4z offers a sweet, open, and echoey sound (meaning you can hear the internal fading vibrations of the stings well within the body of the piano), with very good decay, although the sound’s a bit hazy and not the most pristine. Some of the notes seem a bit clipped. The RD-4 mk II’s presentation is warmer, richer, with more of an almost-chiming quality to the sound; the piano‘s set further back in the stage and isn’t quite as echoey; it’s more resolving but with less air and openness. The mk II doesn’t sound as clipped in fast, staccato notes, and the lower registers are ever so slightly more authoritative.

I love Cannonball Adderley’s great jazz record, Somethin’ Else:
The mk II’s double bass is lovely and deep but could sound a bit woodier; the 4z comes very close to the mk II’s sound
brushstrokes on cymbals are very good but not quite perfect, there’s an ever so slight hint of smearing (this is an issue on 99% of headphones I’ve listened to in my system); the brushstrokes are better with the 4z, not as smeared, perhaps thanks to the sharper leading edges of notes
The trumpet’s lovely on the mk II, with beautiful tone and some sweetness; the 4z makes the trumpet more piercing and a tad more emphasized in the treble, with a touch more bite and without quite the sweetness of the mk II
The alto sax is also very good on the mk II, quite warm and parpy, a bit sharp, not quite as reedy as I’d like, more brass-like; the alto sax is also better on the 4z, reedier and not as sharp

Finally, the 4z has better separation as well as more air and space around and between instruments.

Epcot is a theme park at Walt Disney World Resort featuring exciting attractions, international pavilions, award-winning fireworks and seasonal special events.

Written by Purr1n, SBAF

So this one is SUPER exciting. LCD-R modded by @rhythmdevils. Just offering a quick measurement for now. The reason is because I want to listen to it rather than measure it!

Some notes:
Less stuffy, more opened up
More air, more plankton
Way smoother top end without excessive Audeze upper mid dip
Faster bass that now keeps up with the highs. Overall, transient response is now frightening close to the SR-1A. The bass not quite keeping up was one of my minor complaints against the LCD-R. Not so anymore!
Sound is more neutral and less laid-back than the FR measurement below would indicate (measurements, a single measurement doesn't tell us everything), at least with the Jot A. The Jot A tends to be on the unrelenting side.
Audeze should give @rhythmdevils a job as a consultant - he seems to really work wonders on the Audezes.


Written by Tchoulipitas, SBAF

"[stock] LCD-R impressions, for context and perspective

I got my LCD-R used last April. I liked them from the outset but had something of an unusual experience with them: they had certain characteristics that were less appealing, but the overall sound was so pleasant, magical even, that I deliberately avoided listening critically to them, fearing that by putting my finger on their flaws the spell would be broken. I took this to be a sign that the LCD-R were doing lots of things right but not ideally.

What they do very well is to offer a pleasingly smooth sound, one that comes with a lovely combination of good resolution, for the price (they’re not on the level of the LCD-4), excellent speed and nimble responsiveness from the drivers, with nicely responsive transients, very good microdynamics, and a decent amount of punchiness. They’re invitingly mellow, engaging headphones.

What they do less well mainly has to do with the bass presentation and, as a consequence, their tuning. The bass doesn’t extend very deeply and could be more robust. It has some good mid-bass punch but that emphasis makes the LCD-R a bit too warm for me, edging towards being slightly muffled and congested (or “intimate,” to put it more politely). Making matters worse, the bass isn’t tight enough, which means that while it has some nice tonal qualities, it’s too indistinct and woolly. It sounds almost veiled. Because of all this, the LCD-R aren’t as open and spacious in their staging as I’d like. The overall experience, then, becomes one of being attracted to the headphones’ qualities but being slightly disappointed by these few flaws.

The RD-Rs fix these problems and make a much better version of the LCD-R.

