[Seidhepriest]

First, a few words about the K-81.

The Head-Fi K-81 appreciation thread made them look as if they were the "headphones for anyone", with a few comments about how they remind scaled-down, less detailed K-240 Studio.

Trouble is, the K-81 are very unlike the K-240 Studio. The K-81DJ are just that, boomy exaggerated-bass DJ headphones. Boombox in headphone form. Bass exaggerated to such an extent, it's sickening. This's not an exaggeration: a drumless, bassless album ("3" by Final) was so bassy through K-81+Minibox-D, it caused dizziness.

The irony of the situation is, the RH-50 are somewhat like the "toy K-240 Studio" the K-81 thread suggested the K-81 are. Slightly elevated midrange, polite, unexaggerated, but powerful bass, clear spatial detail. They're cheaper than the K-81 (the "-50" index is the suggested price). So they fill the role the K-81 was supposed to get - "street", cheaper K-240-like headphones. Of course they don't have the detail and resolution of recabled K-240 Studio, but they're more efficient, and can work ampless with a portable player. Here're some photos...





They're slightly larger than the K-81, and weigh less. They look like they're circumaural, but they're not - same thing as the K-81, large-ish supra-aural. Semi-open. Impedance is standard 32-ohm, sensitivity ought to float around 96 dB/mW or so. Also more comfortable than the K-81, the RH-50 don't try to squeeze juice out of ears.



Sonically there's more emphasis on midrange than with most "consumer" headphones (these are monitor headphones, designed to highlight detail). As with all supra-aural headphones, soundstage is a bit toyish and smaller than with full-size headphones. Slightly veiled, slightly thick-sounding, a recable might fix that. A bit boomy unamplified, but quite powerful straight out of a player. Dynamics aren't anything stunning, but they're not slow or artificial. Tonally they're similar to the K-240 Studio, with even more emphasis on midrange. It's just that they're also more artificial than the K-240. More analytical perhaps, the presentation is more straightforward and it's all business - detail and notes before anything else. The K-240 are smoother and a lot more detailed, a lot airier, but hey, the RH-50 cost $50... For the money there's a lot worse. Also unfatiguing (sonically), also musical in the same way. RH-50 might even be a tad too midrange-oriented for some. The big plus is that they're the most detailed headphones for money.

Comfort isn't as with full-size circumaural headphones, but they press a lot less than most larger supra-aural headphones. An hour or two until pressure becomes painful. A lift off the ears for a few seconds, and readjustment, fixes discomfort.

Slightly more efficient than the K-81, probably by 2-4 dB. They can work fine with a portable player, but a cheap amp (E5 or CMoy) will help.

 

[Seidhepriest]

The RH-50 aren't that semi-open. There're small planks blocking the reflex port, each plank has a couple small holes covered with damping material. Without the planks, bass becomes more prominent (and boomy), but definition suffers. Bass also gets rather out of proportion. With the reflex ports closed completely, the headphones get a more focused and defined sound, but somewhat "boxy" in character, slightly duller and slightly more artificial.

The big surprise is that the RH-50 are actually quad-driver. The passive diaphragms aren't passive. Those are miniature hard tweeter diaphragms sitting atop the main driver grilles. That ought to explain their below-average efficiency.

And, these are musical. Soft Cell's "Cruelty Without Beauty" was a bit unwieldy choice - calling to dance all the time. On the street. Out of Cowon T2+FiiO E5. Straight out of the player they're fine too (and fairly loud), but lacking some resolution.

An interesting bit about loudness is, just like the "big ones" - the AKG K2xx, the Roland RH-50 never go perceivably loud. Not with the E5 anyway; the Minibox-D can drive (and overdrive) them to shouting loudness. Must be the midrange lift, but basically, there's always enough clarity and never much perceived loudness - they don't "shout". There's enough isolation and loudness to isolate all street noise, while still not perceivably loud/shouting.

Anyway, for the money - $50 and under - these are easily the best large-ish supra-aural headphones there are. Certainly the most detailed.

 

[jant71]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seidhepriest /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyway, for the money - $50 and under - these are easily the best large-ish supra-aural headphones there are.

Yamaha might have something to say about that with the RH5MA.

 

[Seidhepriest]

It's always been a bit of a mystery why everyone obsesses about AT, Sennheiser, Sony, and other "big" names when there's decent stuff out there made for musicians by companies that produce musical instruments.

 

[cam94z28]

Sorry to revive a dead thread but I wanted to comment on these. I picked up a pair from one of the few remaining (non-ebay) stores that still carry them, and I'm growing pretty fond of them. Interestingly enough I have a pair of K81DJ's too. Removing the cloth inserts on those balanced the bass out quite a bit but made them sibilant. They were still overly bassy though.
 
Anyway, these things sound pretty good, but there is a decent emphasis on the upper midrange. It's not a cheap earbud style midrange boost, because it actually increases detail. But, it also makes them shouty at much lower volumes than other midrange heavy phones. I guess the upside is that I'm less prone to listen at dangerous levels. I have a little bit of bass EQ'd in, and 1khz, and 3khz EQ'd down a bit, and I like the sound. The thing that surprised me the most, though, is the bass response. With enough bass boost (not flat), these can hang with the big boys, on tracks that don't go far below 30hz. It's nicely punchy, but it doesn't go quite as deep. It stays tame and well textured, not boomy (unless it's EQ'd way too high).
 
I wonder how their other models sound. I'm curious about the rh5/rh200.

 

[Seidhepriest]

These are monitor headphones, they're meant to bring out detail. Therе's even more of a midrange boost than with AKG Studio headphones. Electric guitars can sound a bit weird/thin, but they're pretty sweet with everything. They also have dedicated tweeter diaphragms, so the treble is very sweet and realistic, especially with recable. Saxophones sound wounderful. RH-50 are sort of obscure, but they're of the better deals out there.

 

[cam94z28]

The midrange boost doesn't bother me nearly as much as their tendency to be bright. S's and T's can be piercingly harsh on certain tracks. All in all they're good phones, just might have to find some additional padding to wedge in front of the tweets.
 
Any idea if any of their other models are dual driver? RH-5, RH-200, etc....