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 400  

post #5986 of 6388
Code:
I dont think the k550 are bad, but it has tough competition at its price point. At its price, the others just seem to do better to me, if not better than more enjoyable.
Edited by soundeffect - 5/13/13 at 6:37pm
post #5987 of 6388

Still enjoying the Mad Dog 3.2 almost as much as when I first checked in here with my initial impressions.

 

"Almost" being the keyword though. wink.gif I've since been running the Mad Dog on a variety of music and have discovered that it doesn't do quite as well on metal - that is, aggressive-style metal (i.e., power, thrash, or death sub-genres) combined with heavy male vocals. It seems to thin out heavy male vocals a little too much on metal-type music, which has since become very distracting. I've also found that the Mad Dog doesn't do the best job at conveying really fast speedruns either, which is also disappointing. I'm using Helloween, In Flames, Megadeth, & Machine Head as a basis here btw.

 

So while the Mad Dog won't be my first choice for metal, it's not that bad either though. Still does a decent job, but I'll continue to use my Audio-Technica AD2K for metal instead. The AD2K has definite legs up over the Mad Dog in the aspect of "sonic acceleration". very_evil_smiley.gif

 

Oh and it's not exactly that much better for electronica than the AD2K either, unfortunately. I was hoping a closed headphone like the Mad Dog would have closed headphone-type bass, but it doesn't. Definite toss-up between the two as far as electronica & trip-hop goes. I think I'd say I enjoy the genre more on the AD2K as well. Using The Crystal Method and The Prodigy as a basis for that statement.

 

It's pretty much all other genres not electronic or metal where I find the Mad Dog to pull ahead over the AD2K - classical, jazz....acoustic in general.


Edited by Asr - 5/14/13 at 1:09am
post #5988 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asr View Post

Still enjoying the Mad Dog 3.2 almost as much as when I first checked in here with my initial impressions.

 

"Almost" being the keyword though. wink.gif I've since been running the Mad Dog on a variety of music and have discovered that it doesn't do quite as well on metal - that is, aggressive-style metal (i.e., power, thrash, or death sub-genres) combined with heavy male vocals. It seems to thin out heavy male vocals a little too much on metal-type music, which has since become very distracting. I've also found that the Mad Dog doesn't do the best job at conveying really fast speedruns either, which is also disappointing. I'm using Helloween, In Flames, Megadeth, & Machine Head as a basis here btw.

 

So while the Mad Dog won't be my first choice for metal, it's not that bad either though. Still does a decent job, but I'll continue to use my Audio-Technica AD2K for metal instead. The AD2K has definite legs up over the Mad Dog in the aspect of "sonic acceleration". very_evil_smiley.gif

 

Oh and it's not exactly that much better for electronica than the AD2K either, unfortunately. I was hoping a closed headphone like the Mad Dog would have closed headphone-type bass, but it doesn't. Definite toss-up between the two as far as electronica & trip-hop goes. I think I'd say I enjoy the genre more on the AD2K as well. Using The Crystal Method and The Prodigy as a basis for that statement.

 

It's pretty much all other genres not electronic or metal where I find the Mad Dog to pull ahead over the AD2K - classical, jazz....acoustic in general.

 

HE-4 is what the doctor ordered (if you want to stay with orthos, that is).

post #5989 of 6388
HE-4 doesn't have the richest vocals itself though...

It is indeed better for metal and more aggressive rock genres than the MD though.

That is, assuming you have an incredibly powerful amp that can utilize the HE-4 to it's fullest. That thing ain't no joke when it comes to amping requirements. I'd say at LEAST the Lyr.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 5/14/13 at 4:48am
post #5990 of 6388

^^ This. I had the lyr with the he-4 and it seemed to be "just enough." My vintage receiver drove them a little better. All others need not apply.

 

Great hp though. The vocals might be just a touch thin and great ortho bass. 

post #5991 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

HE-4 doesn't have the richest vocals itself though...

It is indeed better for metal and more aggressive rock genres than the MD though.

That is, assuming you have an incredibly powerful amp that can utilize the HE-4 to it's fullest. That thing ain't no joke when it comes to amping requirements. I'd say at LEAST the Lyr.

 

You don't want extra lushness (= distortion) for an already heavily distorted sound (metal/hard-rock). Otherwise it becomes a happy mess!

The HE-4 have clean mids, which is perfect for those genre.

 

IMO, of course.

post #5992 of 6388
I agree with you. It's a fairly well balanced with better speed, more aggressiveness than the MD. It's just ridiculously insensitive and the hardest thing to power this side of the HE-6 and electrostatics...
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 5/14/13 at 5:25am
post #5993 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

I agree with you. It's a fairly well balanced with better speed, more aggressiveness than the MD. It's just ridiculously insensitive and the hardest thing to power this side of the HE-6 and electrostatics...

 

Well, it's already quite good out of a M-Stage. At least that's how I remember it.

It sound small in comparison to the SA-31 (which sounds big by itself anyway), doesn't have the last word in bass slam/kick but I could not hear any harshness and the sound was very pleasant, which is a good start.

