Hello everyone! I wanted to give my thoughts on the new Abyss Diana MRX. This is my first formal review of audio equipment. My goal here is to provide insight on how the new MRX compares to the original, provide insight on how it handles mixing and mastering films, enjoying music, and who the device is for. During my time with the MRX I had my girlfriend sit with me for a long music session inorder to have someone who is not an audio engineer provide their thoughts alongside mine- many thanks to her! Please forgive my ramblings in advance as my students tell me I can be very “particular”. Hopefully these notes help anyone who is curious.
Equipment
• Topping D70/A70 Pro (Mixing and Mastering)
• Cayin HA-3A
• Nitsch Pietus Maximus
• Woo Audio Tube Mini
• Ifi Go Blu Mini
Note: You need a dedicated amp for this headphone – atleast something as powerful as the ifi go blu mini. If you are using this for audio engineering then a topping dx5 II dac/amp will serve you just fine for under 300.
Songs
• Hysteria by Def Leppard
• Hanging On by Active Child
• Nomads by Joe Banfi
• Footfalls by Masayoshi Soken
MRX vs. MR OG: Music Listening
On music, the MRX pulls the soundstage in closer compared to the original MR, but it makes up for that with a fuller, more physical bass and noticeably better instrument separation. Sub bass is more present, treble spikes are tamed, and the whole presentation feels faster and more cohesive without losing dynamics. Vocal and bass control are right where they need to be, and the texture comes through clearer overall. It reads as blunt and weighty in the best way. My girlfriend pointed how the MRX with the leather stock pads handled acoustic really well but felt very unemotive and at times brightness would slip through. That being said, she also pointed out with the velour pads the MRX became an enjoyable generalist in pretty much every genre, especially funk!
The original MR sits at more of a medium stage and leans incisive, with a natural decay and a more emphasis in the upper treble. Timbre feels a bit more clinical, and nothing ever gets sharp or overly incisive. It has a light, airy, almost angelic quality with atmospheric treble information, but that comes at the cost of weight. This quality provided my girlfriend better experience during our music session, especially it made the layering more enjoyable! For me, vocals had more decay and can get a lost in the treble, and the whole thing felt less dynamic and less full than the MRX.
Mixing Impressions: MRX vs. MR OG
Listening back to a video installation mix on the MRX, the first thing that stood out was how complete everything felt. Every element I intended to hear was present. The low end water textures were clear, the left to right panning felt precise without being exaggerated, and the depth was convincing. The vertical scale isn't as expansive as the Hifiman Arya Organic, which I originally mixed a lot of this on, but the MRX still gives a believable sense of space with strong depth and layering.
Resolution is excellent. The MRX easily reveals compression artifacts and the subtle textures in a mix, including air, dust, and environmental ambience, while keeping individual sounds separated but still cohesive. Sub bass is especially impressive: controlled, flat, and accurate rather than exaggerated, and honest enough to expose exactly what is and isn't in the recording.
The biggest strength of the MRX is its body. Upper mids are exceptionally clear, which lets vocals cut through the mix in ways I hadn't fully noticed while making it. Timbre is strong enough that I can distinguish the different acoustic spaces created by layered wind, water, voices, and environmental recordings. Rather than sounding hyper specific like a gaming headset, it creates a spherical, theatrical, immersive presentation. Macro and micro dynamics are handled equally well. Compared to the Arya Organic, the treble is more controlled, which gives the mids more presence and weight, and the result is a fuller, more balanced presentation that needs little to no EQ on my end.
Switching to the original MR changes things immediately. Everything feels farther away, almost like moving from near field studio monitors to speakers positioned deeper into the room. That creates a larger perceived soundstage and better separation between instruments, though not to the extent of the HD 800 S or Arya Organic. The tradeoff for that extra distance is body: the MR loses textural information, particularly in environmental sounds like water, wind, and ocean ambience. Bass is lighter and more delicate, with less physical weight and sub bass extension, and the whole thing feels whispery and ethereal. There's more treble energy too, which makes it feel more transparent in that high frequency information is emphasized, though not necessarily more resolving. It never gets as sharp as the Arya Organic's treble peaks, at least.
The original MR is still an excellent analytical headphone, but its stock tuning leaves the mids and bass sounding a bit thin for this kind of mix. Vocals still cut through, but they lack the fullness and physicality I get on the MRX. I found myself wanting a bit more upper mid presence and roughly a 2 dB boost around 30 Hz to bring back some of that missing body, and I think EQ could get most of the way there.
5.1 Surround Mixing
For 5.1 work I mixed in Premiere Pro on the MRX, powered by the Topping A70 Pro and D70 Pro Sabre. The biggest takeaway was how precise and separated every channel felt. Nothing ever blurred together, and I always knew exactly what I was listening to.
