Does RD160 use different components depending on the country?

I recently discovered that in some reviews of RD160, the OPAMP used was a mixture of LM4562 and MUSE02, while some used only MUSE02.
At the same time, the official website also released two types of THD+N, 0.002% and 0.005%, and they were marked “regional version”.
I guess the mixed use of LM4562 and MUSE02 may have caused this difference.
My question is, how do I know which version I bought? Shouldn’t ROSE tell consumers what they actually bought? Simply marking “regional version” feels irresponsible.



222

2 Likes

Interesting. @ROSEHAN Can you please tell us about this topic? Thanks!

1 Like

Notice Regarding OPAMP Changes in RD160

The RD160 is HiFi Rose’s flagship DAC product, and during its initial design phase, MUSE-brand OPAMPs were used throughout the entire analog circuitry to ensure the highest audio fidelity. However, following the start of mass production, we experienced persistent supply stability issues with MUSE OPAMPs. Due to their limited production volume and restricted distribution channels, it became increasingly difficult to secure the necessary quantities at the required times. This situation posed ongoing challenges to the stable manufacturing and supply of the RD160.

In response, the HiFi Rose R&D team conducted several months of rigorous testing and evaluation to identify alternative solutions that would maintain the same audio specifications, sound quality, and tonal characteristics as the original models, while also improving the availability of key components. As a result, from the 2025 production batch onward, certain non-critical sections of the circuitry—specifically the buffer stages—have transitioned from MUSE OPAMPs to Texas Instruments’ LM4562. The LM4562 is a high-performance OPAMP known for its low noise and excellent linearity, and has been thoroughly validated as a reliable and acoustically transparent substitute.

Crucially, OPAMPs used in the core audio signal path—those that directly affect the sound character—remain unchanged and continue to utilize MUSE components. This ensures that the distinctive sound signature of the RD160, as expected by our users, remains fully intact.

This change was made to strike a careful balance between audio performance and production reliability, while ensuring long-term sustainability of the RD160 product line. We remain committed to delivering the finest audio experience possible and will continue to pursue research and quality improvements with unwavering dedication.

4 Likes

Thank you for this clear and transparent response

1 Like

This means we can determine the version we bought from the production date, right?
But the review of the RD160 using LM4562 has the date marked on the PCB as 2024/11/19, which is different from what you mention, that the batches after 2025 will start using LM4562.未命名

What a beautifully formatted answer! The story is that an LM4562 is ten times, yes, ten times, cheaper than a MUSE 02.
MUSE 02 retail price: €39.90 (many available from my French distributor)
LM4562 retail price: €3.60
When you’re a serious manufacturer, you ensure upstream supply throughout the life of your product. Furthermore, the RD160 shouldn’t logically sell in volume like a €200 DAC. This justification is invalid.
And sorry to say the MUSE for having compared them to the others we are still qualitatively a notch above.

2 Likes

So I guess we have an upgrade path to lower the noise by 0.003% by swapping out the opamp’s. Is it that simple, seeing as they are socketed?

@ROSEHAN,
I read:
“The Texas Instruments LM4562NA/NOPB is a high-performance, 2-channel operational amplifier (OPA) integrated in a PDIP8 package. This ultra-low distortion, low-noise, and high-speed OPA is optimized for high-fidelity audio applications.”

  1. Do we use this component if we don’t use the preamplifier section of the RD160, if we fix the output voltage and use an external preamplifier?
  2. Is this component used for both unbalanced and balanced outputs?

ROSE seems to have always used muse02 as one of the promotional highlights of rd160, which you can see in many reviews. Even the photos on the official website are still the muse02 only version. If the parts used in the batches after 2025 have changed, why does the official website still maintain the wrong promotion? 2025 is already halfway through.
Do they think no one will find out about this?

1 Like

Hi @ROSEHAN,

Thanks for sharing this—it’s a really interesting development. I’m curious, could you clarify whether any of the internal components of the RS130 have been changed? For those of us who’ve invested in or are considering this model, it would be really helpful to know if any revisions have been made under the hood.

If there have been changes, even minor ones, it might make sense to reflect that in the model designation so that users can make fully informed decisions.

Also, I wanted to mention—some of the current RS160 description feels a bit misleading based on the available information. It would be great to have more transparency so expectations align with reality.

Appreciate your input as always.

1 Like

@ROSEHAN,
The operational amplifiers are not soldered onto the RD160’s motherboard but are instead mounted in sockets, so they could easily be replaced by experienced users…
Can you confirm this?

My unit says it was manufactured November 2024 on the back. Does that mean I have the good Op Amps?

Not sure why everyone is freaking out about this. HiFi Rose is more transparent than most manufacturers. What do you think big audiphile names would say if asked if there have been parts changes not in the signal path? The key is they are still putting in Muse chips (as stated) in the signal path.

Because in one of their demonstrations in Korea, they emphasis that 5 MUSEs were used for one channel. And if you believe that the Buffer stage is not in the signal path, then you have fallen into the rhetoric.


Are the Muses 02 really that good?

StandardModel

I think the key is not whether MUSE02 is superior, but that Rose replaced the key components that it has been promoting without informing consumers and only responded when someone raised questions.
After this incident, can the product introduction and information provided by this company still be trusted?

sharisselis,

Your point is a good one. There are two relevant issues. The first is credibility when a particular component is (rightly) touted as superior being included in the Rose device has been removed without notice . That’s just false advertising. The second point is, when that component is replaced with a much less expensive part is the sound output quality degraded. My guess is that it must be because otherwise it wouldn’t have been promoted as superior in the first place.

StandardModel

Absolutely agree, @StandardModel and @sharisselis — these are critical points that go beyond just tech specs.

At the heart of it is trust. If a key component that was heavily marketed as “superior” has been quietly swapped for something of lesser quality or cost without any public disclosure, that’s not just a marketing misstep—it borders on false advertising, especially for premium-priced products.

But beyond that, as you rightly point out, it raises serious questions about the sonic integrity of the units now being sold. If the original part was promoted as essential to the listening experience, how are we supposed to believe that its quiet removal hasn’t impacted performance?

HiFi Rose owes it to its customers—past, present, and future—to come clean. A full, transparent disclosure of any and all changes made to the internals of each of their current models (RS130, RS520, RS150B, RS250A, etc.) is not just appropriate—it’s overdue.

We’re not asking for perfection. We’re asking for honesty. And as paying customers who’ve supported the brand, we deserve that much.

If you watched the video, the answer is yes, it’s that good. The title is click-bait-style misleading

Replacing op-amps with something different (whether cheaper or not is irrelevant) when a specific model was a major selling point and is being advertised is quite unacceptable and may be fraudulent.

Believing that a more expensive part must sound better because it is “promoted” as such is of course one of those audiophile things that is, well, a matter of blind faith, not anything real.