R5 MAX HD: An interview with RIG Head of Audio Product and Ora Co-Founder

RIG recently partnered with Ora Graphene Audio to launch the new R5 SPEAR MAX HD gaming headset with GrapheneQ driver technology. The unique GrapheneQ drivers promise to deliver low harmonic distortion, fast driver response, and detailed reproduction across a frequency response range of 20Hz–40kHz.

To discuss the development of this headset, and the innovative driver technology within, we spoke with RIG Head of Audio Product Michael Jessup, and Ora Co-Founder Ari Pinkas.

Michael Jessup, Head of Audio Product RIG

SoundGuys: When someone says a headset is “great for competitive gaming,” what does that mean to you? What core performance features do you think a gaming headset needs to have to perform well?

Michael Jessup: OK, starting off with the big questions! I love it! If a player is using their headset for competition, the ultimate goal is to WIN. With this in mind, the headset is no longer a luxury item; it becomes a piece of sports gear, a tool used to enhance a player’s physical and mental performance in-game.

Then you have to ask, “How can a headset improve a player’s performance?” The answer is to have a solid understanding of how audio can help a player perform better, and then to build a headset that meets or exceeds those requirements. In a gaming scenario, there are two primary senses receiving input, visual and auditory. Visual input only gives a player half of the information they need. Without any audio input to the brain, a first-person shooter becomes a game of whack-a-mole; the player is just waiting to see what pops up on screen and tries to react as quickly as possible. On the other hand, audio allows a player to understand what’s going on around them, so the player can react accordingly. The quicker a headset can deliver this information to the brain, the faster the reaction time of the player, driving real performance gains in a competitive setting.

Two other aspects of a competitive headset are comfort and coupling. At RIG, we’ve focused on both since the brand’s inception. While casual players typically accept higher levels of sound leakage in favor of breathability, competitive players need better isolation and consistent coupling to the ear. Our models are designed for competitive play, balance isolation and comfort in a way that ensures players stay focused without fatigue, audio or physical. Last, comms are the fourth leg of the stool when it comes to a competitive headset. Whether it’s delivering a clear voice through real-time audio chat or into local capture for broadcast, our competitive headsets feature longer mic booms and higher sensitivity diaphragms with integrated pop shields.

SG: Did you have a specific frequency response target in mind for this headset? When you tune the headset, do you focus on gaming performance, music listening, or a balance of both?

MJ: Yes, we had a very specific frequency response target in mind when developing the R-Series, and it’s focused primarily on gaming performance. We realize a lot of players will also use their headset to listen to music, but gaming performance is our primary goal.

Game audio and music are mixed and mastered in fundamentally different ways. Music is typically run through a mastering process in which the song is highly compressed and then having the gain maxed out as high as the delivery platform can reproduce, without clipping. This results in a very small dynamic range when compared to game audio. Game audio is extremely dynamic and interactive. A game audio engine delivers a live digital performance, interacting with a player’s every input, rather than playing back a pre-recorded song track. Game audio engineers go to great lengths to use audio as a tool to create environments for players, immersing them in a particular setting or mood. These audio cues set the tone for the game in tandem with visuals. As a result, game audio typically has a very broad dynamic range. In a game environment, a player can quickly go from a quiet scene to instantly having explosions and gunfire all around them. Most headsets tuned for music performance lack the dynamic range required for this precise game audio playback. This is one of the primary reasons we chose Graphene as the diaphragm material for the R5 MAX HD. It aligns to the performance characteristics of gaming audio extremely well.

SG: Did you use any particular games during the testing process of this headset? What types of sounds in games do you focus on in the testing process?

MJ: Yes, we test on a number of games. Even though we focused our attention on competitive shooters, we also tested the R-Series on a variety of other game genres. Some of the primary games used for testing were Counter-Strike 2, Call of Duty, Warzone, R6 Siege, Valorant, PUBG, Apex Legends, Fortnite, Escape From Tarkov, and, more recently, Arc Raiders.

SG: You’ve worked with many driver technologies. What convinced you that graphene was the right choice for this headset?

MJ: Having worked with Ora in the past, I knew their GrapheneQ drivers were the perfect audio solution for a headset built for competitive gaming. All of the graphene drivers in the market today are being utilized in retrofit applications, meaning the headset design and acoustic cavity were already pre-determined from pre-existing headset models. There have been generational updates to headsets in the market that introduced, or are now moving to, graphene. In these applications, there is a reliance on the DSP to compensate for cavity mismatch, whether it’s too large or too small.

