RD-X - rhythmdevils modded LCD-X reviews and measurements

Discussion in 'Headphones' started by purr1n, Jun 20, 2022.

  1. scblock

    scblock Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2019
    Likes Received:
    1,419
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Denver
    Thanks to @rhythmdevils for developing this mod and sending it out on tour.

    I have limited experience with planars, mostly with the cheaper HifiMan offerings. Most of my comparisons will be to dynamic headphones, particularly the HD650, which gets the majority of my listening time in general.

    Also if it helps triangulate I really like the HD58x, Focal Clear MG, and the DT177x Go, like but have some issues with the HD8xx and Focal Elegia, don't particularly like the HE400i, and hate the DT990. Unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity to spend time with the stock LCD-X so my impressions about the modded units won't reference a comparison to the stock headphone.

    I auditioned the modded LCD-X on several setups, including my Bottlehead S.E.X. and SW51+ fed by a Schiit Modius and the loaner Liquid Gold X amp fed by a Modi Multibit. I also did some checks with a Folkvangr and my Lyr 3 but spent much less time with those amps.

    My favorite pairing was with the Bottlehead S.E.X. The combination was musical with punchy bass and great vocal presence (kind of a hallmark of the Bottlehead amp). I did end up using the Roon DSP to drop the output by 12 dB to give me more adjustment room on the potentiometer, as otherwise I had a very small volume adjustment range available. The SW51+ was good as well but not quite as nice a combination, a little less lively and defined, and looser in the bass.

    The Liquid Gold X was excellent with these headphones, and probably the most balanced pairing overall. That makes sense given they were used in developing the mod. From the Liquid Gold X I would consider the modded LCD-X to sound balanced, smooth, and very clear. No perceived veil, tight bass, great vocals, and smooth highs.

    Folkvangr worked fine, but regardless of gain and impedance multiplier position didn't sound all that engaging. The Folkvangr seems to vary quite a lot by headphone and is much happier with dynamic headphones to my ears. Lyr 3 was better than Folkvangr but seemed to lack some of the balance and clarity of the Liquid Gold X and most of the emotional engagement of the Bottlehead amp. I'm not sure if this is surprising, but overall the Lyr 3 is one of my favorite amps otherwise.

    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.

    Although not specific to the rhythmdevils mod, the headphone itself is fairly heavy. No issues with the pads or earcups at all, and it was comfortable for the most part, but after a couple hours of continuous use I would start to get a hot spot on the top of my head which I could only really solve by taking a break.
     
  2. ColtMrFire

    ColtMrFire Writes better fan fics than you

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Likes Received:
    6,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    [​IMG]

    This review will be more stream of consciousness than my usual stuff...

    Did most listening on ZDSE (with Gungnir Multibit A2 as DAC) since I don't plan on buying a LauX and only listened out of courtesy, as I didn't think much of it. It's fine, but doesn't compare to ZDSE, which is a is a much better amp that seems to take more advantage of what the X can do on a technical level, even though tonally LauX is probably a better match, and adds a bit more fine grained precision and power... btw I really hate the design of the Monoprice/Cavalli amps, makes them look like cheap plastic toys... also still has that same annoying volume pot issue as on my old LP, of it suddenly jumping in volume around 10 or 11 on the dial.

    I have been curious about planars for a long time, after being consistently disappointed in them. Heard the LCD-2 (no idea what version) briefly years ago and hated them... dark, muddy shit (out of Asgard 2, forgot the DAC), probably underpowered but didn't know it at the time. Heard @Erroneous' HE-560 or 500, (don't remember) years ago, and found them boring, but didn't listen long enough to come to any meaningful conclusion. Bought the Hifiman Ananda a couple years ago and hated them... thin, plasticky, limp dick. BHA-1 was the amp so I don't think they were underpowered or anything, but who knows. So I was excited to receive the @rhythmdevils LCD-X to finally figure out if I'm a dynamic or planar guy or could at least tolerate planars, as I don't think I'll ever give up dynamics.

    Anyway...

    Main comparison is against my OG Focal Clear which is probably the best all round headphone I've owned.

    LCD-X... is comfy but still feels like you're wearing a bulky headphone because of the giant pads. Clear feels alot more stealth-like and disappears more on your head. LCD-X less clamping force, slightly more comfortable, like wearing a soft pillow

    LCD-X Completely destroys any memory of the Ananda.

    LCD-X a little more laid back than Clear, a little more relaxed

    LCD-X comes off as more wall-of-sound-ish compared to Clear, which is clearer, airier and more distinct in its imaging, giving a much better idea of the spatial dimension between sounds... though LCD-X is pretty clear when properly amped by the LauX

    LCD-X slightly faster overall (except maybe bass, hard to tell)

    LCD-X bigger more expansive stage, but more upfront and less depth than Clear

    LCD-X more full sounding, thicker, creamier, reminds me of HD650

    LCD-X seems to rumble a bit harder but Clear bass is better delineated/possibly faster...

