[Greed]

Quote:

 
Do you consider the mids to be more neutral? Or is there more of a V-shaped frequency w/ 3.2? 
 
I may be losing my mind but I think I'm liking the 3.0 these better than my beloved HD600. Probably just infatuation and all...but the HD600 is sounding so thin in comparison.. 

 
I think the 3.2 tune up brought a more balanced and full sound. The changes aren't night an day, but definitely noticeable. The 3.0 is slight too dark/warm in comparison to the 3.2. The presentation of the 3.2 is definitely a step in the right direction to become more more full sound. 
 
3.2 > 3.0 IMO (Some may find the thicker, more intimate sound to be more engaging, especially with specific genres)

 

[spurxiii]

Geez, how good are the mad dogs with the iBasso PB2. This is awesome stuff

 

[imahawki]

I just ordered a pair as did another guy on the forum I run.  He got his earlier this week.  I'll initially be running them off my Modi/Magni stack but ultimately will have a second setup in my bedroom for more dedicated listening.  Haven't fully settled on the DAC/amp for that setup although based on the M/M the Bifrost/Lyr are in the running for sure.

 

[syobwoc]

Just got in my balanced Mad Dogs 3.2 from mrspeakers and brought them to work.  Hooked up the Mad Dogs to the balanced output mini 4 pin port on my RX Mk3 b+ with the singled ended input from my iphone to try it out.  The sound was...how can I say ...echoy....

   I can hear the audio but the vocals were very low and its very flat sounding. I'm assuming the connector jack on the cans can only go one way, right?  I also ordered a 1/4" SE with it but I can't try them until i get home.  Could this because the input is not balanced? 

 

[mrspeakers]

I think we had a couple of bad RSA cables. When balanced amp cables are miswired the effect is weird. We're making up some new cables, I will have to replace yours (and the other bad cable that is out there).

 

[syobwoc]

Quote:

I think we had a couple of bad RSA cables. When balanced amp cables are miswired the effect is weird. We're making up some new cables, I will have to replace yours (and the other bad cable that is out there).

thanks a bunch Dan! I was already getting nervous about my new cans.  I hooked up the SE 1/4" cable and man these babies are awesome! What do I need to do to get it replaced?  I can go through here or your site, which ever works best for you. 

 

[preproman]

Quote:

 
I think the 3.2 tune up brought a more balanced and full sound. The changes are night an day, but definitely noticeable. The 3.0 is slight too dark/warm in comparison to the 3.2. The presentation of the 3.2 is definitely a step in the right direction to become more more full sound. 
 
3.2 > 3.0 IMO (Some may find the thicker, more intimate sound to be more engaging, especially with specific genres)

 
 
Night and day

 

[TMRaven]

I assume he meant not night and day, but definitely noticeable.

 

[Greed]

Quote:

 
 
Night and day

 
 /facepalm... I need to stop typing on my iPad. Preproman - My personal typo police 

 
Fixed. Thank You

 

[mechgamer123]

Quote:

If you've heard the 3.0 and 3.2, is the 3.2 just all around better than the 3.0 or are there some genres you might prefer to keep 3.0 for? 

I'd say the 3.2 sounds clearer than the 3.0. I'd consider it a worthy upgrade for all genres.
Quote:

Quote:

 
3.2 improves on the sound in almost every way. The only drawback might be the slightly less forward mids. Some may find the more foward mids of the 3.0 to better suit their tastes. 

 
Do you consider the mids to be more neutral? Or is there more of a V-shaped frequency w/ 3.2? 
 
I may be losing my mind but I think I'm liking the 3.0 these better than my beloved HD600. Probably just infatuation and all...but the HD600 is sounding so thin in comparison.. 

The lower mids are reduced a bit, which makes it sound cleaner as I mentioned above. Of course this is IMO again. However there's a ~6dB rise in the 4Khz area, which makes the mids still sound relatively full. 
I'd even say the mids are still better than my STAX.
And I actually fell in love with the MDs a few days after buying them and sold my HD600, so I know that feeling 

Quote:

Quote:

 
 
Night and day

 
 /facepalm... I need to stop typing on my iPad. Preproman - My personal typo police 

 
Fixed. Thank You

I see you have the AD2000x, how does that compare to the MD if you don't mind me asking?

 

[mrspeakers]

Quote:

thanks a bunch Dan! I was already getting nervous about my new cans.  I hooked up the SE 1/4" cable and man these babies are awesome! What do I need to do to get it replaced?  I can go through here or your site, which ever works best for you. 

Just PM me.  