We had the opportunity here at RIG to build a headset from the ground up, knowing what the Ora GrapheneQ drivers are truly capable of. We decided to build a headset with this driver at the heart of its acoustical engine to take full advantage of GrapheneQ’s performance characteristics. I strongly believe this design delivers the best-sounding competitive headset built so far, and it will serve as the basis for the future of R-Series headsets, both wired and wireless.

SG: What types of design decisions go into optimizing a gaming headset for Dolby Atmos playback?

MJ: When you’re designing a headset for use with any HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function), not just Dolby Atmos, there are a few key attributes to take into account, including stereo imaging, distortion, and response curve. Stereo imaging of the headset is the most important. To achieve good stereo imaging, you need good driver matching. The slightest variation from left to right can completely break down an HRTF. The model expects matched output from the left and right speakers. Every HRTF handles directional audio differently, but Dolby Atmos uses a mix of timing, carrier frequencies, and other psycho-acoustic methods to achieve its localization effects. It is advised to never drastically EQ the output of an HRTF model, because any changes in EQ from what the model is expecting will alter the localization effects and start to break down directionality. The first step in preventing any imbalance is ensuring drivers are matched and that left and right drivers are performing as closely as possible. Then we have to worry about distortion. Harmonic distortion typically creeps in and affects the higher frequencies first, then makes its way down the listening spectrum. Distortion in the higher frequencies is going to affect the clarity of the carrier frequencies used by some HRTF’s psycho-acoustic models, again, causing a breakdown of the localization model. Ideally, we want to eliminate harmonic distortion, or at least keep it as low as possible, in order to maintain the best HRTF performance. Finally, we have the overall response curve of the tuned headset. You want this to match the HRTF model’s expected headset output curve as closely as possible. Any variation of headset driver output curve vs. HRTF expected output curve will have its own effects on localization performance. To combat all these issues, we worked directly with Ora to test, bin, and match the GrapheneQ drivers based on each driver’s individual performance. Each R5 MAX HD headset has a matched pair of drivers, ultra-low distortion, and a response curve optimized for Dolby Atmos playback. The result is an incredibly accurate stereo image with enhanced localization performance.

SG: Why did you feel it was important to include a DAC with this headset?

MJ: We wanted to ensure every user has access to the best possible listening experience. Users who already have an external desktop DAC or high-end audio interface may opt for the stereo cable and ¼” adapter. But for the user plugging directly into their computer or laptop, there are a ton of sound cards out there, and there is no way of telling what quality of sound card they’re using. By including the USB-C DAC, we can give competitive gamers a direct path to clean, clear digital audio at the highest resolutions possible, and we don’t need to worry about other devices or software drivers getting in the way. The USB-C DAC also unlocks Dolby Atmos. As long as the DAC is plugged into the PC, the user has access to object-based 3D headphone rendering. The high-resolution output of the DAC also allows users to listen to audio files at their native resolution and bitrate, which they may not have been able to hear previously due to inadequate hardware. Again, we want users to have the best listening experience possible, so the easiest solution is to include a DAC that we know meets the specifications to drive the headset accordingly.

SG: Do you have plans for an ecosystem of SNAP+LOCK supported products? Will future accessories be cosmetic, or do you see the opportunity for performance enhancements and customization?

MJ: Yes, we have plans for a full ecosystem of SNAP+LOCK accessories. While some future accessories will be cosmetic, we are also developing functional additions. For example, we are in development of an esports-specific mod kit that will have larger, insulated Mod-Plates for extra passive noise isolation, as well as a tournament-grade microphone with improved noise rejection and cable connections for live events. The SNAP+LOCK system allows us to not only customize the look and feel of the headset but alter it’s functionality, and performance. There’s lots of cool things in development for the SNAP+LOCK system. We’re just getting started.

SG: Over the course of your career, how have you seen competitive gaming audio change?

MJ: I would argue that live esports events were the first time any type of consideration was given to what we now call “competitive gaming audio.” The focus wasn’t even on in-game audio or a player’s performance. It was about mitigating the issues that came with live gaming events in auditoriums with large crowds. Players couldn’t even hear themselves talking to their teammates with 5 open microphones on stage, thousands of screaming fans, and announcers all talking at the same time. So, the early days of competitive audio were really focused on noise isolation and team communication. Some tournaments even placed the players in sound isolation booths on stage. Events back then used headsets designed for aviation due to their ability to block out noise and focus on communication. This is what spawned headsets like the RIG Commander, which was the very first esports headset for use on stage. It was a headset designed for use on naval carrier decks, developed by Plantronics’ Specials Division, and converted for gaming by the RIG team. Headsets like the ASTRO A40 + MixAmp combo addressed the need for team chat in console esports because programs like TeamSpeak weren’t available on console. The MixAmp allowed players to connect to one another in an analog chain, providing real-time communication on consoles.

