Rosson Audio Design RAD-0 Measurements and Review (is RAD)

They're double-sided magnets.

A less expensive SE option is definitely something I'll bring up with the team - we're considering developing a less expensive model and that would certainly be one way to reduce cost.

 

I would be all over a reduced price RAD 0. Maybe try to do a RAD version of the LCD 2 Classics with plastic cups and single-sided magnets. Or a double-sided version of the RAD 0 with plastic cups for $1000 -$1500. Please do this. We need another player in the around $1K field.

 

I think near 1k price bracket has a lot of stiff competition at the moment, the LCD-2F and 2C, Mrspeakers Aeon Open 2, Ananda, I'd throw Verum there at least in terms of performance and that's not mentioning the dynamic contenders in that league like the Aeolus, Elex. The Appeal of the RAD for me personally is the higher quality materials and unique design and almost limited edition feel to each unit but sound wise I didn't find it any better than a good Audeze with less pop and heft in the bass.

To make a cheap model I would be down for similar levels of performance to the RAD with less premium materials as it was a nice sounding headphone but for a grand and less you can grab a good 2F have a fairly good sounding headphone with a similar FR to the RAD and arguably close enough performance.

I guess I'm in need of seeing something different haha.

 

I'm currently running some DCA Aeon 2 Opens (which I'm pretty pleased with) but I do miss that full, warm, punchy Audeze sound I had in my LCD2C's. As much as I love the Audeze sound, I can't live with the weight and the unit variability. I don't understand why they can't make drivers consistently. Some LCD's sound amazing, some sound like shit. They still haven't fixed this. I deliberately bought 2 LCD2C's and kept the one that sounded better and the difference, while not massive, was definitely noticeable.

Maybe RAD can come up with a more affordable model that retains the technicalities of the RAD-0 (which I very much enjoy) but simplifies and lightens the cup design. I'd buy that in a heartbeat. Some of us really love the Audeze house sound but can't live with the issues that still plague many LCD models.

If Alex can make a more consistent spiritual successor to the LCD2F and LCDX in the $1K - $1.5K range, I'd be a customer for sure.

I do appreciate the RAD-0 experience. The custom resin cups are stunning in person. The RAD-0 and ZMF Verite are basically sculptures from master craftsmen that make sound.

 

RAD-0 Impressions

I'm sorry for resurrecting this thread but thanks to the generosity of a friend, I had the good fortune of auditioning the RAD-0 in my own system for a couple of months and I wanted to repay his generosity by posting some impressions. I’d been keen to hear these headphones, not least because several friends have long spoken highly of them. I got to hear a pair for myself at CanJam last February but the sound was too warm for my tastes, in large part because of the Rupert Neve amp driving them. I wanted to hear them with my own gear.

The long and the short of my impressions are that these are some of the most impressive headphones I’ve heard. While they’re reminiscent of the darker or warmer, old Audeze house sound, they fix some of the tuning issues with headphones like the LCD-2 Classic and the LCD-4. They may even prove to be appealing to those who weren’t fans of the old Audeze tuning, especially because the RAD-0 get most of the way to the performance of the LCD-4 but at a much lower price. They’re competitive with similarly priced headphones like the Vérité, and the value proposition increases significantly when Rosson Audio sells b-stock units for under $2k.

The RAD-0 do many things right and only a very few things wrong. It’s probably simplest just to identity the two issues I had with the RAD-0: they could sound a bit more open, for my tastes, and they could have benefited from a bit more treble extension and air. In other words, and to put it in a less nit-picky way, they make for a rich, warm, and intimate listen. Other than their slightly stuffy presentation, for me, these are very good headphones. They deserve to be better known; they’re among the best all-rounder headphones I’ve heard when it comes to suiting different genres of music and having a sound that, I should think, would appeal quite broadly. It’s a shame there aren’t more impressions of them here.


Preferences and Caveats
I’m in my mid-40s and have suffered some hearing loss. I can’t hear much above 14 kHz. I’m sensitive to too much emphasis in the upper-mids and lower-treble as well as fussy about wanting headphones to be free of congestion, veil, and a closed-in headstage. Excess warmth bothers me, especially when there’s too much mid-bass humpiness, and I grouse a lot about a lack of treble air. I lean more towards the HD 600 than the 650, and my favorite headphones are the Vérité Open.


