or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Roland Headphones Underrated?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Roland Headphones Underrated? - Page 2

post #16 of 20

Thanks for the RH-A30 comments. I still use the RH-300 and it's going strong. Use it a lot while editing and for judging sound when making videorecordings. The fit is very comfortable and one could wear this headphone for hours. Also let other people use them on location and so far nothing broke. It is sturdy and lightweight, so ideal for my purpose. Sometimes listening to a recording of someones voice can be frighteningly realistic (when a good mic is used). Not only the voice itself but also its position in space is reproduced so nice.


Have to laugh about the amazing number of 'red B' type phones that you see out on the streets so often. They are sold for (much) more then the Roland but they are quite the opposite in their qualities... completely overrated, and not worthy of the price that people pay for them. The number of sold and reviewed RH-300 headphones might be very limited but I wouldn't mind about that at all...

post #17 of 20

I was looking for reviews of the Roland RH-A30s today and was surprised how little there is except in Japanese. I've been using these for several years now and cannot praise them enough. I've used Sennheisers and AKG in the past, and when I needed a new pair of phones, I went into the shop and spent about 3 hours testing different phones with music from my own label that I knew extremely well; I had every intention of buying AKGs again, but the Rolands just killed everything else in the $200-$300 price range, not even close! The accuracy, particularly in the low end, is much much better than the AKGs. Unlike almost every other pair of headphones I've ever used, with the Rolands I could mix a track on phones alone, play it out, and not be terribly surprised by what I was hearing. Headphones you can trust. The upper highs are a bit crisp I think, but not unreasonably so, and more than made up for by the best low-end definition I've heard in this price range. Recommended.

post #18 of 20

Bought me some Roland RH-200's and I will be offering up my impressions of them! Especially put up against my old cans (BD DT770, Sennheiser HD 558/439, JVC DX3, and Marley Revolutions). I got high hopes!

post #19 of 20

own a pair of rh-300 and a pair of rh-a30.

totally agree that the roland headphones are underrated. There isn't enough information or reviews about them. So I thought I should do my part...

Here are my thoughts:



The best headphone I've ever owned. I can not praise them enough. Insanely good separation, amazing dynamics, very nice flat frequency response with slightly recessed trebles but when the source is good, my god these cans can leave you in a shockwave of pleasure... early reflections and transients are absolutely amazing...


many say they are the same like ath-m50. and yes they share the same design and although i'm not sure maybe even the same driver (which i don't believe). 

but they sound definitely VERY different than the m50. i would say that the rh-a30 is definitely the same headphone like ah-m50 but the open version of it. 

but the rh-300 is a different story. they have absolutely no distortion, everything sounds like butter. and yes their frequency response, especially their honesty on midrange can be frightening on some badly recorded music. but with good records you can listen to them for HOURS. ear-fatiguing is NEVER an issue...


put on some nice vocal jazz music on them and listen to the vocal. no harshness, no distortion, and as close as it gets. reality pure...

I LOVE THEM... and still looking for something better than this. without success...

srh840 are not as detailed and dynamic

ath-m50 are not as flat and honest

k240 mkii are not as dynamic and have somewhat unrealistic representation of reverb.


IMHO RH-300 IS a masterpiece of headphone engineering.


now couple of words about the RH-A30...



yes these sound almost the same like m50. but they are open. funny that, when you close the little holes on the side with your hand, they sound exactly like ath-m50 :)

otherwise, they have better midrange then the m50. slightly less powerful bass but still very good. they have better subbass than the m50.

and of course better soundstage than m50. 


now here, i would say rh-a30 or the m50 is a question of taste and preference. 

more focused bass -> m50

more subbass -> rh-a30


more fun -> m50

more honesty -> rh-a30



But RH-300 is something else. I wouldn't compare them to the M50. It's simply another level in my opinion. I think the RH-300 in terms of transient response and separation can compete against any headphone you name. 



I hope Roland headphones get more attention, reviews and love overall. Because I think they are really way too unknown for the amazing performance and quality they deliver. 

Edited by dyavuz - 9/21/15 at 11:49pm
post #20 of 20

Thanks for your impressions of these headphones.


I have always been curious about them since they are based on the ATH-M50's, which is one of my favorite headphones, but there has been virtually no info on them.


I'll definitely be checking them out now! :L3000: 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Roland Headphones Underrated?