or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › "Mad Dog" by MrSpeakers, modified Fostex T50RP review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Mad Dog" by MrSpeakers, modified Fostex T50RP review - Page 365  

post #5461 of 6388

I owned all at one time:

 

Mad Dogs (Dog Pads)

Paradox

Thunderpants

BMFs

 

For me the most enjoyable pair was the Mad Dogs (Dog Pads).  The most technical pairs was the Paradox and the BMFs.  I guess.  However, I reached for the Mad Dogs the most.

post #5462 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

Quote:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Originally Posted by aamefford View Post
 

 

 

Yeah, probably bold, and I certainly have not heard an exhaustive list, but I have heard a few - 

 

 

Owned:

 

Headhones:

Mad Dogs $300

Beyerdynamic DT 770 600 ohm $250 to $300?
Beyerdynamic DT 1350 $300
HD25-1 II $250?

Denon AH-D7000  $999
Denon AH-D5000 $500?
Ultrasone HFI 780 $250 - $300?
Audio Technica ESW10jpn $550 - $650

Ultrasone Proline 750 $275-ish

 

IEM's

1964 ears Quads - $550

Fischer DBA-02 $299

Etymotic ER4P/S $200 - $250

Westone 3 $300+

UE Triple.fi10 $200, or $99 on sale around black Friday

Westone UM3X $300

Shure SE530 $350

 

Heard the JVC DX1000 at a meet, the AT ES10 at a meet, The Denon D2000 at a meet, a few others that I forget, and of course anything that you can try at Best Buy - not very good in most cases, but on the other hand, pretty pricy for what you get...

 

Of the list above, the D7000's are very, very good.  Better than the MD's at many things, but the bass is boosted a bit, and the treble is a bit sparkly, and they are definitely "V" shaped and a bit colored.  They are also more refined, less grainy, very comfortable and beautiful.  All in all, a fair headphone to compare to the MD's, at 3 times the price (ok, 2x+ the price when I bought them at a good deal).

 

The ESW10jpn is as good as everyone who has heard them says they are, and more beautiful than pictures do justice.  They are small, sound stage is small, and the build quality does not justify the price they commanded.  I like the Mad Dogs better, but the AT's do give them a run for their money in the midrange.

 

The rest are all easily bested by the Mad Dogs, at least in my opinion.

 

 

 

Although I would be the first to agree that the Mad Dogs are very good headphones, especially for the price, but there are a few other closed headphones sub $1000 that I prefer over them. The D7000, although not as balanced is definitely more refined, and has a larger soundstage then the Mad Dogs. I would also say that arguably the best closed headphone sub $1000 is the TH-600. I have only heard it once for about an hour, but it is quite similar to the TH-900 and thus being very hard to beat. Other headphones that come to mind that I find to be better than the Mad Dogs include the JVC DX1000, Ultrasone Signature DJ, and Ultrasone Signature Pro. All of these headphones I consider better than the Mad Dogs overall. Obviously this is all in my opinion, and YMMV. Don't get me wrong, I love my Mad Dogs, and what they bring to the table. Especially for the price, they are hard to beat and I can't think of a better closed headphone for $300, maybe not even $600, but they do fall short to those mentioned above. 

 

Basically, for the asking price, even double the asking price the Mad Dogs are sensational maybe the best in the category. But taking on some of the heavier hitters out there in the sub $1000 range is asking a lot and ultimately I feel they do fall short.


Edit: removed the comparsion of the ATH3000ANV since the resell values have skyrocketed making them more than a thousand now. 


I guess I'll have to agree with all but the JVC DX1000 - it just did not do it for me - caveat of "meet conditions".  I loved the D7000 a lot, but with the mad dogs, I don't miss it so much.  The D7000 is the better headphone, though not the more neutral of the two.  To my ears, the D7000 is "V" shaped and colored more than the MD's.  It is also more refined, less grainy.  I question the sound stage size comparison as larger than the MD's, but aural memory is kind of fleeting so I won't argue the point.  I was less thrilled with the D7000's replacement (D7100? I forget).  Forgot I'd heard that one.  I have no experience with the Ultrasone Signature DJ or PRO, so no comment there.