Gear and Comparisons
Most of my listening time was with a Mac Mini with Roon (Qobuz and FLAC/ALAC files) via USB -> Gungnir A2 multibit (balanced to Jensen PO-2XR converting to SE) -> DNA Stratus using the 3 ohm out (tubes are the Psvane 2A3, LinLai 5U4G, and Voshkod 6N1-P).

I also experimented with four other amps, using balanced connections in and out for the Monoprice Cavalli Liquid Gold X, the SPL Phonitor X, the Schiit Mjolnir 1, and the Decware Zen Taboo Mk IV, which I heard on the sbaf loaner tour (thank you for that opportunity!)

Comparisons were done with the Vérité Open and the LCD-4 from the Stratus chain as well as the LCD-R from the Jot A amp.


Amp Pairings
Stratus: the best of the bunch, the general impressions, below, are all from this amp.

Decware Zen Taboo Mk IV: outstanding, this amp provides some much-needed air and space, and it improves separation between and around instruments. I’ve posted lengthier impressions of the pairing with the RAD-0 in this amp’s thread here.

LAuX: excellent, well-suited to the RAD-0, making for some pleasant, slight warmth and richness, although the pairing could benefit from more space and air, especially between and around instruments.

Phonitor X: throws a more expansive stage than the other solid state amps and offers a nice, clean sound. The RAD-0’s treble benefits from this presentation, making the sound, overall, lighter and airier. Resolution is at least on a par with the LAuX, perhaps surpassing it.

Mjolnir 1: works really well with the RAD-0; rich-sounding, with strong bass and an energetic and lively presentation, this amp wakes up the RAD-0 nicely when it comes to macrodynamic strength. The treble lift is welcome, too. This pairing makes for a really engaging listen, although it’s a bit fatiguing and not quite at the level of the Phonitor for resolution. With that being said, the MJ1 is arguably more toe-tappingly fun.


Comfort
I seldom find headphones to be uncomfortable and am fine with heavy ones. The RAD-0 are fairly heavy. The problem for me is that the padding under the headband is insufficient. I quickly got a hot spot on the top of my noggin. The clamp force is also pretty strong. I didn’t mess with this, obviously, as the headphones weren’t mine. In any case, I think the clamp needs to be quite strong to get a good seal around the pads so as to help with the bass frequencies. The pads are thick and plush and lovely. For all my griping, though, the poor comfort’s no dealbreaker; it was only really bothersome for the first 5 to 10 minutes, and after another 10 minutes, I tended to forget all about it. And the great guy, Puck, on head-fi, came up with an ingenious strap to solve the RAD-0’s comfort issues.


General impressions
At the risk of oversimplification, the RAD-0 sounds like a LCD-4 but without the recession in the upper-mids (in the 4-5 kHz range, according to Crinacle’s graphs) and without the LCD-4’s treble rebound (at 8 kHz), which Tyll Hertsens found so bothersome. The following graph's from Crinacle's website (here):



Altogether, the RAD-0 has a more even and balanced overall sound, and it makes for a more coherent (as in less disjointed) listen than the LCD-4. What this means is that the overall tonality is slightly warm. There’s a slight but noticeable treble roll-off, which, I assume, explains the intimate presentation. The treble’s nice and even and quite smooth, though, without annoying peaks or dips. The mids are probably the overall tuning’s best quality: they’re rich and lush without being too forward with male or female vocals.

In retrospect, I wish I’d thought of comparing the RAD-0 with my HD 600 because, while they offer different kinds of presentation, both have excellent timbre. I found the timbre of acoustic instruments on the RAD-0 to sound convincing with lots of rich, detailed textures and plenty of satisfying reverberations. There’s a pleasing, immersive richness to the sound. I found myself, at different times, either being able to let the music wash over me or be more directly attentively engaged with it, listening carefully for details and following individual instrument lines. Like the Sennheiser 6X0 series, though, there is a kind of filter to the sound. Whereas this manifests as veil on the Senns, on the RAD there’s some sort of smothering quality to the sound. I’m not sure how to describe it beyond noting that there isn’t the kind of clean, transparent, clear-window sound you get from other headphones like the Focal Clear, Utopia, and Abyss headphones, among others.

Best of all, perhaps, is the RAD-0’s bass, which is very good and almost as impressive as that of the LCD-4 or the Final D8000, two of the best headphones I’ve heard for bass response. The RAD-0’s bass goes deep—almost as far as the LCD-4’s—and it has enough mid-bass punch to make bass guitars sound really good. It’s excellent for rich, reverberant textures and clear pitch differentiation.