    LCD-X more liquid/smoother

    Clear more exciting overall, like being 100% engaged in an entertaining 3-D movie

    there were times when certain vocals or certain musical moments were SUPER haunting on LCD-X, like there was magical juju going on (flute, electric guitar, certain vocals, etc)... this does not happen on the Clear really... it sometimes made the LCD-X more true to the recording, like bringing it to life in a way the Clear can't really do (although I find the Clear overall more consistent in delivering excitement)

    LCD-X maybe slightly better at nuances, highlighting subtle moments/more haunting when music calls for it, or it could just be the way it was presenting things that made it seem better at this... I really think this is the case.

    LCD-X more realistic sounding, thus conveying emotional musical moments in a more enticing fashion, but again Clear is more consistent with presenting liveliness and excitement

    LCD-X tonality more cohesive (bass/mids/treble more integrated and less separate)

    LCD-X smokier sounding (but still fairly clear), Clear is more, well... clear sounding... more of an open window

    LCD-X has more presence...classical especially sounds a bit more enchanting when the music calls for it

    ZDSE v LauX... ZDSE better overall... more realistic sounding / more plankton / more tube magic, makes you wanna keep listening, LauX more clinical but not bad at all, just doesn't have the level of engagement of the Zana or the technicalities

    Not sure if LCD-X is slightly more resolving overall, or just highlighting sounds more so that they seem like more information is resolved when in fact it is just emphasizing certain things more... but nothing like Clear vs Utopia where you could immediately tell Utopia was re-arranging the molecules of the recording to make it sound like a different master.... LCD-X vs Clear is more difficult to discern which means they are probably about on the same level technically

    At the end of the day the extreme clarity and dynamism of the Clear is addicting and hard to give up, like an open window into the music... with its insane clarity combined with its stellar tonal balance... it's a headphone that seems to get out of the way of the music the most of any headphone I've heard. LCD-X is a bit more laid back, a bit cozier, still slams but not like the Clear.

    I wasn't that impressed with the LauX feeding the LCD-X, but that changed when I used the Zana as a preamp into the LauX.

    Wow

    This was more like it... had the intensity, cleanliness and precision of SS, but with the inner warmth, plankton, texture and magic of high end tube. Eddie Current/Cavalli mashup I didn't know I wanted. Pop music especially got a shot of adrenaline without sounding forced or overdone... just resolving, smooth, liquid and magical with insane leves of PRAT. All my complaints about the LCD-X kind of disappeared with the chain of Gungnir Multibit A2 > Zana > LauX > LCD-X. Bass became jaw dropping... satisfyingly deep and tactile. Finally understand planar bass hype. But it became more fatiguing as a result over long term listening.

    Basically I'm still a dynamic guy and probably just not into planars. And I can't comment on @rhythmdevils work since I've not heard the original LCD-X but I applaud him for putting this modded headphone together and sharing it with the community!
     
    • Like Like x 15
    • Epic Epic x 5
    • List
  3. rhythmdevils

    rhythmdevils MOT: rhythmdevils audio

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2020
    Likes Received:
    12,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    Home Page:
    Thank you everyone for the impressions!

    No problem at all! Thank you for the write up! I just want to reiterate that I'm not looking for anything specific with this loaner or impressions, I'm mostly interested in just sharing the headphones I worked so hard on, so anyone is welcome to sign up to hear them even if you are 100% an electrodynamic driver person. Even if you just want to check out something different, you're totally welcome.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Epic Epic x 3
    • List
  4. ColtMrFire

    ColtMrFire Writes better fan fics than you

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Likes Received:
    6,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Much appreciated.
     
  5. penguins

    penguins Friend, formerly known as fp627

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2018
    Likes Received:
    3,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SouthernCA
    Brief initial impressions with the LCD-X: Holy cheeseburgers this thing is good.

    Chain: PC with Qobuz > optical > YggA2 > Cavalli LC > Bal out to LCDX with included Forza Cable
    Will give other background comments, etc. when I do a "real" write up later - most likely after I receive the RD modded LCD4 which per RD, needs to be re-tuned and touched up slightly first.

    In post #3 of the RD modded headphones thread, RD links my RD modded HE6se impressions. There are a lot of similarities in the final sound here (I guess this is the RD house sound) - relatively neutral tuning / target with 0 annoying flaws in the FR, but this time instead of more neutral bass, add some planar bass in there. Take out some of the top end air and sparkle in the HE6se. Take out the unclear separation / muddied or jumbled wall of sound I remember about every stock LCD-X (the X is the worst offender in the Audeze line that I've heard for this - the 2, 3, 4, and others are not as guilty of this beyond various degrees of typical planar sound). Texture in instruments is probably top 2 or 3 I've heard in a planar before but dynamics still beat planars here. Still stages like a planar but a bit more clear / less jumbled and the stage is a bit bigger.

    Like all Audeze and most planars I've heard, you will need to use the right amp to not get a wall of sound or a "pillow in the bass drum" kind of deadened dynamics or a sort of muffled "blanket over everything sound" - I still get the above with my Stellaris and somewhat had all of these when I tried the RD LCD-X on a EC ZDS . Most planar plasticity and "glossed over" sound is greatly reduced with the LC compared to the other 2 amps as well.