 

Ahhh, the TH900 - missed hearing that at the SF Bay meet.  Been hearing about it ever since!  Would love to hear it and the TH600.

post #5463 of 6388
There is a lot of different opinions here, for me I did feel the lcd 2.2 to be close to Mad Dog, the Mad Dog had better value for me. Comfort is a big thing here, the lcd 2 with vegan and without is not very good for a big head... But yeah they sound better, but not that much..

As for d7000 they where fun but lacked mids, I love headphones with neutral or empathised mids. So Mad Dog wins for me over d7000. Said no to a pair in trade for my work car worth 650usd as I did not feel the value was right.

All of us feel different and values different sounding headphones.
Edited by Leonarfd - 4/29/13 at 2:15pm
post #5464 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonarfd View Post

There is a lot of different opinions here, for me I did feel the lcd 2.2 to be close to Mad Dog, the Mad Dog had better value for me. Comfort is a big thing here, the lcd 2 with vegan and without is not very good for a big head... But yeah they sound better, but not that much..

As for d7000 they where fun but lacked mids, I love headphones with neutral or empathised mids. So Mad Dog wins for me over d7000. Said no to a pair in trade for my work car worth 650usd as I did not feel the value was right.

All of us feel different and values different sounding headphones.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aamefford View Post


I guess I'll have to agree with all but the JVC DX1000 - it just did not do it for me - caveat of "meet conditions".  I loved the D7000 a lot, but with the mad dogs, I don't miss it so much.  The D7000 is the better headphone, though not the more neutral of the two.  To my ears, the D7000 is "V" shaped and colored more than the MD's.  It is also more refined, less grainy.  I question the sound stage size comparison as larger than the MD's, but aural memory is kind of fleeting so I won't argue the point.  I was less thrilled with the D7000's replacement (D7100? I forget).  Forgot I'd heard that one.  I have no experience with the Ultrasone Signature DJ or PRO, so no comment there.

 

Ahhh, the TH900 - missed hearing that at the SF Bay meet.  Been hearing about it ever since!  Would love to hear it and the TH600.

 

I agree that the Mad Dogs are a good value. I said that in my original post. But value, aside... sonically the LCD-2 are better than the Mad Dogs. They aren't slightly better but significantly better,  relative to audio obv. I won't deny that the Mad Dogs share some similarities to the LCD-2 sonically, but I would question anyone who says the LCD-2 is just a bit better than the Mad Dogs. What were you driving them with? Source? Recording Quality? Lots of questions come to mind, many of which matter quite a bit to what we hear. I also don't understand why some think that emphasized parts of the frequency ultimately means bad? Both of the quoted posts points to the "V" shaped and colored nature as being something "bad" and not just different. If that were the case, then the Mad Dogs are also "bad", because they aren't necessarily neutral or flat. Again, although I agree that comfort is definitely one of the Mad Dogs strengths, they aren't more comfortable then the Denons, Fostex, or JVC for me. But comfort shouldn't determine whether a headphone is better than another... ever.


Edited by Greed - 4/29/13 at 3:11pm
post #5465 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

 

 

 

I agree that the Mad Dogs are a good value. I said that in my original post. But value, aside... sonically the LCD-2 are better than the Mad Dogs. They aren't slightly better but significantly better,  relative to audio obv. I won't deny that the Mad Dogs share some similarities to the LCD-2 sonically, but I would question anyone who says the LCD-2 is just a bit better than the Mad Dogs. What were you driving them with? Source? Recording Quality? Lots of questions come to mind, many of which matter quite a bit to what we hear. I also don't understand why some think that emphasized parts of the frequency ultimately means bad? Both of the quoted posts points to the "V" shaped and colored nature as being something bad and not just different. If that were the case, then the Mad Dogs are also bad, because they aren't necessarily neutral or flat. Again, although I agree that comfort is definitely one of the Mad Dogs strengths, they aren't more comfortable then the Denons, Fostex, or JVC for me. 