Comfort

I don’t usually mention comfort but the ear-grater fazors were painful and left marks on my ears, so I’m glad they’re gone. The stock pads are unpleasant, too – they’re made of some kind of synthetic leather and they don’t breathe well. I’m also not keen on their texture. The alternative pads rhythmdevils uses are really lovely – plush and soft without being overly squishy, and perfectly comfortable for long listening sessions.

[My current model is the Mk2 because I believe it to be a better headphone, but I can offer the MK1 if anyone prefers]

RD-R mk I

These sound, in a word, exquisite. I hear them just as rhythmdevils describes them on his website. They have a wonderfully light, highly-responsive and delicate sound, one that’s akin to the speed of electrostats even as they also pull off the neat trick of having more impact and weight than Stax headphones. The mk I are beguiling: I’ve not heard headphones like this before.

They also have something of a tube-like quality. For as fast as they are, and in spite of the more neutral tuning, there’s still a slight hint of warmth and, with it, some slight wetness, which helps prevent the clean and snappy transients from coming across as too aggressive. Even better, with these qualities there’s also a holographic quality to the staging thanks also to the more open and spacious presentation.

The mk I have none of the intimate, congested, muffled sound of the LCD-R; instead, the sound is spacious and very open and quite airy, much more so than any Audeze, ZMF, or Sennheiser headphone I’ve heard outside of the HD 800 series. The staging also offers slightly more depth; vocals are a bit less upfront, not right in front of the eyes, as with the LCD-R, and instead they project slightly farther and wider (but not by much). There are also improvements with the RD-R mk I when it comes to imaging, layering and separation over the LCD-R.

I’m not quite sure what accounts for it or how I can describe it adequately, but the mk I offers a beautifully atmospheric sound. I think this is something to do with the staging qualities combined with the responsiveness and speed of the driver as well as good microdynamics and the pleasing tuning.

The warmth is dialed back significantly. I’d call these pretty neutral headphones – recognizing that defining absolute neutrality is chimerical – but the mk I are not in the least bit sterile or flat. They’re slightly euphonic, leaning ever so slightly towards the warmer side of things.

The bass is much tighter and, as such, comes across as much faster. It no longer sounds sluggish or, as Marv notes above, out of sync with the rest of the frequency spectrum. What’s cool, besides the more precise and clean bass, is its greater heft. The bass is now more impactful and tonally richer and more satisfying. I’m not sure if it extends deeper – it may – but the bass still doesn’t reach down very low into the sub-bass region.

The treble also comes across as even smoother than the LCD-R’s. I hear some edginess or roughness in the LCD-R’s treble at times but with the mk I, that’s gone.

The changes in the tuning mean the mk I has a little less of the sweetness of the original. I think that sweetness owed something to the contrast between the LCD-R’s warmth and its slightly forward, smooth treble combined with the clean, fast transients. Now, with the mk I, the absence of the warmth means that the sweetness is less apparent as a contrast but that the mk I are smoother even as the transients are faster still. All of this, I suppose, contributes to the mk I’s delicate, light touch.


RD-R mk II

The second version is more impressive than the first. It’s quite different. It’s faster. It’s more transparent, meaning that the sound is less colored, more neutral, cleaner, and more resolving. (I understand the acoustic material over the driver is more acoustically open than the mk I’s). It loses some of the euphonic, delicate, atmospheric and sweet sound of the mk I but is just as smooth, perhaps even more so. And, most significantly, the transient attacks are faster, more precise, and cleaner, as in less rounded, and approaching those of the Raal SR1a (which I have, and I compared the two headphones). The mk II is more angular than the rounded, gentler mk I. There’s also slightly less warmth and wetness to the mk II, getting closer to a studio-reference presentation while not being as clinically incisive as the SR1a.

All this is comparative, then: the LCD-R is on the slightly warmer and more gooey side of things; the RD-R mk I is neutral/warm with some subtle wetness.

At first, I thought the mk II were more aggressive and fatiguing than the mk I. But I don’t think this is the case – just that, by comparison, they’re not as delicate and are more energetic or, at least, faster. They may have more treble emphasis. Higher-frequency metallic instruments like cymbals or triangles in orchestral pieces sound cleaner and zingier than the other two versions. This may instead owe something to the transients, though, as I noticed that snare hits are snappier and crisper, too.

