Alright, so I won't go into depth (Because I just got them), but I'll give you the key points of what I first noticed, that differ the two - HP200 Vs. Mad Dogs 3.2
- HP have a wider soundstage (due to full-open design)
- HP portrays a better 3D imaging, as I found the MD to be rather linear/2D.
- MD have amazing depth, but so does the HP
- MD has strong, tight, well-articulate bass, which hits harder than that of the HP in terms of punch and impact
- HP, although the bass isn't as strong, I found it to have the more tighter/controlled bass
- HP have a just right amount of sparkle in its treble, whilst the MD have a rather "full" sounding treble, where it isn't as bright, and doesn't extend as high
- The mids/vocals on the HP are clear and detailed, whilst on the MD, it sounds a touch fuller and rich
- The mids/vocals on the MD sound a bit veiled due to the "dark" tonality
- HP have more detail and and clarity than the MD
- MD still have a sufficient amount of detailing, it is just restricted by the "dark" tonality
And you'll probably ask something along the lines of which I would take, and the answer is...HP200 if I want analytical sound with crisp tonality - textured bass, good timbre, natural vocals, sparkly highs; and Mad Dogs for when I want a bassy, warm tonality for a change with its: fuller bass, thick and slightly warm vocals, and subtle treble. They're two very different headphones to compare side-by-side, as they both have a tonality that is at the opposite ends of the spectrum. In short, they both complement each other for me, and that's a good thing, because that means I can always switch things up when I get bored of one sound signature.
Edited by SkyBleu - 1/14/14 at 4:11pm