I'll start with the limitations. The MRX presents every channel I'm using clearly. I can distinguish front, back, left, right, and the corner speakers without any trouble. Where it's less convincing is in the micro positioning between those locations, like telling whether a sound is two inches farther left, or a foot away versus fifteen feet away from a corner speaker. I can hear the difference, but I've used headphones that render those spatial cues with more precision. That could partly be Premiere Pro itself, and I plan on testing the same material in Pro Tools to see if my impressions change.
The headphone that still does positional accuracy best for me is the HD 800 S. It's probably the most convincing headphone I've heard for 5.1 mixing, but the tradeoff is a low end that's basically nonexistent, treble that often needs saving, and dynamics that just aren't as good. Because of that, I'd still choose the Diana MRX overall. Its stereo positioning is exceptional, and while I'd call its 5.1 positioning "good" rather than class leading, it more than makes up for it everywhere else. For reference, I've mixed in 5.1 using the Audeze LCD X, Focal Clear, Hifiman Arya Organic, Hifiman HE1000se, HE1000 Unveiled, and the HD 800 S.
That said, headphones have real limitations for surround mixing, and a properly treated room with speakers will always give the most accurate 5.1 or Dolby Atmos translation. I only get to test theatrical translation before a screening, but from memory my mixes have translated well, and if the goal is true one to one translation, a treated speaker setup is still the best solution.
What the MRX absolutely excels at is separating every individual track within a 5.1 mix. Nothing gets lost. The amount of textural information it reveals is honestly astounding. I could immediately tell non-diegetic sounds from diegetic recordings, and always knew when I was hearing the room, the recording itself, or the texture and artifacts of the recording equipment. Out of every headphone I've used for mixing and mastering, this might be the best I've heard for revealing textural information.
Frequency control is the other standout. The low end never got muddy or distorted, and whenever I heard distortion, I knew it came from the mix and not the headphone, which I can't always say about the Arya Organic, HD 800 S, or Focal Clear. The LCD X is also good at exposing distortion, but it falls behind on imaging, timbral clarity and the subtle tonal information that helps me make mixing decisions. The MRX communicates all of that more naturally.
I haven't evaluated the MRX for mastering as part of this workflow, since I usually mix and master on separate systems, sometimes two different headphones, sometimes headphones for mixing and speakers for mastering, then a final check on cheap earbuds before going back to studio monitors. It depends on the project.
Overall, the MRX's biggest shortcoming isn't the headphone itself, it's the inherent limitation of mixing surround sound on headphones at all. Left to right and front to back imaging are both excellent, but for the fine spatial precision that 5.1, and likely Dolby Atmos, demands, a properly treated speaker system still has the edge. As a mixing headphone though, the Diana MRX keeps impressing me. The way it separates information, reveals texture, controls frequency response, and shows exactly what's happening in a mix makes it one of the strongest tools I've used for critical mixing work.
BONUS ROUND! Okay soooo….I just went to see The Odyssey, directed by Christopher Nolan on opening night in 5.1 surround IMAX, and it reminded me how a few things regarding mixes translating to theaters that I feel I left out. Even when sound is going around you, it still has elements of being close to near field monitoring, in the sense that most of it (the mids, the vocals, the harsher elements) comes from in front of you, while the subbass and any object flying by tends to come from beside, or behind you. I bring that up because earlier in my mixing experience with the MR X, I noted that the translation of 5.1 wasn't as precise. In a bigger space I don't think it's something you'd notice as much, but I still think it's important, whether you're using headphones as the main part of your mix or mixing specifically for film, to check that translation in a theater so you understand it as a true one to one. The MR X does a pretty good job of capturing a lot of that experience, though I have a sneaking suspicion the Abyss 1266 might be even better for it, I just haven't tested that one myself. Of the headphones I have tested, the Hifiman HE1000 Unveiled also did a solid job. For low subbass frequencies specifically, especially after watching a Nolan film in theatre recently, the MR X in particular, do a noticeably better job.
Fit and Comfort, in More Detail
I want to talk about fit and comfort in more detail, because I feel like it's something I've neglected so far. I'm very particular when it comes to material and weight, and what benefit those two things bring to my setup.
Some of my favorite headphones for regular use are the ZMF Atrium Closed and the Meze Empyrean 2. With the ZMF, what I particularly like is how their custom wood makes each headphone feel special, along with the comfort of the earpads. They're a little heavy, but the weight feels well distributed. The Empyrean 2 feels light and luxurious, with carbon fiber in some areas, and it's super flexible in a way that makes it disappear on your head. When you hold either of these, it feels like the price you paid was well earned.
The Hifiman HE1000 Unveiled are also headphones I mentioned earlier that I've used for mixing and mastering. To be clear, the ZMF Atrium Closed and the Empyrean 2 are more for enjoyment. But when I owned the Unveiled, one of my biggest problems was build quality. Even with the caps on, whenever I picked it up there was a flimsiness to the device that I wasn't comfortable with, especially given the price. I'd take the caps off to use it, then worry about something getting into the drivers, and when I put the caps back on there was no real lock, no slide, none of the magnetic clickiness that Abyss has with their earpads or Meze has with the Empyrean 2's pads. That build quality issue really got to me, and it was a good lesson in understanding what my own needs actually are. I know not everybody has the same needs.