I think macro- and micro-dynamics are better from the mk II. They’re more percussive and offer a stronger contrast between louder and quieter passages. Microdynamics are also excellent. I was listening to some well recorded piano concertos and could hear distinct but subtle, complex, and varying reverberations from the piano’s body.

The timbre of acoustic instruments comes across very well with the mk II. Pianos sound convincing. Double basses have the right sense of hollowness to them and come across as nicely woody. There’s some decent bite and blare to brass, with excellent textures and almost a grittiness to the sound, which makes them sound tangible and realistic. (I want to emphasize, then, that the smoothness I’m describing doesn’t mean there aren’t rich textures; it’s not smoothed over). The trumpet, in particular, is excellent but not too piercing, although it sounds a tad thin. String instruments sound good too, with a nice amount of bite. Guitars have a lovely sweetness to them, and you get really clean strikes to notes.


Some Direct Comparisons of LCD-R with the RD-R mk II

(Note that for classical music and jazz, the Jot A’s bass shelf is turned off)

Prokofiev, Romeo and Juliet, Previn/LSO
LCD-R: a bit warm and closed in, stuffy almost; not the best separation or sense of space and air; rich and thick; strings could have more bite; lower brass dominate to some extent and lack definition; lively; the flute is only just audible over the orchestra. RD-R mk II: less warm, more neutral; lower brass not so boomy or prominent, better defined and delineated; lighter sound; mid-range more open, less stuffy; much better separation and space, each instrument has its own room to breathe; strings reach a bit higher; flute more audible; there’s a more delicate sound. Much, much better.

Rachmaninov, Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Petrenko, Trpceski/Royal Liverpool
LCD-R: same differences in tonality; bass is muddier but this makes for more thump, as in more slam, but not by all that much. RD-R mk II: much faster, individual piano strikes are more distinct, individuated, and precise; much quicker, more lively transients, making it sound much more engaging, also making each instrument stand out more precisely, which gives the impression of hearing more detail; more open and spacious.

Schubert, Piano Sonata 21, Kovacevich
Compared to the LCD-R, the RD-R mk II is faster, more responsive, snappier, with more precise and clean and clear piano strikes, which make the overall sound less hazy, more distinct; there’s a kind of mellow, soft, blurriness to the LCD-R by contrast.

Shostakovich String Quartet #8, Fitzwilliam String Quartet
Coming from LCD-R, the RD-R mk II has much better separation, each instrument is more distinct; violin has more bite and more of an edge to it, meaning not sharper but more textured; the overall sound beyond the violin is sweeter, more pleasing; more room for the instruments to stand out; the cello has better reverberations, they’re more distinct; sounds more complex, less of the muffled lower end.

Mozart, Requiem, Marriner/St. Martin in the Fields
From the LCD-R, the RD-R mk II is as above re. tonality and staging and transients; better microdynamics, more responsive to subtle changes; with the LCD-R there’s a bit of grain/peakiness in the higher frequency vocals at times, almost like sibilance (I hear it with several headphones on this recording), not so with the RD-R; smoother, then.

Wagner, Walküre, Solti/Vienna
LCD-R: not much crackle or blart with brass instruments (i.e. too smooth), nor sparkle with strings; a bit flat; a bit indistinct, too, not quite muddy but not pristine or clear, either, as though details are being masked or missed or, better put, glossed over, but not in a glarey kind of way. Not the best depth. RD-R mk II: a good deal more sparkle, timbre of brass is a good bit better but still not the crackliest presentation, it’s a bit thinner now, tonally, but more textured; better decay for soprano’s voice, better sense of room acoustics but not better depth; overall, more lively and responsive. The treble’s less rolled off.

