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 404  

post #6046 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzerdave View Post

 

I don't know about you, but I also find the LCD-2 and LCD-3 a bit congested and muffled when compared to the HD800.  Not to say that it's to the same degree whatsoever, but the HD800 makes a lot of headphones look bad (especially when talking about congestion).

 

No argument here, but in relation to the comment I quoted, it wouldn't be realistic for me to recommend the 3.2 revision in comparison to the HD800. Yes, the comparison is unfair but he asked, so I answered. Only closed headphone that even comes close to the open and airy presence of the HD800 is the TH-900. Even with the best gear, it would still be challenging to come close. So, as I said, take the MD's for what they are or look elsewhere. I haven't found the 3.2 version to sound any bit more "airy" or less congested than the 3.0 version. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

No, it sacrifices a little of the mids. The highs are the same as I remember of the 3.0.

 

This, although I felt the treble presented some better extension.


Edited by Greed - 5/16/13 at 12:18pm
post #6047 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

 

No argument here, but in relation to the comment I quoted, it wouldn't be realistic for me to recommend the 3.2 revision in comparison to the HD800. Yes, the comparison is unfair but he asked, so I answered. Only closed headphone that even comes close to the open and airy presence of the HD800 is the TH-900. Even with the best gear, it would still be challenging to come close. So, as I said, take the MD's for what they are or look elsewhere. I haven't found the 3.2 version to sound any bit more "airy" or less congested than the 3.0 version. 

 

 

This, although I felt the treble presented some better extension.

ATH-W5000 is pretty darn close actually but they are not very isolating, same as TH-900.

 

Do you guys draw all these 3.0 vs 3.2 impressions based on auditory memory alone or actually A/B-ing two?


Edited by Andrew_WOT - 5/16/13 at 12:39pm
post #6048 of 6388
I had both versions at the same time. The comparisons given here are accurate.
post #6049 of 6388

My impressions were off audio memory, because I had my original 3.0 MD's "tuned". But it was literally days between, and I trust my ears enough to know there a slight changes. Not a huge difference, but a noticable one.

post #6050 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

My impressions were off audio memory, because I had my original 3.0 MD's "tuned". But it was literally days between, and I trust my ears enough to know there a slight changes. Not a huge difference, but a noticable one.

 

I'd agree on the noticeable but not huge part.  Oh, and I still have both versions (though 3.0 is now up at work).

post #6051 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzerdave View Post

 

I'd agree on the noticeable but not huge part.  Oh, and I still have both versions (though 3.0 is now up at work).

 

Wait... so you think the changes were huge? Do tell, interested to hear what other people think about the two versions.

post #6052 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

Wait... so you think the changes were huge? Do tell, interested to hear what other people think about the two versions.

He said noticeable but NOT huge.
post #6053 of 6388

I received my Mad Dogs (3.1 version) and my HE-400 on the same day, and I've spent the past few days listening to them both. I do like the HE-400's better for sure, but that's my personal preference. It's pretty amazing what Dan has been able to do tuning and tweaking the Mad Dogs. As far as bass goes, like MattTCG said in his review, the HE-400's bass may only beat the Mad Dogs by a "gnats eyelash" (maybe a tat more though).

 

For me the Mad Dogs are just lacking the sparkle in the treble that the HE-400 just has in spades. Soundstage is also no contest. But if I only had the Mad Dogs and that was my primary headphone, I would still be a very happy camper. Oh and the are comfy as hell, probably the most comfortable headphone I've ever worn.

 

Also, I would agree that the Mad Dogs benefit greatly from a beefy amp.

post #6054 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamakahah View Post


He said noticeable but NOT huge.

which is what I said... that is why I asked.

post #6055 of 6388
Yeah but that tad difference to me with the 3.0 made a difference to which direction to choose, the he400. Of course all the other stuff also goes into favor for me with the he400. To me these differences is what makes a more fun headphone to the other, which I prefer. The one thing I miss with the mad dog 3.0 when I got the he400 is the mids.
Edited by soundeffect - 5/16/13 at 7:08pm
post #6056 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by dxanex View Post

I received my Mad Dogs (3.1 version) and my HE-400 on the same day, and I've spent the past few days listening to them both. I do like the HE-400's better for sure, but that's my personal preference. It's pretty amazing what Dan has been able to do tuning and tweaking the Mad Dogs. As far as bass goes, like MattTCG said in his review, the HE-400's bass may only beat the Mad Dogs by a "gnats eyelash" (maybe a tat more though).

 

For me the Mad Dogs are just lacking the sparkle in the treble that the HE-400 just has in spades. Soundstage is also no contest. But if I only had the Mad Dogs and that was my primary headphone, I would still be a very happy camper. Oh and the are comfy as hell, probably the most comfortable headphone I've ever worn.

 

Also, I would agree that the Mad Dogs benefit greatly from a beefy amp.

 

I love to be quoted. biggrin.gif Makes me feel special. tongue.gif

post #6057 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greed View Post

 

Wait... so you think the changes were huge? Do tell, interested to hear what other people think about the two versions.

 

I was merely agreeing with you, so no, I don't think the differences were huge.  I'm probably one of the few that owns both, and I kept them in the same setup for a little more than a week before bringing 3.0 to work with me.  I think the bass is slightly fuller with a bit more impact and there's a bit more sizzle to the treble on 3.2.  I don't think the mids have really changed, but they're slightly less prominent due to the other frequencies coming forward a bit.  I know those are brief impressions, but I hope it helps a bit.

post #6058 of 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzerdave View Post

I was merely agreeing with you, so no, I don't think the differences were huge.  I'm probably one of the few that owns both, and I kept them in the same setup for a little more than a week before bringing 3.0 to work with me.  I think the bass is slightly fuller with a bit more impact and there's a bit more sizzle to the treble on 3.2.  I don't think the mids have really changed, but they're slightly less prominent due to the other frequencies coming forward a bit.  I know those are brief impressions, but I hope it helps a bit.

Indeed, and I'm sure it will help others wondering about what changes the 3.2 brings. I agree with your impressions. Even though the mids suffered a bit, overall the changes were very pleasing.
post #6059 of 6388

Wish I could do a Paradox vs. Mad Dog comparison, but alas, I do not have the Mad Dogs at the moment(Loaner pair of Paradox for me:D) I will not make a comment on which I like more, as I don't want to start a huge debate on here. If interested in my answer, PM me.

post #6060 of 6388
Cancelled

Edited by muxamed - 5/16/13 at 10:23pm
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