The RAD-0 are also resolving and very good at both macro- and micro-dynamics. Imaging and layering are very good, although separation could be better. Staging is on the intimate side, as I noted above, but I’m fussy about this and should think it wouldn’t be an issue for most people. (If you’re ok with the Senn 6X0 series, these’ll be fine.) The transients are good: attacks are snappy enough, even if they’re not the fastest, and the decay of notes is pleasingly prolonged, neither too clipped nor too abrupt. Sustained notes linger nicely.

The RAD-0 also passed the Pixies test, which is to say that poor-quality recordings are tolerable and non-fatiguing. Snare hits didn’t make me wince.


Comparisons

RAD-0 vs LCD-4
Using Stratus with Reveal plugin, 8 ohm balanced out for LCD-4 and 3 ohm SE for RAD-0, because of the RAD-0’s lower impedance.

Both are warm, intimate, and inviting headphones. The RAD-0 have a lighter, less thick and dense sound and are less dark in their tuning. They sound more energetic and livelier though less rich, textured, or resolving.

They’re as bassy as the LCD-4, in terms of overall emphasis, but the bass isn’t quite as tight or well controlled or deep.

The mids are more even with the RAD-0, and the transition from the mids through the treble regions is nice and smooth. Thanks to this, stringed instruments have more bite with the RAD-0. Vocals are more forward on the RAD-0 and female voices more significantly so.

For timbre, each has its own strengths. The LCD-4 offers lovely crackle and blare with brass instruments, and woodwind instruments – and especially the alto sax – sound outstanding, whereas on the RAD-0, the alto sax is too sharp-sounding. The RAD-0 provides lots of bite for brass instruments – trumpets verge on being piercing – but it is less richly textured, as though microdynamics are a step back. On the other hand, stringed instruments are more realistic and convincing from the RAD-0. Even with the treble roll off, there’s still some sparkle, although it’s far from the best among headphones.

The staging of the RAD-0 is more spacious, slightly more airy (but not an “airy” sounding-headphone), and wider. The two are similar when it comes to depth but the LCD-4 provides more height. As a result, the LCD-4 offer better layering and separation.

The RAD-0 are appreciably less resolving than the LCD-4, although I don’t find them RAD-0 to be lacking here. Whereas some headphones present brushstrokes on cymbals or hi hats in a kind of smeared, shushing way, the LCD-4 allows you to hear the strokes more precisely and distinctly. In this, the RAD-0 doesn’t do badly but it’s behind the LCD-4. There’s more haze; in complex passages, the LCD-4 presents individual instruments more cleanly and distinctly.

To give an example, Jeff Buckley’s Hallelujah from the Audeze headphones offer outstanding resolution, with individual guitar plucks being clearly distinct, as are the strings’ complex reverberations. These qualities are there in all their complexity in chords, which come across clearly and vividly. You also get a nice sense of the acoustic space, with echo-like reflections being audible. These qualities are all less apparent on the RAD-0, which sounds slightly hazier in direct comparison, but the chiming quality of the guitar shines through more pleasantly through the RAD-0, probably because of the less dark tuning – although this does come at the expense of some edge with higher-pitch notes. There’s something about the darker tuning and the higher resolution, and perhaps the speed of the driver’s transients, which makes the LCD-4 come across as having a blacker background.


RAD-0 vs. Vérité Open
Using Gungnir Multibit -> Stratus with 8 ohm balanced out for VO and 3 ohm SE for the RAD-0.

While comparisons with the LCD-4 are a bit unfair, given the Audeze’s higher price, the VO is roughly the same price as the RAD-0.

My VO are made from the harder African Blackwood, which may make them harder-hitting and sound faster than the softer stock woods. I mention this because the VO is more impactful and percussive than the RAD-0. The VO are also faster and have snappier attacks. There’s a bit more energy in the upper-mids, too, and all of this makes for a sound, with the VO, that’s more dynamic and exciting, a bit brighter and slightly more fatiguing. Drum strikes are cleaner and tighter and harder-hitting, and snare hits, in particular, have more edge to them.

I find the VO more immersive. They’re more resolving, with richer, lingering decay—which goes some way to offsetting the harder, faster, snappier presentation—and a staging that’s less deep but wider and more open, spacious, and airy and with better separation and layering. I’m inclined to write that the headstage is more holographic than the RAD-0’s but I’m not quite sure that’s true. Sounds are panned harder to the left and right with the RAD-0, and on some tracks, there’s more of a 3-blob effect to the staging. Imaging might be a bit more precise on the VO. For these reasons, the VO handles complex passages better; there’s less of a haze to the sound, at times.