Cannonball Adderley, Somethin’ Else
LCD-R: cymbal brushstrokes are no good, they’re all blended together in a hash; trumpet not very piercing, also a bit wimpy and thin/ever so slightly reedy; alto sax is ok, a bit sharp and peaky – not a great listen, really, a bit flat, could be smoother and cleaner. RD-R mk II: much less stuffy; cymbal brushstrokes better but still not good; the double bass is much better, more separation from the band, with a richer, woodier, more hollow and reverberant sound to it; trumpet more realistic, brighter, extending higher, brassier-sounding; alto sax is reedier, more recognizable as a woodwind instrument, and is less sharp; cymbals are cleaner and more zingy/metallic; with better space, you can get a better sense of room acoustics with the RD-R, especially with alto sax, for which I thought I could hear some reflections off the walls.

Mingus, Black Saint and Sinner Lady
Question of how well it handles the complexity: LCD-R a bit muddy and indistinct, lower brass hard to differentiate; RD-R mk II is appreciably better but still not ideal; cymbals are also more prominent, almost to the point of intrusive on the RD-R mk II.

Miles Davis, Lift to the Scaffold film score
RD-R mk II: timbre of trumpet doesn’t sound quite right, not crackly enough, as though oversimplified – this is a problem with both these headphones; LCD-R, interestingly, is a bit sharper sounding, less sweet, more sour/sharp, a bit more aggressive, grainy perhaps.

(Now, with the bass shelf on)

Jeff Buckley, Hallelujah
From LCD-R to RD-R mk II: faster transients make for a slightly better delineation of individual notes and strums, more clean and clear sound; more delicate, especially the vocals; not as sharp (tonally) or rich sounding - lighter, airier, which make for a better presentation

Mamas and Papas, Dream a Little Dream of Me
RD-R mk II: vocal more airy, lighter, subtler, softer, more pleasant, sweeter; overall sound less congested and muddy; better separation; cleaner sounding, more open; faster transients make it livelier, more nimble

Radiohead, The National Anthem
From LCD-R to RD-R mk II: bass is deeper, richer, more solid; the ondes martenot is much clearer and more forward, has a lovely ethereal sound to it; cymbals are better, less shushy, more zingy; still a bit muddy but that’s the song, to a certain extent; more open and spacious; still struggles with complex passages.

Nicolás Jaar, Space Is Only Noise If You Can See
RD-R mk II’s bass is cleaner, tighter, more focused and more prominent; it’s stronger, has much better definition, and richer texture; not sure if it goes deeper.

Hans Zimmer, Blade Runner 2049 film soundtrack
RD-R mk II’s bass hits harder, more authoritative, bit more slam (maybe), not really deeper, just stronger.

Trentemøller, Chameleon
The RD-R’s bass is appreciably tighter, faster, better defined – and doesn’t feel so lacking or mushed together.

written by CEE TEE, SBAF

Modded HE6SE vs my OG HE500 (with HE-4XX angled pads)

HE6SE imaging a bit more precise and localized, bit more resolving/tighter/cleaner.
HD6SE bass a little tighter/cleaner.

HE500 bass a little looser and so the quantity seems a little bit more/warmer at times? (Not 100% consistent track to track.)
HE500 headstaging a bit more in the center of the head with a bit less depth and precise localization (vocals in between the ears basically on same plane as the ears, where HE6SE has just a little more layering front to back and tigher imaging of vocals and instruments).

HD6SE slight, subtle improvements across the board. More refined. Resolution, control, localization.
HE6SE does need more volume on the dial than HE500.

Putting the HE500 on the MJ1 and the HE6SE on the Black Widow makes them more comparable by tightening up the 500 and loosening up the 6SE a touch.