    Anyways, so far so good.

    edit: tried these on @ChaChaRealSmooth ’s EC UL. 70% of various aspects of the sound were a little better and 30% were a little worse. Regardless it delivers a lot of power and this drives home the point that these need the right amp to sound really good. Other impressions are still about the same as above. Ie sounds good, good tonality, generally balanced and neutral FR with some extra ummmppphhh in the bass, planar issues are all still existent but drastically reduced.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2022
  6. penguins

    penguins Friend, formerly known as fp627

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2018
    Likes Received:
    3,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SouthernCA
    Update - after more time with the LCD-X, most of my initial impressions still stand. No real updates or new write up needed. Overall even sound with no real flaws, the thump of the bass can be a bit much for those who may be sensitive or want a very long listening session. However, I think those of you who have read enough of my reviews know that I usually want "enough" of the characteristics that make each headphone unique, even if they may not be per my preferences, left in. If we use a totally different example - I don't like the HD800 family as a whole, but I don't like mods that totally wipe out the HD800 sound either - there are still a lot of merits in the HD800 and nice things to the HD800 as a whole and I want to hear them if I'm going to listen to a HD800 family headphone.

    Also, now that I've listened long enough and have read other impressions, if you want more info than what I wrote, read Colt's impressions above. I don't agree 100% on the minor details and comparisons (does anyone here ever 100% agree on this stuff?), but he has the right overall idea here.

    Also, this thing is good with a LAuX, but it was really good with the LC. If you don't have a solid SS or hybrid amp that can deliver sufficient power / current, the LAuX is inexpensive enough that I would buy one for these headphones. Whether or not you use it forever or as a stopgap is up to you.
    Personally, if I didn't have the LC, for RD modded headphones, I'd probably want a
    1. Bakoon (based only on previous experience and triangulation) or
    2. The inexpensive Phonitor, xe trim I think. Same power delivery circuit as higher end trims, Audezes probably won't benefit much from the other features on the higher end trims. Amp is also readily available, not super duper $, no real flaws with any Audeze headphones aside from maybe needing about 10-15% more overhead w/ regards to power / current to really deliver what I would consider top end sound and not just really good sound on the harder to drive Audezes.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2022
  7. Joshvar

    Joshvar Almost "Made"

    Contributor
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2017
    Likes Received:
    337
    Trophy Points:
    53
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    First up, thanks to @rhythmdevils for the loaner and @ColtMrFire for the handoff. I went in with as blank of a slate as possible - all I knew was folks really liked the 2021 LCD-X and @rhythmdevils gives a cubic fuckton to this community. So I hadn't read up on the mods, the reviews of the LCD-X or RD-X, and I haven't had much exposure to orthos - I tried an an OG LCD-3/LCD-X back in the day, owned a second (really, who knows) revision HE400 for a good while, but my earbrains have been most compatible with the HD600. The thing in recent(ish) memory the RD-X reminded me the most of was the Auteur. It sounded like the timbre of the HD6* family got a dose of the snappiness of orthos, and the FR was evened out - which it looks like has kinda been what a lot of folks commented on. Per my usual, I'll hit the "what stood out to me" bits and then the "why you should/shouldn't pursue this" to wrap.

    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.

    It's what I wanted the OG Focal Clear to be while I owned it - an HD600 with better bass extension and slightly bigger staging. The Clear did that but it lost enough midrange timbre and layering to make it feel like it's own thing and I ended up selling them (to @ColtMrFire, lol). These scratch that itch (which is absolutely my itch). If you are expecting for a Super Audeze or didn't like the HD600, this probably isn't for you. Everyone else, you should at least get your ears on them.

    Considerations as a buyer:
    Texture and timbre fall into the "natural/neutral" category for me.
    Decay, staging, separation were really special and took adjustment (in a good way).
    FR is the closest to my preference (a pretty long list of things) I've heard, apparently because man I couldn't find a song I didn't like on them...
    ...but they are extremely transparent, so shitty recordings sound shitty. Maybe more shitty - I was skipping songs I knew were bad recordings more frequently than usual (the opposite effect of the Atrium).
    While I didn't consider it to be picky with amps, you may hear things you don't like - it's probably elsewhere in your chain, but I'd consider these "ruthlessly revealing" of gear as well as recordings.
    I occasionally detected a tiny bit of "plasticy" presentation, but couldn't narrow it down outside of certain wood instruments.
    The efficiency gives you very little knob to play with (heh heh) on a lot of amps.
    The heft of these things, even with the newer Audeze headband, is noticeable (the ZMF band was much easier for my head/neck to maintain, and I am not dainty).
    The smoothness/lack of fatigue made me turn up the volume to "higher than a session of work should sustain."
    Like the Auteur it gave me more small "delights" as I listened but unlike the Auteur, it gave me more "wow moments" early on.