This was the standard for live gaming events for quite some time. The headsets never really focused on “sounding good”; it was more about “what works”. Competitive gaming audio took its first evolutionary step as streaming culture began to emerge. Various streamers would get together and host online tournaments and participate in platform-sponsored competitions. We started to see ranked game modes appearing in popular competitive shooters. This converted esports into more of a virtual event, making it much more of an individualized experience. When you remove the crowd noise and communication issues, suddenly those competitive built headsets didn’t sound that fantastic, and didn’t really help anyone play better at home. As a result, we saw gamers gravitate towards specific headsets, largely due to player performance.

The Hyper X Cloud stands out as one of the most notable examples. The Counter-Strike community, gravitated to the Cloud headset for its response curve and audio performance when it came to localization. Whether the Cloud headset was originally designed for competitive shooters is up for debate. But the community definitely leaned into it, and so did Hyper X. Even today, the Cloud III is widely seen as a top “competitive shooter” headset. I’d argue this community-driven focus on performance helped define the entire category of “FPS-tuned” or “competitive” audio. Objectively, the original Cloud isn’t what most would call a “great sounding” headset—it’s quite mid-range heavy. But that tuning improved localization and player awareness. Players prioritized performance over what sounded more balanced or immersive. That distinction, what works best” vs. “what sounds best,”—drove the rise of competitive gaming audio. From there, more brands entered the space, building on this idea with specialized tunings and feature. That’s why I see it as a distinct category: performance-led audio design. It’s highly effective, but also an acquired taste and not for everyone.

Then we started to see more headsets enter the market trying to expand on this “competitive audio” category with various upgrades and tunings across the board. Most brands categorized their headset accordingly because of how different the tuning is for a competitive shooter headset versus a general gaming headset. It’s an acquired taste, and it’s not for everyone. Objectively, the original Cloud isn’t what most would call a “great sounding” headset—it’s quite mid-range heavy. But that tuning improved localization and player awareness. Players prioritized performance over what sounded more balanced or immersive.

Today, the competitive gaming audio category has expanded broadly, and almost every competitive game, regardless of genre, has a ranked mode. We are now starting to see demand shift from “what works best” to also include “it should also sound good”. With so many variations of competitive-style games, the response curve needs to be more broadly balanced yet finely tuned, so it can help a player perform better, while sounding good across a variety of competitive titles. These demands from competitive players have pushed the industry to search for new materials, such as graphene, for audio applications. The performance characteristics of graphene align well with the needs of game audio reproduction and allow us to precisely tune a response curve that is broad enough to suit a wide variety of games.

Looking ahead, I see the future of competitive game audio focusing on wireless audio performance as the next proving ground for competitive headset developers.

SG: What trends in gaming audio excite you right now? Where do you see the future of the industry going?

MJ: The trend that excites me the most right now is players pushing for higher quality audio reproduction. Over the last 20 years, the industry has packed just about every feature and marketing bullet you can think of into a gaming headset. Somewhere along the way, the industry lost its focus and overall audio quality became what feels like an afterthought.

But when you look at the headsets influencers and gaming content creators are using, they are starting to lean into audiophile-grade headphones. This is driving the user base to upgrade their gear, using expensive, high-quality desktop DACs as their primary audio output devices. Headset microphones are being replaced with $400+ XLR microphones, even among those who don’t stream or create content. High-bandwidth microphones have allowed for apps like Discord to deliver high-quality, low-latency codecs for voice communication across multiple platforms.

Players are voting with their wallets and purchasing higher-end audiophile gear, forcing headset developers to focus on increasing overall audio quality and performance. I see the industry trending towards higher quality headsets overall, and not just acoustic performance, but digital performance as well. I also see wireless latency heavily reduced, and a push for higher-quality codecs to deliver uncompressed audio at higher resolutions.

The result is a better overall product for the players, and that’s what matters most. Once higher-performance headset hardware becomes more widespread in the market, I hope to see game developers follow suit and increase the audio quality and output resolution of games beyond the standard 16 Bit/48 kHz DVD-quality output we’ve been conditioned to accept.