The VO’s bass is tighter but not as rich, emphasized, or bloomy as the RAD-0’s. The RAD-0’s sub-bass is more robust and you get more rumble. As a consequence of this, the RAD-0 sounds warmer and mellower, more sonorous. Both are quite good at getting across the woody beauty of double basses.

For acoustic instruments’ timbre, both are in the same ballpark. The RAD-0 has a weightier presentation. It renders brass instruments more faithfully, with rich textures (lots of crackle) and a nice amount of blart and blare. The trumpet sounds great from the RAD-0; from the VO it’s more piercing, but also smoother and cleaner and less textured. By contrast, the VO offers more bite and texture to stringed instruments. There’s more sparkle with the VO, too, and cymbals have more zing. Woodwind instruments lack air and can sound a bit off with the RAD-0; the alto sax comes across as slightly sharp-sounding. From the VO, it’s reedier, brighter, and a bit more piercing.

Buckley’s Hallelujah sounds a bit more rounded, softer, and warmer with the RAD-0. The transient leading edges of notes aren’t as quick. The guitar’s not as sparkly and doesn’t chime as much; from the VO, individual guitar plucks are more discrete and clear. On the other hand, the VO offers more of a sense of room acoustics, and the trailing ends of notes decay for longer and with a more echoey quality. The RAD-0’s vocal presentation is more forward than the VO’s, but it’s not overly forward to the point of dominating the song. The VO sounds more open and spacious.

The RAD-0 makes for a warmer, heavier, richer sound. It’s not too ponderous, though; just a bit softer, more rounded, and more mellow.


RAD-0 vs. LCD-R
Using Gungnir Multibit -> Jot A (with the amp’s bass shelf on for all music other than classical) and LAuX (high gain) -> RAD-0.

Both of these headphones offer a lovely, smooth and slightly warm presentation. Both suffer from a similar lack of space and air, and both tilt towards being on the intimate side of staging. The LCD-R projects music further forward in front of the listener, and this makes it sound less in-your-head than the RAD-0. Neither pair of headphones is veiled, exactly, but clarity isn’t their defining characteristic either.

The LCD-R distinguishes itself by being faster and snappier, and the combination of this and the smoothness is really wonderful and one of the reasons why I’ve been quite smitten with these headphones. I suspect there may not be much difference in microdynamics but the responsiveness of the LCD-R’s driver, and its super-fast transients, make for a sound that’s more lively and engaging. It’s also more tactile.

Their tuning isn’t too dissimilar. The RAD-0 is more upper-mid/lower-treble forward, slightly lighter, and with a less thick, syrupy sound. Both are a bit rolled off in the treble although the LCD-R has more air and extension. Where I can hear flutes above an orchestra with the LCD-R, I almost can’t at all with the RAD-0. There’s more sparkle with the LCD-R.

The RAD-0 has much more bass strength and depth. (The LCD-R is lacking when it comes to sub-bass).

There’s less bite with the LCD-R when it comes to strings and brass instruments. The LCD-R sounds sweeter. The LCD-R’s alto sax is nicer – lighter, less sharp, and smoother. I hear better textures and reverberations to strings from the LCD-R.

With classical music recordings, and opera in particular, I can hear greater depth from the LCD-R both in terms of the music being in front of me and also in terms of being able to discern better singers at the front or back of the stage (and it’s easier to follow them as they move around the stage).

The differences aren’t big and really boil down to the faster transient attacks of the LCD-R.


Conclusion
I wouldn’t recommend the RAD-0 wholeheartedly or for everyone. I can see them appealing to the fans of the Sennheiser HD 6X0 series who might be looking for a pair of planar headphones. Alternatively, in the absence of the LCD-4, which are no longer in production, the RAD-0 offer a similar sound, albeit with less technical ability but a better, more coherent and even frequency response.

The RAD-0 also do well at offering an intimate, rich, well balanced, and mellow presentation, one that’s neither fatiguing nor too dull or soft. They’re plenty energetic, though, and have good macrodynamic contrast, and they slam pretty hard, too. And they have lovely bass.

They’re not quite to my taste but I like them a great deal, and I’m curious about the RAD-0 with a brighter tuning, which Rosson Audio offers as a customizable option. I'm really grateful for the wonderful opportunity to listen to these excellent headphones over a couple of months - it was a real treat.