    Chain - PC/RPi+HiFiBerry Digi+ Pro -> Bifrost 2 OG -> LAuX/Jot2/BHC/Piety
    Points of Comparison on same/similar gear - HD600 (modded), Emu Teak (modded), HD800, Auteur, Atrium
     
    • Like Like x 18
    • Epic Epic x 1
    • List
  8. dubharmonic

    dubharmonic Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Likes Received:
    3,032
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Evanston, IL
    Many thanks to @rhythmdevils for this loaner! I’m a big orthohead, so I’ve been looking forward to this!

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    • Big improvement over my memory of stock 2021 LCD-X
    • Big, open stage
    • Tuned to be inoffensive over long listening sessions
    • Nothing about them is annoying
    • Awesome value
    • Not as resolving as TOTLs, which makes me want to hear a RD-4!
    • Similar to an HD650 without the rolloff or bass distortion
    • Synergy with DNA Stellaris and McIntosh MHA150
    • Overall an entirely pleasant, comfortable listening experience
     
    • Like Like x 23
    • Epic Epic x 1
    • List
  9. internethandle

    internethandle Almost "Made"

    Contributor
    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Likes Received:
    784
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    long beach, ca
    Welp, I guess that decides it then, @rhythmdevils re: your amp quest. Now you just gotta pony up $6K+ and wait ~a year. ;)
     
  10. rhythmdevils

    rhythmdevils MOT: rhythmdevils audio

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2020
    Likes Received:
    12,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    Home Page:
    Yeah @loadexfa likes my RD-4 with his Stratus too. I'm not convinced the Status is the best amp for my RD-4, but I haven't really heard the combination either. I actually haven't looked into a DNA amp simply because of the color, I can't have a bright baby blue amp in my room because I do a lot of photography in here and it wouldn't work for complicated reasons I won't go into. Too bad they don't come in black (or maybe it's a good thing for my wallet ;) ). I love my RD-4 out of my Minimax tube preamp and First Watt F4, and don't feel the need to find something better for them. I'm just looking for amps for my other orthos mostly.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2022
  11. Azimuth

    Azimuth FKA rtaylor76, Friend

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2015
    Likes Received:
    6,833
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Home Page:
    I am going to be brief, because these are just awesome and gave me faith in planars again.

    Source: Yggdrasil A1
    Amps: LAuX, LP, QS, BW1, Piety (yes, I plugged into just about every amp I have)

    I will mostly agree with Marv's additional thoughts as I thought that was well put together once he got over the shock of how good these are. Tonality S, Technical performance A+. I will break this down to consolidate his comments:
    • punchy lows that are clean and clear and warm
    • plenty of plankton
    • slightly laid back tonality
    • no plastikiness (eg. LCD-2 Classic, mid level HFM)
    • good sense of opennes
    • headstage is wide without a lot of depth

    So? What to add to that? I still think the lows were there and not overpowering. The punchiness bled into the mids just a touch, but were always under control. The mids were just lush and made vocals sound super natural. 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 LCD-X RD SE (or is it the RD-X?) 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 speakerlike presentation.

    The only issue was with the worst of my recordings showing some slight mid glare and breathyness, but I atrribute this mostly to planar tech, as it is one of those things that planars have a difficult time with "loudness wars" tracks with very little dynamic range. However, this kind of effect was less than other planars I have tried with said tracks. looking at the graphs and plots, possible the resonance in the 5k region? But basically, don't expect miracles if you listen to the Foo Fighters. Most of those tracks are better for PortaPros anyways were the awefulness is not so highlighted, lol. But these were not near as picky with tracks as say HD800's. Like I said, MOST stuff sounded supurb.

    As far as amplification, they did the best on the LAuX, and it was right to send this amp with it, because I think it shows off the plankton potential. Other amps could drive them fine, but the Liquid Platlinum was slightly darker and not quite as fast or detailed, the BW1 really showed off some harshness, and the QS felt like there was more of a mid scoop, and the Piety was enjoyable, but not quite could bring out all the details. So all of them could drive the RD-X just fine with ease, they don't need as much power as expected at all. It is just there was some serious synergy going on with the LAuX with the lows feeling like they had their own dedicated amp that left the rest of the spectrum unaffected. It always gave the low end some good heft and the top end was very clean and smooth and grain free to allow all those transients and details to come through.

    Overall, they are really like 650's without the rolloff or bass distortion. Really good for long listening sessions if you can handle the weight. Well done mod indeed!
     
    • Like Like x 16
    • Epic Epic x 1
    • List
  12. Vtory

    Vtory Audiophile™

    Pyrate MZR
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2016
    Likes Received:
    10,831
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    East Coast
    [​IMG]

    RD-Audio RD-X (Modded LCD-X) Review


    Opening


    LCD-X 2021 (henceforth aliased as OG) was the first pair of Audeze headphones I really liked. And surely I still like them for their tasteful balance between relaxing presentation, moderate delicacy, and texture/timbre excellence. And because of this fond memory, I’ve been curious what Whitney’s mod sounds like. I was also wondering how RD-X performs, given its non-cheap costs (new OG pair + modding fee combinedly costing 1.7k usd).

    I really thank @rhythmdevils for extending the loaner period to 10-ish days, which allowed me a good amount of time in analyzing the loaner pair.