 

The HE-4/EF-5 combo for $850 would be a great start and the pairing was reported to be excellent (vs. ??).

 

Anyway, let's go back to the sweet MDs :D

post #5994 of 6388

^^  I find this very interesting,  I really didn't use them for much vocals if any at all when I had them.  Jazz and classical is what I really liked them for.  The HE-4s that is.

post #5995 of 6388

Mad Dogs has its place amongst the planar magnetics because it's closed, and is probably the best value for money. Audeze will someday released a closed version, and who knows when Hifi-man will as well.

 

It will be interesting if Dan can mod a decent semi-open or open version of Mad Dogs.

post #5996 of 6388

As far as planar's go, I've heard mixed reviews regarding which are favorable for metal/heavy rock (including sub-genres) and music with a lot of recorded distortion.  I understand and definitely agree with Clem's reasoning on the HE-4, but I've seen many times that the LCD-2 is good for these genres and a few times that the MD are as well, even favorably to some.  I understand this may be because they are either more forgiving of recording quality, darker in presentation, and/or laid back and that those factors would be personal preferences.  I've not heard any of those cans yet so I can't really say personally, but I'd like to gauge others comparisons who have heard the MD and other planars in these genres.

 

While I enjoy my HE-400 most of the time, I feel like their mid-range presentation leaves a bit to be desired for most metal/rock tracks, so I've been looking into the MD (and a few others) recently to add to my lineup.  I'm not sure if the HE-4 would be too bright though, and I'm afraid of how they might present poorly recorded/mastered tracks.  I certainly would be able to power them properly, so I'll reconsider them as an option -  I'll have to go catch up on the HE-4 thread and hopefully I can demo these one day.  The MD being closed would be icing on the cake...it's not necessary since I'm just listening in my home office, but having a well isolating full-sized can would have it's benefits from time to time.

post #5997 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by modulor View Post

As far as planar's go, I've heard mixed reviews regarding which are favorable for metal/heavy rock (including sub-genres) and music with a lot of recorded distortion.  I understand and definitely agree with Clem's reasoning on the HE-4, but I've seen many times that the LCD-2 is good for these genres and a few times that the MD are as well, even favorably to some.  I understand this may be because they are either more forgiving of recording quality, darker in presentation, and/or laid back and that those factors would be personal preferences.  I've not heard any of those cans yet so I can't really say personally, but I'd like to gauge others comparisons who have heard the MD and other planars in these genres.

 

While I enjoy my HE-400 most of the time, I feel like their mid-range presentation leaves a bit to be desired for most metal/rock tracks, so I've been looking into the MD (and a few others) recently to add to my lineup.  I'm not sure if the HE-4 would be too bright though, and I'm afraid of how they might present poorly recorded/mastered tracks.  I certainly would be able to power them properly, so I'll reconsider them as an option -  I'll have to go catch up on the HE-4 thread and hopefully I can demo these one day.  The MD being closed would be icing on the cake...it's not necessary since I'm just listening in my home office, but having a well isolating full-sized can would have it's benefits from time to time.

For music that calls for forgiving treble, none is better than HE500. LCD2 has less treble quantity, but it is still a "harder" treble. HE400's treble is like the polar opposite of HE500's.

post #5998 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerg View Post

For music that calls for forgiving treble, none is better than HE500. LCD2 has less treble quantity, but it is still a "harder" treble.

+1 Absolute Truth.

post #5999 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by modulor View Post

As far as planar's go, I've heard mixed reviews regarding which are favorable for metal/heavy rock (including sub-genres) and music with a lot of recorded distortion.  I understand and definitely agree with Clem's reasoning on the HE-4, but I've seen many times that the LCD-2 is good for these genres and a few times that the MD are as well, even favorably to some.  I understand this may be because they are either more forgiving of recording quality, darker in presentation, and/or laid back and that those factors would be personal preferences.  I've not heard any of those cans yet so I can't really say personally, but I'd like to gauge others comparisons who have heard the MD and other planars in these genres.

 

 

I'm basically a full-fledged metalhead, and the Mad Dogs are great. Many of my harsher recordings were made very enjoyable by them, and I'd actually describe the treble as neither prominent nor shelved; and even then, I've EQ'd the treble to great success when I wanted more sparkle. Usually I shy away from some albums entirely because I was afraid of harsh cymbals or crashes or ****ty production heard on other systems, but the Mad Dogs excelled in letting me get back into them.

 

 Other than that, their darker presentation worked very well for metal, but particularly for black, doom and sludge recordings: helped emanate the "timbre" of the genres very well. Layers of distorted guitar were rendered very cleanly and transparently with that full, beautiful midrange, while the tight bass keeps up with the fastest double bass with no problem at all, with plenty authority.

post #6000 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaed View Post

Many of my harsher recordings were made very enjoyable by them

+1 to this bit. I've got some really grittily-recorded music (The Taxpayers, Dead Kennedys, Minor Threat, The Livingbrooks), and the MD is never over-harsh with it.

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