BOTTOM LINE:
I think modded HD6SE is like a more refined, slightly less warm OG HE500.
Modded HE6SE is much more neutral than I remember the OG HE-6.
If you missed HE500 and wish you had gotten one…this is the improved replacement.
I now feel like I can sell my HE-500, no problem. If I want a better one, I can hire RD to mod an HE6SE for me!


written by Penguins, SBAF

Summary:
Neutral tuning with an extra bit of top end air, clarity, and cleaner separation than stock. Especially on the top end. This is how I wish a very good reference headphone could or maybe even "should" sound, but as far as I know, there are no flagship level headphones with a similar tuning right now. The main problem here is the HE6 family (probably due to the drivers) just doesn't have the top end performance to be a true reference headphone IMO (think Focal Clear vs Utopia). Instead, IMO, the HE6 family is strong at being "it's own thing" which is what most modders seem to do instead.

Use case and brief background:
pi2aes > Yggdrasil > Cavalli Liquid Crimson > included aftermarket XLR terminated cable. I also tried rolling to my own aftermarket HE6se cable (also XLR) and didn't notice a huge sound difference, but there was a small difference. I don't think one cable sounded better or worse. A good speaker amp with a pre-amp controlling it would have been better, but this is what I have right now.

I have modded my own HE6se through about 6-7 iterations and have also heard or loaned some modded HE6se from different SBAF members and as well as hearing 2 modded ones from outside of SBAF (1 was mediocre, 1 was actually pretty good but not to my preference). Note that not all of my modding iterations are improvements upon one another, but rather, different target sounds.

Tuning / Sound:
Instead of going for a tuning that brings out in some way or another the strong bass potential of this headphone, the RD tuning is a very neutral reference tuning mentioned above. It has basically 0 flaws or things that annoyed me in the FR, but it is also to me devoid of all of the magic that made me want a HE6 family headphone in the first place. The tonality and timbre (both of which very hard to get right for the HE6 family in my experience) are slightly plasticky and glazed over, but are overall the best I've heard on ANY modded HE6 family headphone to date. On a somewhat related issue (but not strictly a cause / effect issue), many instruments and songs also lack texture (I suspect this is a driver issue with the HE6se though as pretty much every modded HE6se suffers from this to some degree or another along with stock HE6 family headphones).

Although I didn't want to buy this mod as it's about 95% similar to one of my own HE6se modding iterations and they both "lack magic", I do like this tune A LOT and will be trying other RD modded headphones in the future (I don't think I could re-create this sound easily in another headphone).

11/28 edit:
Tuning / sound cont'd
- Nothing stands out in any way good or bad about other stuff such as staging, layering (for reference, this is not the same as clarity or separation to me), or . As a matter of fact, these things didn't once cross my mind while listening. I only realized this after when I sat down to write this. This also applies to most of the comments below.
- They were a little "faster" sounding than before. I never thought of the HE6 family of headphones as a slow headphone, but they certainly weren't fast. The transients + decay still sound very natural and neutral though - the extra speed didn't mess this up.
- There was a total lack of heft in the bass and slam was reduced by about 90% overall and flat out missing on a lot of tracks. This is forgivable though - based on my own modding experience, this was not a surprise given the issues that were fixed. Generally speaking, when modding the HE6 family, heft comes at the expense of slam and vice versa. And if you try to crank both up too much, you are either going to get WAY more of a plasticky timbre and/or WAY more distortion combined with some sort of resonance from enclosure vibration. The inverse was also mostly true - if you wanted to fix the timbre, distortion, and resonance, it came at the cost of both bass slam and heft.
- Like stock, the overall sound is still ever so slightly thin / lacking in richness. Probably about 4/10 where 0 is none at all and 10 is way too much / maximum.
- Similar to my comment about the HE6se family lacking top end performance and heft / slam being killed, macro and micro are both slightly lacking.

Other:
- Professional appearance and feel. No "DIY in a garage" type of feel for those who care (personally this doesn't bother me, esp for a 1 man show).
- I didn't like the pads that much but they're probably the reason that RD was able to hit a target tuning. My own approach was to use pads I liked and then work around those pads. This probably limited my ability to get the last 1-3% of tuning I wanted in the sound at times.