    One disclosure is that I’ve been knowing RD (Whitney) for a couple of years and we often had private convos on various topics, too. I’m unsure I’m fully unbiased from such a pre-existing relationship. For an additional reference, I’ve been on his discord channel but I made myself completely hidden/unidentifiable and remained a silent/lazy observer (I only Intermittently check with discord roughly every 5 weeks or so). I’m declaring this because I think these days it’s a bit more ethical to be transparent regarding MOT-related communities.


    Associated Gears

    In my evaluation, I used X18 / M500 mk3 D/A converters. For amplification, I mainly used two amps: HO200 and Liquid Gold X (both xlr in and xlr out). The latter was generously included in the loaner package for participants’ synergy testing purpose. I’ll also discuss how pairing went later in this review. I also tested with the other amplifiers in the house but couldn’t find better synergy.


    Visual Observation and Comfort

    While I am never a modding expert, I could catch some visible differences over OG, including:
    • OG’s angled/solid Audeze pads are replaced with flat (non-angled) and perforated pads
    • Straw-like venting mechanisms are placed between pads and baffle (8 devices per side)
    • Grill and outer acoustic filter seem to be changed
    • Fazor parts are removed
    • Fine metal mesh is placed and probably used as front acoustic filter
    • Felt-ish material runs around and across radiating space, which remind me diffraction controlling mechanism in old-school loudspeaker designs
    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    I believe there must be more secrets inside.

    Comfort-wise, I’d say RD-X is slightly better than OG for two reasons. One is slightly reduced weight. As per Audeze, OG weighs 612g (wo cable) and that’s consistent with my measurement when I owned a pair. RD-X is roughly 50g lighter, weighing 565g. It’s still a quite heavy pair of headphones but the lower weight helped neck pain after long listening. I also think RD-X’s pads are comfier than OG although Audeze pads weren’t particularly uncomfortable by any means. Extra perforations and venting feel less isolated, which indirectly improves wearing comfort, too.


    Subjective Evaluation

    To make a long story short, the RD-X was quite impressive in that the headphones were breathing. I believe this keyword best summarizes almost all the pros and cons I found during the evaluation.

    By breathing, I meant air flow -- specifically the flow entering and escaping from the inner side of the closed chamber (i.e., enveloping by the sounding body, earcup wall, and ear pad). Audeze have been making their headphones very closed in this region probably in order to maximize bass extension given their drivers need airtight space to get the lowest notes loud enough. Please note that companies like HFM weren’t as obsessive as Audeze in making tight isolation: They use semi-perforated pads by default and allow mild leak between pads and baffles. If we take this “open” approach to the extreme, it will converge to things like SR1a, K1000, MDR-F1, or MDR-MA900. Anyway, all the Audezes I heard (from LCD2 to LCD4/5) didn’t sound open or lively enough by comparison and I’m suspecting their construction choice might play a meaningful role.

    Warning: Readers should be aware that the following paragraph is fully my guess and may contain inaccurate details.

    RD-X proved that there would be another sweet spot other than Audeze stuck to. With all the devices and materials implemented in the headphones, I think he pretty much obtained the best of the both worlds. Yes I said “both” because RD-X didn’t exhibit problems typically shown in minimally damped products like HFM or Abyss. I bet internal reflection/diffraction control is rather stronger (and probably more complicated) than the OG but improved air flows seemed to maintain a very tasteful balance, which let me recognize unheard aspects of the Audeze drivers.

    So, how do they actually sound? Let me begin with the tonal balance. Subbass is gradually attenuated and the lowest registers (e.g., very low notes of piano or double bass) sounded subdued a little. Instead there was an audible hump around the upper region of the subbass, which reminded me of the seal-broken Diana (perhaps their latest bass-ported pads too by extension). But unlike Diana, RD-X did not introduce an awkward feeling I heard with the broken seals. Also the subdued sub-bass I described above only applied to certain situations. RD-X’s bass is rather more clean, tight, and responsive than many flat bass-response orthos I evaluated before (including OG). I’m unsure if RD-X is punchier than MM-500 (which I reviewed weeks ago; sbaf review in progress), but they’re audibly more delicate and delinerating.

    Midrange was mostly neutral, but upper mids and treble were fairly laid back. Compared to more neutral references such as Stealth, the vocals sounded as if singers standed a few steps back, although I did hear clear improvements in clarity or articulation over the OG. This improvement is probably attributable to some interesting nuance in the midrange that paired well with bass hump, which relatively decreases some unnecessary energy in the lower midrange. I also found guitars, piano, and saxophone were more present than the OG because the advanced venting could take back some of the treble energy that OG lost.

    On the contrary, there weren’t as much sparkle, sheen, or sizzles as I remember hearing with OG. More or less the same level I could hear with MM-500. One of my friends said OG was a bit too piercing and annoying in the brilliance region so probably YMMV. RD-X had a more refined and smoother treble than both OG and MM-500, to say the least.