 

[Greed]

Quote:

I'd say the 3.2 sounds clearer than the 3.0. I'd consider it a worthy upgrade for all genres.
The lower mids are reduced a bit, which makes it sound cleaner as I mentioned above. Of course this is IMO again. However there's a ~6dB rise in the 4Khz area, which makes the mids still sound relatively full. 
I'd even say the mids are still better than my STAX.
And I actually fell in love with the MDs a few days after buying them and sold my HD600, so I know that feeling 

I see you have the AD2000x, how does that compare to the MD if you don't mind me asking?

 
I used the headphones very sparingly to keep them like-new condition, but early impressions tell me that the AD2KX is the technically superior headphone. I'm not sure which I enjoy more, but they are close. Which is a testament to how good the MD is. The one area that I find the AD2KX to do very well in is dynamics. The headphone is very fast. It actually has similar bass response to the new AD, tbh. Very clean, articulate, fast bass that punches relatively hard. To me it doesn't sound as full as the MD, but for accuracy - there aren't many better that I've heard. Another huge difference is the soundstage. The AD2KX has better width and depth that towers over the MD. To be fair, this is comparing an open headphone to a closed, but the weakest area of the MD is its soundstage and its lack of air. The AD2KX is better in this regard. The MD present music a bit different. With its slightly emphasized bass and warm mids, the music is non-fatiguing. Some detail is lost because of the dark nature, but overall... especially for the genres I listen to the MD is in favor. Ultimately, the MD is a better value at $300, tbh. YMMV. 

 

[doublea71]

I'm hoping somebody could do a comparison between the 3.2 and the ZMF in the near future. I would request a loaner pair and take a crack at it, but it really should be done by somebody with a range of amps (or perhaps just one really good one). He does his tuning by ear (no graphs) and aims for the HE-500 sound, and people seem to like what he's doing according to responses in this thread:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/667870/review-zmf-modified-fostex-t50rp-superb/150#post_9716491
 
I'm still going to get the 3.2 even though his base model is much cheaper. I will give him credit for some interesting options (color options, non-recessed socket mod, what looks like a very plush and comfortable headband pad, etc.).
 
Hopefully this isn't seen as a derail - I figure it'd be kosher with so many requests for MD/Paradox comparisons.
 
 
 
ah (tip of the hat to Steve Eddy

)

 

[mechgamer123]

Quote:

Quote:

I'd say the 3.2 sounds clearer than the 3.0. I'd consider it a worthy upgrade for all genres.
The lower mids are reduced a bit, which makes it sound cleaner as I mentioned above. Of course this is IMO again. However there's a ~6dB rise in the 4Khz area, which makes the mids still sound relatively full. 
I'd even say the mids are still better than my STAX.
And I actually fell in love with the MDs a few days after buying them and sold my HD600, so I know that feeling 

I see you have the AD2000x, how does that compare to the MD if you don't mind me asking?

 
I used the headphones very sparingly to keep them like-new condition, but early impressions tell me that the AD2KX is the technically superior headphone. I'm not sure which I enjoy more, but they are close. Which is a testament to how good the MD is. The one area that I find the AD2KX to do very well in is dynamics. The headphone is very fast. It actually has similar bass response to the new AD, tbh. Very clean, articulate, fast bass that punches relatively hard. To me it doesn't sound as full as the MD, but for accuracy - there aren't many better that I've heard. Another huge difference is the soundstage. The AD2KX has better width and depth that towers over the MD. To be fair, this is comparing an open headphone to a closed, but the weakest area of the MD is its soundstage and its lack of air. The AD2KX is better in this regard. The MD present music a bit different. With its slightly emphasized bass and warm mids, the music is non-fatiguing. Some detail is lost because of the dark nature, but overall... especially for the genres I listen to the MD is in favor. Ultimately, the MD is a better value at $300, tbh. YMMV. 

How is it with female vocals? I've heard that the AD2kX is supposed to sound relatively intimate, especially with female vocals? Looks like there's a spike in the 4k area, now nearly as bad as the MDs, that makes it sound forward. Also, is the treble harsher on the AD2Kx than either the AD or MD?
i've heard one of my friends saying the AD is a bit harsh with poorly recorded tracks, which makes me concerned about whether I should upgrade or not, as much as I think the treble could be improved, along with the openness, I also like the forgiving, easy going sound as a compliment to me 202...

 

[kskwerl]

I know this question has been exhausted but would everyone mind stating what amp they are using with the MD? I've used the O2/Lyr/PB2/Leckerton MkII/The International.


I still think out of the ones I've listed that the PB2 was the best but I'm looking for a desktop amp and something to squeeze the very best out of them. At the same time I'm looking for a desktop amp that will match good with the LCD-2s.