"It's hard for me to write impressions of the HE560 because I'm usually focused on problems I have with something... In the case of the 560's, I thought they were almost perfect from an FR standpoint. But they may be just a little hot in the upper treble, but I had assumed that was because my ZMF's were probably considered the dark side of the force (at least, that's what I thought until I heard the CMG).

The bass was extended, slamming and seemed to extend forever... clearly superior to my Auteurs. Compared to the Eikons, I thought the extension was similar, but the 560's were tighter/faster.

I used the 560's exclusively for about 2 wks. After I sent them off to the next person, I thought the world had shifted when I put I put the Eikons back on. I believe the Eikons are considered relatively neutral (in the ZMF world) and I had always thought the ZMF's had great midrange. But after extended listening to the 560's, the Eikon midrange just sounded wrong. Vocals were forward and slow, saxophones sounded especially honky, and cup reverb seemed especially pronounced. It took me a few days to fall back in love with the ZMF house sound, but now I completely understand how colored they actually are.

The 560's might have been a little lacking in detail and might have been a little "smooth", but I assumed that is what you were referencing when you mentioned the limitations of the 560 driver.

[I include a suspension strap so the following should not be an issue] Biggest complaint on the 560's was the comfort... they're light, clamp is perfect, comfy pads... but I could only wear them for about an hour before the hotspot on the top of my head was just too much. Since I listen at work for 5-6 hours at a time, they could never be my daily driver with that headband.

Compared to the CMG... The CMG's were dark, boring and completely lacking with well recorded music. The bass was good, mids were ok (male vocals sounded nice, female vocals seemed recessed), but it was if someone spun the treble tone controls all the way back."

- Dasman66, SBAF

"They are very well damped. It's a world apart from what I'm used to with planars. The only way I can think to describe it is as being very dynamically clean. The transient behavior on these just sounds very controlled to me. I get the sense that this adds to that laid-back vibe in some cases, but it also gives you this clarity and emergence that still cuts through. It's smooth, but never fuzzy. When the music is faster, with more aggressive transients, everything fits in there snug and these headphones have no problem getting it all through with a strong, big, impactful sound.

But they're also pretty granular, with textural information popping out everywhere, creeping back into the stage. They can be quite delicate. It's a nice balance. Even in the energetic passages, I hear deeply into a guitar's distorted tones and I swear I can start to pick out individual harmonics. But I'm not consumed by it. I still have that greater awareness up on the macro level. These headphones don't really let you lose that. A tight tom hit has gravity to it, and yet on top are crisp, fine layers breaking off. Music with lots of breathing room is layered and expansive. That's when you really start to hear the emergence that I assume comes from the damping measures."

- Robot Zombie, SBAF

"I took these to work and listened to them for days at my work desk. Here is the funny thing: I thought they were modded HE5s with the fast transient response, tight sound, and clarity. Well, that is until I realized that I wasn't getting that last little bit of low level information which I knew the HE5s were capable of extracting. Then I noticed a touch, just a bit, barely noticeable plasticky timbre... I took the headphones off, examined them, and then realized the gray HE560 letter on the black. Haha!

(FYI, I do not know if the HE560 have been reformulated since I last reviewed them). Normally with the HE560, I would choose to use the Focus-A pads otherwise they would come off as bright. The issue with the Focus pads is that there wasn't very much depth and the ears can sometimes touch the baffle. They also kind of close off the sound. @rhythmdevils opted to use these nice squishy thick pads which offer plenty of room and thus a more open sense with more air. Normally, the use of more "spacious" pads would make the FR issues much worse, but somehow @rhythmdevils pulled it off. Note that there was a small bit mid-treble emphasis, which was easily corrected with the twist of a knob on the Loki EQ.

I'll let him speak to the mods that he performed - I've known him for a long time and he takes a fastidious iterative approach using only his ears - balancing many factors that go into what constitutes good sound. In a nutshell, these modded HE560 almost had me fooled. They are clearly a two steps, maybe three steps up from the typical entry level HFM (HE400S, HE5XX, Sundara, etc.). Heck, better than the Ananda too."

- Purr1n, SBAF