    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 wraparounding 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

    Put it differently, imagine SR1a, take out ribbon driver magic, extract an essence, then carefully put a drop or two of that essence on LCD-X, then that’s what RD-X sounded like to me. Very impressive presentation for circumaural orthos. Overall, they sounded better to me than any orthos priced at 2k usd or below.

    Compared to the upper price tiers, I’d say RD-X isn’t quite contestable against many 4k TOTLs mainly in resolution. For example, while still a bit more natural in presentation, switching from and to Susvara or Stealth made RD-X reveal ambiguities in resolving fine volume gradation and subtle vocal techniques. My two references (particularly Stealth) also exhibited a more neutral and convincing tonal response over the entire spectrum. Nonetheless, it was interesting that RD-X’s “breathing” magic still worked and held its own well in many of the bullet points I listed above.


    Amp Pairing

    Like I said earlier, the loaner package I received included the LGX amp, too. But I had an immediate issue -- RD-X is notoriously sensitive and LGX’s gain is painfully high (+12db even in low-gain mode). There was not much room to adjust the volume knob for my normal listening level, although the volume pot was incredibly good at remaining balanced even at heavy attenuation (probably upgraded to TKD?). I ended up constantly applying -15db digital attenuation on X18 dac that helped me a lot. The amp has richness, juice, and moderate slam that worked well with RD-X (and many other headphones in the house). I haven’t found a particular synergy though.

    I also thoroughly enjoyed the pairing between RD-X and HO200. To my ears and tastes, RD-X was inherently wet and liquid that didn't need extra infusions from the amp (of course extra goodness didn’t sound bad at all). Rather, HO200’s a bit dried and insipid (it’s duality of ‘zero coloration’, I suspect) characters don’t matter with RD-X. Moreover, lower noise floor in perception and higher resolution helped me hear slightly better details and nuances with many tracks I threw in. HO200 also featured negative gain mode (-4db for xlr out) that was really convenient and got along well with RD-X’s sensitivity.


    Measurement

    My measurements were taken with the MiniDSP EARS at 95db SPL at 300 Hz. Please note that my frequency responses are averaged results based on 5 different positions (center/up/down/front/back) to control positional variance. Results from optimal positioning might differ even with the same measurement fixture/rig.

    Comments
    • The sub-bass isn’t as much subdued to my perception as the graph suggests
    • The loaner unit seems to have an improved bass extension than the early demo unit sent to Marv
    • I suspect a little lower energy level between 200 and 400 Hz helps to improve clarity and reduce diffusion in separation
    • RD-X does not sound as dark as the graph suggests probably because of the nuanced energy between 4 and 6 kHz
    • The bass hump at 60 Hz is probably associated with air venting/leaking but it’s more naturally shaped and nowhere close to weird peaks that seal-broken Abyss often exhibits
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    Conclusion

    While high 1k is not a small sum of money for most, I couldn’t find any evidence the loaner pair of headphones was not worth paying that much. The time and effort Whitney spent on this mod (I know it took quite lengthy time for him to experiment different configurations and approaches before settling down to the finalized mod) came to fruition in the end. The mod greatly improved air flow to ears and synergized really well with extra grips of drivers. Every sonic component is well-optimized to the very convincing extent for anybody I can imagine. Both tonality and technicality are top notch, only outperformed by 2-3x more expensive options.

    My time with RD-X also made me curious about higher offerings (RD-4 or RD-4z) as I remember LCD 4/4z had audibly better capabilities in resolution than LCD-X. Optimistic extrapolation lets me dream of an ultimate Audeze enough to compete against many summit-fi offerings in any technical performance area except for the lowest bass, which is an inherent tradeoff with the venting choice and the current Audeze ortho driver configuration.

    Whatever, Rhythmdevils Audio’s RD-X is doubtlessly a high-performing audio evaluation tool that is suitable for any serious applications. Audio/music enthusiasts with moderate budgets should shortlist them.
     
    • Like Like x 12
    • Epic Epic x 5
    • List
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2023
  13. rhythmdevils

    rhythmdevils MOT: rhythmdevils audio

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2020
    Likes Received:
    12,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    Home Page:
    thank you so much @Vtory for taking the time for such a thoughtful and extensive evaluation. I generally want to refrain from commenting on impressions because I want everyone to feel free to write whatever they think, and I do not want to compromise the integrity of impressions by responding to them. So I have no comment on your subjective impressions, nor will I ever comment on anyone's subjective impressions of my headphones, including negative impressions.

    I do just want to clarify a few facts.

    1)
    That front metal mesh is stock on the front and the back of all the large baffle Audeze's (ie not the LCD-5) and the LCD X is one exception because it has a paper like damping material on the rear instead [which I remove] but it still has this metal mesh on the front. Stock large driver Audeze'e then also have fazors on both sides of the drivers, and then a thick cloth attached to the earpads as well over the front of the drivers.