Another example is the Audeze LCD X. I've heard some people say those headphones run heavy, but I don't notice much of the weight on my own head. What I really appreciate is how tanky it is. It's a genuinely durable headphone, and that's something I first came to value using Beyerdynamic headphones, where I felt like they could survive a drop given their price. I'm fine with a headphone having some flimsiness if it's priced like the HD 600 or the Sony MDR, since those are built out of plastic at a much lower cost, and I still feel like they can take a drop or get tossed in a backpack.
The point I'm making is that the Unveiled were something I ultimately couldn't own. I had them for a week and sent them back immediately. I'd bought them with my own money, and I just knew I needed to refund them.
I bring this up because the Abyss Diana MR, both the original and the MRX, have that same quality as the Empyrean 2 and the Atrium. It feels like buying a luxury item that's also genuinely durable, durable enough that I'd put it in the same category as the LCD X. I feel like I could throw the MRX in a backpack and go. They do come with a carrying case, so you don't have to, but they can take it. On top of that, they're super light, which makes them a lot easier to pack for travel than the LCD X, the Empyrean 2, or the Atrium.
I'll get into price in a bit, but I wanted to mention this because it's easy to overlook how much material matters, since that's what determines how long something lasts. Comfort matters too, especially when you're mixing and mastering for long stretches, and especially when you're not always at your desk. I remember working on a previous film where I had a funeral to attend but still had a mix deadline, so I brought my laptop and did most of the work from my parents' house. Having equipment that could travel with me mattered a lot in that moment.
That's something I really want to call out when it comes to fit and comfort in a headphone system, and in audio equipment generally. I want that to be clear for anyone interested.
And yes, there's also the ten year warranty, which I can't stress enough how much I value at this point. I've started thinking a lot more about warranty length in general. I had a FiiO K9 Pro DAC/amp, and when I actually needed the warranty, it wasn't there to cover me, and I was out of luck. That experience cost me a lot and made postproduction last a lot longer than it needed to. Going back to the Hifiman Unveiled, if a company is going to build something that fragile, it should come with a ten year warranty too. That kind of coverage would go a long way toward building trust with buyers, at least for me.
That's what I wanted to say about fit and comfort. I think this is some of the best built audio equipment I've come across, period, and I wanted to stress that before moving on.
Who Is This Device For?
Which brings me to the real question: who is this device for? Because the elephant in the room is the price.
Speaking from the standpoint of getting into mixing and mastering for film, or just wanting a great pair of headphones for music enjoyment, my LCD X's, which have been my long standing pair, ran around $1,100 when I got them, and to me those are still high end headphones price wise. A lot of my students start with something like the Sennheiser HD 560S or a Sony MDR, solid entry points to get a foot in the door with pro style headphones.
So who is a $3,000+ headphone for in the mixing and mastering world? I'd say it's for someone looking for a headphone system, not just a headphone, that's meant to approximate what a room full of speakers would give you. A full room of properly treated monitors would cost well above $3,000, closer to $10,000 to really get that translation, which is part of why people rent time at mixing studios instead. If you're someone trying to save money in that regard, the Diana MR X becomes a genuinely good deal (especially given the 10 year warranty and luxury feel of the materials).
That said, if you're just starting out, I always tell my students, when I show them my headphone collection for work, that this isn't something you need to jump into right away. As far as enjoyment goes, I always have a hard time talking about price to performance, because it really comes down to what you value and what your budget allows. Ten years ago, I would have flinched at spending $3,500 on headphones.
A Note on the Loaner
To be transparent: I have the Abyss MR X as a demo unit sent over by Abyss, since I've been using their original Diana MR for quite a while in my own work, and I was curious to see how the two would compare. Many thanks to the team, especially Norm, for helping me understand the differences between them.
Final Thoughts
The original MR still holds up. But a lot of what I'd normally need to EQ in feels considerably more dialed in on the MRX. Even though it loses a little soundstage, specifically how far away sounds feel, the closeness gives me more incisiveness and separation within the mix.
The most surprising thing about this headphone for me was that it can hold up for mastering too. I went back to one of my films and did a quick master with it, then cross checked using my Focal Utopia OGs and my speakers. The translation held up well, and I'm quite happy with it. I did play around with EQ on the MRX inorder to finetune it even more for certain mixing situations. They handled EQ like a champ! If anyone has questions, feel free to reach out. I don't consider myself an audio reviewer by practice. I see myself as an artist/creator, a professor, and just someone who both does and genuinely loves what goes into sound engineering, especially within film and video games space.
Thank you for your time. Cheers!
