Hey guys, I'm looking for a second purchase after my ATH-M50s broke.  I want to try a different headphone now.
I came across this interesting mention of the Roland RH-300s, which one reviewer said was better than the very popular ATH-M50s.  That's a pretty big claim if you ask me.  Look at these graphs:
 
Roland RH-300

 
ATH-M50s

 
The RH-300 seems to have a ruler-flat response, which is great news for me because I liked the M50s but I disliked their recessed midrange.  It seems the M50 would have more sparkle, however.  Overall doesn't RH-300 sound like a more neutral headphone?
 
I think it's strange there are not a lot of reviews on the RH-300.  Does anyone have them?
 
In any case, what would you recommend for an $80~$180 closed portable headphone?  I am open to IEMs too, but if they can't match up to full headphones in SQ, I don't want them.

Roland headphones definitely make you look sexier, but I'll stick with the ATH-M50s.
 

Are you saying that you've tried the RH-300s and prefer the ATH-M50s, or did you just post to include your picture?

Quote:

blufalcon said:

Roland headphones definitely make you look sexier, but I'll stick with the ATH-M50s.
 

Click to expand...

He's wearing some highly underrated headphones tbh. Highly underrated. Roland RH50 are fantastic for the cash tbh, much better than Sony 7506 / V6.

I'm using the RH-300, and I think that it is practically the same headphone as the ATH-M50, with a bit different design (headband) and sound but using the same drivers. The earcups look very similar and these are the specs;
 
RH-300
driver: 45 mm neodymium
maximum input: 1600mW
sensitivity: 101dB/mW
impendance: 40 ohms
frequency response: 10-25.000 Hz
 
ATH-M50s
driver: 45 mm neodymium
maximum input: 1600mW
sensitivity: 99dB/mW
impendance: 38 ohms
frequency response: 15-28.000 Hz
 
The headband of the Roland is exactly the same as that of the ATH-M30. So it is light and sturdy. The earcups are bigger because of the bigger drivers and surround the ears very well. I compared the Roland with a ATH-M30 soundwise and while the Audio Technica sounds reasonable for the price, the Roland sounds 'audiophile', with much deeper bass and better defined highs. The mids are not recessed at all, they are warm and transparant, never sucked up by the bass.  Also the RH-300 has respectable soundstage for closed cans.  I didn't have a chance to compare with the ATH-M50s but looking at the graphs above I imagine the Rolands to sound a little bit more neutral. I use the Roland both for field recordings and for music and I couldn't wish for better ones... they are very 'analytical' somehow, and are able to reveal all the details in the lows and highs without colouring/ fatiguing.  I just got a Cowon mp4 player and they make a great combination. So I can recommend!

tbh... Where can I listen to that radio station?