    As a general rule I never add materials to the front of a driver to tune the response. I think all tuning should be done first with the driver itself, but then on the rear of the driver and the front acoustic chamber. If there are peaks or issues, then they need addressing there IMO, not by filtering out peaks by placing materials in front of the driver. This leads to a loss of resolution and realism. I spent months searching for the right material to replace this metal mesh on the front of the driver, and finally found one. If you remove the metal mesh from the front of the driver and try to blow through it, you will notice that it restricts airflow by about 50%. So this is not only damping the driver, which changes how the diaphragm movs, but it also does some filtering - there is that metal mesh between your ears and the sound being produced by the driver.

    The material I found is nearly 100% acoustically transparent yet still blocks debris from getting into the drivers. I have replaced this front mesh with my material on every Audeze model as experiments, and it works wonderfully on the 4z and 4, and LCD-R they become faster, more resolving with sharper transients. I call these versions my "mk2" versions of those models ie RD-4 mk2. But the LCD-X driver needs the damping that mesh provides on the front of the driver to produce bass properly, so it cannot be replaced. But they are still very resolving out of the right amp/source IMO. But you are correct that my RD-4 and 4z and also the R are more resolving and technically capable, and have the same house rhythmdevils tuning, though none of them have quite the same sense of "air" as my RD-X.

    2)
    The tuning vents are something I'm very proud of. They aren't the same as just venting the earpad like the Diana Abyss mod because they are long skinny tubes, which delay the front wave as it passes through this tube. This has many benefits for tuning but also adds a sense of air to the sound, as Audeze's stock can sound like a wall of sound. (I do a number of other things to create that sense of "breathing" as you put it) I am in the process of patenting this design because it has never been implemented in any ortho in history. But a patent costs upwards of $3000 and I'm just starting the company so have many expenses. I am hoping I can patent it myself in time before a rich company does.

    3)
    Just a clarification, sock Audeze's are not sealed between pad and baffle, they have a ring of very transparent felt type material that lets air pressure escape from all sides of the driver. Audeze has said they did this to alleviate air pressure when putting on the headphones because that air pressure when the earpads seal to your head and then compress and increase this air pressure can damage the diaphragms. This is why I do not recommend any aftermarket earpads on Audeze's, as none of them have this pressure relief.

    4)
    I appreciate all the time you've taken in measuring my headphones, I honestly do. I guess I just want to say that they don't sound like that graph at all to me. Everyone will have to decide for themselves if they sound like that, but it's just not an objective visualization of how they sound to me, which is how measurements tend to be viewed by people these days - as objective visualizations of how something sounds. I kind of think this hobby was better off before EARS measurements. (no offense, I again, appreciate the time this takes and understand the time it takes). But tuning or modding headphones for measurements instead of by ear is a sad change that the EARS have brought to the hobby by making measurements so accessible. Of course there are positives to this as well.

    I'm not trying to be defensive, if someone ever dislikes one of my headphones it is fine, I simply want to encourage people not to look at those EARS measurements and think that's what my RD-X sounds like, as it does not sound like that to me. But maybe it will to others, I can't say, and do not want to interfere with anyone's subjective evaluation of my headphones. But objective measurements have a kind of "written in stone" quality to them so I'm just urging an open mind.

    Thank you again @Vtory !
     
    • Like Like x 7
    • Epic Epic x 4
    • List
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2023
  14. Vtory

    Vtory Audiophile™

    Pyrate MZR
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2016
    Likes Received:
    10,831
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    East Coast
    Thanks for clarifying and sharing some additional details. They must be super helpful for those who want to know a bit more, of course myself included.

    For the last point, I'm kinda 50-50. I understand your concerns and indeed I don't disagree with what you really meant. And that's partially why I don't nitpick too much in measurements but try to comments as much as possible whenever results and my perception differ.

    TBH I've been continuously learning how to translate and understand my specific rig's results for more than four years. Simply speaking, whenever I find discrepancy, I make small adjustment in how I associate a measured pattern X with a perceived pattern Y. Then try to replicate to see if such adjustments make sense in broader contexts. It's eventually a learning curve that takes time. At this point, I'm mostly confident in achieving decent agreements between what I hear and what I measure although there are still not a few situations where I scratch my head.

    Speaking of the specific EARS result for the RD-X, I'm largely convinced with tonal info coming from the results except for the points I already commented. For example, attenuation in sub-bass, lowered treble (compared to bass/mid), or overall smooth/cohesive responses. I validated all of them by ABing to multiple headphones (i.e., I heard and measured) that can contrast to different extents. This does never mean those who hear differently is wrong -- because there are still numerous confounders that disproportionately affect translation.

    While I totally agree that people often misunderstand measurements (particularly what someone else measures), I'd say the same thing also happens to subjective sides (more often, I dare to claim). FWIW I roughly assume those who can't carefully (not necessarily accurately or correctly) interpret measured results are not able to translate subjective claims well, either. At the end of the day, I'm personally favorable to mix objective takes into reviews instead of fully excluding them. But I'd fully respect different positions/beliefs.

    I don't want to derail too much as this is not the place to discuss audio science something. But hope my clarification is helpful not to over-interpret my results beyond my intention. It's always healthier to view objective results just as supplement with sufficiently acknowledging variability in each atomic process.