Na, they're slightly better than the Mad dogs. In the same way the LCD-3 is slightly better than the LCD-2.

post #5466 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post

Na, they're slightly better than the Mad dogs. In the same way the LCD-3 is slightly better than the LCD-2.

 

Please elaborate. 

post #5467 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

 

Please elaborate. 

Considering they all sound similar to begin with (LCD-3 less so), calling either significantly better

than the other is misleading. IMO.

Incremental improvements do make quite a difference however over the long haul. 

 

While I'd say the LCD-2 is 'better' than the MD technically, I still prefer the MD. So it's preference dependent.

post #5468 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post

Considering they all sound similar to begin with (LCD-3 less so), calling either significantly better

than the other is misleading. IMO.

Incremental improvements do make quite a difference however over the long haul. 

 

While I'd say the LCD-2 is 'better' than the MD technically, I still prefer the MD. So it's preference dependent.

 

I would use significantly better, because technically the headphone is much better. As I said, tonality is similar but not the same. Resolution, detail, imaging, soundstage, transients, etc all better. I would call that significant, but everyone has their own opinion so, I respect yours. I own both the MD's and LCD-3, and used to own the LCD-2, love both.. but saying they are in the same ballpark is misleading IMO.

post #5469 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

 

I would use significantly better, because technically the headphone is much better. As I said, tonality is similar but not the same. Resolution, detail, imaging, soundstage, transients, etc all better. I would call that significant, but everyone has their own opinion so, I respect yours. I own both the MD's and LCD-3, and used to own the LCD-2, love both.. but saying they are in the same ballpark is misleading IMO.

We indeed disagree, shocker! tongue.gif

post #5470 of 6388
"Let's agree to disagree" as would say Boris the Animal.
post #5471 of 6388

No Clem.  Lets disagree to disagree - It's more fun...biggrin.gif

post #5472 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

No Clem.  Lets disagree to disagree - It's more fun...biggrin.gif

LOL

post #5473 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

 

 

 

I agree that the Mad Dogs are a good value. I said that in my original post. But value, aside... sonically the LCD-2 are better than the Mad Dogs. They aren't slightly better but significantly better,  relative to audio obv. I won't deny that the Mad Dogs share some similarities to the LCD-2 sonically, but I would question anyone who says the LCD-2 is just a bit better than the Mad Dogs. What were you driving them with? Source? Recording Quality? Lots of questions come to mind, many of which matter quite a bit to what we hear. I also don't understand why some think that emphasized parts of the frequency ultimately means bad? Both of the quoted posts points to the "V" shaped and colored nature as being something "bad" and not just different. If that were the case, then the Mad Dogs are also "bad", because they aren't necessarily neutral or flat. Again, although I agree that comfort is definitely one of the Mad Dogs strengths, they aren't more comfortable then the Denons, Fostex, or JVC for me. But comfort shouldn't determine whether a headphone is better than another... ever.

First let me just say that comfort in my book is as important as sound. If a headphone is uncomfortable, does it really matter how good it sounds? Not to me. I don't know about everyone else, but I often listen to hp's for an hour and often longer. If the comfort is not there, the experience is ruined. I could only wear the lcd2 for about 45 minutes before I was wanting to take it off. That's a deal breaker for me. It just has too much clamp and weight for long term comfort. 

 

I'm not saying that the MD is the equivalent of the lcd2, but the fact that it's in the same neighborhood is impressive considering the price. Because the audience who can afford a thousand dollar hp is limited, I love the fact that the MD is able to bring a similar sound to the lcd at a price many more of us are able to afford. 

post #5474 of 6388

The problem as I see it is peoples choice of words "for lack of better words"  Significant, Major, Trounce, Kills, - all these are hyperbole type of words.  Heck I'm guilty of using some of them myself.  

 

IMO.  They're really just subtle, marginal differences in headphones (in most cases).  Put most people to a blind listening test and just see how these big differences become not so big anymore.

post #5475 of 6388

I think that the MD's are only superficially like the LCD's - but as you spend more time with both the headphones you realise that they're not very similar at all.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › "Mad Dog" by MrSpeakers, modified Fostex T50RP review