Having worked very closely with game audio developers during my time at Dolby, I know first-hand the roadblocks they face when fighting for both budget and processor resources. But gaming hardware is constantly improving, getting faster and more powerful with every generation. Developers have now embraced object-based audio, which has drastically improved audio localization for players, so now their focus will be delivering a higher quality listening experience. Higher audio resolutions and better codecs in game audio will bring us an even broader dynamic range and much more detailed soundscapes to immerse ourselves in when playing. Things are trending in the right direction.

Ari Pinkas, Ora Co-Founder

SoundGuys: What are the biggest advantages of graphene compared to traditional driver technology?

Ari Pinkas: Graphene has an exceptional stiffness-to-weight ratio, which is one of the most important properties for a loudspeaker diaphragm. Ideally, a diaphragm should be very stiff so it moves like a perfect piston, but also extremely light so it can accelerate and stop quickly. Graphene enables both simultaneously. In addition, graphene structures can provide excellent internal damping, which helps suppress unwanted resonances and breakup modes that typically appear at higher frequencies. For end users, this combination tends to translate into cleaner sound, better detail, and more stable imaging. Because the diaphragm is lighter, it also requires less energy to move, which can improve efficiency or enable higher acoustic output from the same system.

SG: When testing drivers, do you focus more on objective measurements or listener impressions?

AP: Objective measurements are our starting point because they allow us to understand exactly how the driver behaves mechanically and acoustically. Metrics such as frequency response, distortion, impulse response, and resonance behavior tell us whether the diaphragm is performing as intended.

At the same time, the goal of all of this engineering is ultimately the listening experience. Once the measurements confirm improvements, listening sessions help verify how those improvements translate to perceived sound quality—things like clarity, spatial definition, and overall listening comfort.

SG: Have you conducted blind listening tests correlating distortion improvements with perceived clarity or localisability?

AP: Ora itself has not conducted large-scale blind listening studies internally, but one of our customers has conducted multiple blind tests comparing graphene-based drivers with conventional drivers. One interesting example was in first-person shooter gaming audio. Test participants consistently reported a stronger sense of spatial awareness and improved detail retrieval. In practical terms, that translated into players being better able to identify the direction and distance of in-game sounds such as footsteps or movement. So while the engineering improvements show up in measurements like lower distortion and more controlled resonances, the perceived benefit was improved spatial imaging and situational awareness.

SG: Do you think THD is still the best way of measuring distortion, or are you looking at other ways to quantify driver performance?

AP: THD remains a useful and widely understood metric, but it doesn’t capture the full picture of how a driver behaves. We also pay close attention to higher-order harmonic content, intermodulation distortion, and the way the diaphragm behaves dynamically under real signals. These aspects can be very important for perceived clarity and spatial accuracy. In many cases, damping and resonance control also play a large role. A diaphragm that suppresses unwanted resonances can maintain cleaner output even when the THD numbers alone don’t fully describe the improvement.

SG: What was the biggest challenge scaling GrapheneQ from lab to production?

AP: One of the biggest challenges was the classic “chicken-and-egg” problem of new component technologies. To prove large-scale manufacturing, you typically need real customer programs and production builds. But customers understandably want confidence that the technology can scale before committing to those builds. So the process involves working closely with partners to demonstrate manufacturability, reliability, and repeatability while gradually increasing production volumes. The focus for us was ensuring GrapheneQ could integrate into existing driver manufacturing processes so that scaling becomes practical once products move into production.

SG: How cost-prohibitive is graphene compared to conventional diaphragm materials?

AP: We’re already seeing graphene become increasingly viable for mass products. A big part of our work at Ora is developing manufacturing approaches that make graphene practical at scale. We are actively working on multiple production methods that allow the technology to be adopted across different product tiers, not just premium devices. Our goal is essentially “graphene for every tier.” As manufacturing improves and volumes increase, costs continue to come down while performance keeps improving. The objective is to reach a point where using graphene becomes the obvious choice for driver designers rather than something limited to higher-end products.

SG: How do you see graphene driver technology evolving in the future?

AP: GrapheneQ is opening the door to entirely new approaches in loudspeaker design. We’re starting with full-range GrapheneQ drivers that deliver enough high-frequency performance to remove the need for separate tweeters—simplifying design while cutting cost and components. At the same time, we’re exploring how precise tailoring of the material structure can take active noise cancellation to new heights, with speed, control, and ultra-low mass unlocking performance that wasn’t previously possible.

Thanks again to the RIG and Ora teams for sharing detailed insight into the advancement of headset technology!