    PS. Admins, if any discussions/debates/etc irrelevant to RD-X impression follow this post (and folks, please don't do them in this thread!!), please move them (including mine) to a separate thread -- or delete whatever is necessary.

    PS2. I'm distrusting, ditching ,and stepping away from my own non-FR measurements for various reasons (although I do think FR is imperfect). Clarifying just in case. Also let's not discuss it here, either.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Epic Epic x 2
    • List
  15. JayC

    JayC Resident Crash Test Dummy

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2015
    Likes Received:
    980
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Eindhoven
    Just to clarify in the middle of all the impressions - the cost of these including the mod is ~2k, right?
     
  16. rhythmdevils

    rhythmdevils MOT: rhythmdevils audio

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2020
    Likes Received:
    12,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    Home Page:
    edit: fixed numbers due to late night posting :heart:

    The LCD-X 2021 costs $1,308 with taxes and shipping to the US. My RD-X mod costs $575 + shipping. So the total is $1,883, so a bit under 2k. :)

    You can also find a lot of used pairs on the market, and if you email Audeze the serial number they will tell you whether it is the 2021 version or not. The serial number is on the inside of the headband right where it meets the headband strap. Used pairs often sell for about $800, so if you go that route, with my mods that is $1375 + shipping.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2023
  17. Vtory

    Vtory Audiophile™

    Pyrate MZR
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2016
    Likes Received:
    10,831
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    East Coast
  18. Tchoupitoulas

    Tchoupitoulas Friend

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2019
    Likes Received:
    3,710
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    PA
    Also, don't forget Audeze's Black Friday sale. I know it's a long way off but, IIRC, the LCD-X was going for ca. $800 last fall.

    I might be misremembering this but Audeze may also run smaller sales in the summer, around July 4? I could well be wrong about this.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agreed, ditto, +1 Agreed, ditto, +1 x 1
    • List
  19. rhythmdevils

    rhythmdevils MOT: rhythmdevils audio

    Pyrate
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2020
    Likes Received:
    12,237
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    Home Page:
    Sorry that was actually a case of posting late at night :heart:

    The website is correct. The mod costs $500 + the actual cost of making the open grills and rings to keep them on, which involves either cutting out the inside of a stock grill, leaving only the ring, or making a new ring and anodizing it black (or chrome in the case of the RD-4) Which in total costs $75, hence the RD-X and RD-4 are $575 to cover the extra costs of manufacturing.

    Fixed total cost of an RD-X bought new or used:

    The LCD-X 2021 costs $1,308 with taxes and shipping to the US. My RD-X mod costs $575 + shipping. So the total is $1,883, so a bit under 2k. :)

    You can also find a lot of used pairs on the market, and if you email Audeze the serial number they will tell you whether it is the 2021 version or not. The serial number is on the inside of the headband right where it meets the headband strap. Used pairs often sell for about $800, so if you go that route, with my mods that is $1375 + shipping.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2023
  20. Ksorota

    Ksorota Friend

    Pyrate Contributor
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2018
    Likes Received:
    1,780
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    01810
    Thank you to @rhythmdevils for putting this mod (and set of mods) out there. I am glad to be able to hear the RD-X and share my thoughts.

    Ill start with a note about the Liquid Gold X. While a fine amp, I did not spend much time with it with the RD-X. The amp itself is a great match, but the faults of the amp outweigh the synergy in my mind so I continued using my Black Widow instead for the majority of listening. The Black Widow seem to present some of the same magic that the LAux has.

    My DAC is the ECP Walnut x.3, amp of choice was the Black Widow and source for most of the listneing was Qobuz. The other headphones I have around for comparison are the Ether Flow 1.1 and JAR580. I did not do much back and forth with the 580, but did quite a bit with the Ether.

    One other note is that I have not heard a stock LCD-X, and the last Audeze I owned was the LCD-2Classic multiple years ago.

    The RD-X is a lust worthy headphone and has many positive attributes, and not really anything negative worth calling out.

    I am impressed by the technicalities and tightness most, but also find myself getting lost in the layering capabilities. The entire FR is tight and focused to the point where you can follow specific instruments with relative ease, but not to the detriment of enjoyment; I believe this is how I keep getting lost in the layering (staging depth).


    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

    As another check of its abilities, I brought home my Nitsch Piety to drive the RD-X and I find it a great pairing. Its simply enjoyable. Spatial cues pop out from the background…it retains all of the same goodness of the BW. The only complaint would be the efficiency of the RD-X means that the volume knob only moves a small amount for full range of volume that I can handle. In high gain, Piety 0 is at 7 o’clock and by 8 o’clock its way too loud for comfortable listening, and on low gain I can only get to around 9.

    Other note: I really like the Forza cable. It sounds great, looks good and has good ergonomics

    For at least a year now I have had Planar headphones as low on my list of headphones I wanted to listen to. I picked up the Ethers recently to give them another shot and now I am thinking about a RD-X as something that would take over a lot of listening at least in the home environment.

    A completely random last thought My 8 year old likes the RD-X more than the Ethers. I asked him for hisreasons, and he said “not sure…I just like them more”
     

Share This Page