Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › **MrSpeakers Mad Dog: Impressions and Discussion Thread**
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

**MrSpeakers Mad Dog: Impressions and Discussion Thread** - Page 39

post #571 of 2885

y is yur maddog a blushing pink...eek.gif

post #572 of 2885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorspeaker View Post

y is yur maddog a blushing pink...eek.gif

 

 

It's Crimson Red.  Bad cell phone camera..wink_face.gif

post #573 of 2885
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerg View Post

I think one of the main reasons why HD800 is a comfort king is because of its pads - they have such a wide opening and contact the cheeks/jaws/around the ears, very far from the ears themselves. Basically our ear pinnas are extremely picky and demanding little buggers, the best way to go is just to avoid them completely. It'd be cool to get aftermarket earpads that are say around alpha pads in size, but the inner opening is a lot bigger in length and width (so that the contact surface is thinner, but the ears will basically be touching nothing).

 

If Dan (Mrspeakers) is reading this, do you think you could find the time and experiment about? That'd be awesome.

 

Yes, that would be great indeed.

post #574 of 2885
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerg View Post

I think one of the main reasons why HD800 is a comfort king is because of its pads - they have such a wide opening and contact the cheeks/jaws/around the ears, very far from the ears themselves. Basically our ear pinnas are extremely picky and demanding little buggers, the best way to go is just to avoid them completely. It'd be cool to get aftermarket earpads that are say around alpha pads in size, but the inner opening is a lot bigger in length and width (so that the contact surface is thinner, but the ears will basically be touching nothing).

If Dan (Mrspeakers) is reading this, do you think you could find the time and experiment about? That'd be awesome.

I think trimming your ears so that they fit inside the pads is a better option. Painful at the beginning but should be fine in the long run.
You'd be compatible with many more headphones...
Those with big ears are struck with sennheisers or AKGs... Cruel world indeed B-)
post #575 of 2885

yep..must agree when i gotten the alphapads, i was kinda surprised by the "less than big" inner opening.

but it fitted my "less than big" ears...whew.

 

Then again, it was designed to tighten up the bass of the t50rp i believe? 

( just comparing it with the jmoney...which has a slightly more bassy sound, both tested on my d7k)


Edited by Lorspeaker - 7/7/13 at 5:51pm
post #576 of 2885

I have heard very few issues about pad hole size.  I think two times, actually. They are comfy for the majority of people, and making a change is a big deal.  You can't make the inner hole a lot bigger without making the pad a lot harder, then it won't seal, and/or you loose the comfort (or it becomes super squishy and then presses on the pinea).  So for now, we're leaving this as is but I have noted the feedback.

post #577 of 2885
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

 

Sounding open and closed is not really saying much.  No I don't still have the LCD-2.2, I have the LCD-3s.  I know what I didn't like about the LCD-2.2,  That's why they're gone.  I'm not getting that from the Mad Dogs.  Yes of course the LCD-2.2 does things better than the Mad Dogs.  But those things it does better are not as important to me.  

 

 

 

I know I did not elaborate much about sounding open and closed, as I thought I said I heard totally differently from what you mentioned in the quote would be clear enough. I just feel that when you want to compare two headphones, it is only fair to compare them side by side as audio memory can be quite misleading, especially when you are making quite a controversial statement, saying that the mad dogs has a bigger/ better soundstage than lcd-2 or in your own words "By openness I mean more airy, more air around the instruments so more separation.  Not necessary sound stage depth, width, height - Left to Right - Front to back.  But I give that to the Mad Dogs as well over the LCD-2.2s".  

 

Listening to some binaural recordings by Cheksy Records on both headphones will exaggerate the difference in the sound stage even more. On lcd-2, the instruments sound so much further and create much bigger soundstage that gives you the impression that the instruments are really positioned there, which is what binaural recordings are all about. On the other hand, on the Mad dogs, while the recordings still sound good, it never create the wow factor and definitely sound less convincing/ believable. I personally will be very disappointed if I am to buy the mad dogs hoping that its soundstage best lcd-2's. Of course, this is only based on what I hear.

post #578 of 2885
Quote:
Originally Posted by froger View Post

I know I did not elaborate much about sounding open and closed, as I thought I said I heard totally differently from what you mentioned in the quote would be clear enough. I just feel that when you want to compare two headphones, it is only fair to compare them side by side as audio memory can be quite misleading, especially when you are making quite a controversial statement, saying that the mad dogs has a bigger/ better soundstage than lcd-2 or in your own words "By openness I mean more airy, more air around the instruments so more separation.  Not necessary sound stage depth, width, height - Left to Right - Front to back.  But I give that to the Mad Dogs as well over the LCD-2.2s".  

 

Listening to some binaural recordings by Cheksy Records on both headphones will exaggerate the difference in the sound stage even more. On lcd-2, the instruments sound so much further and create much bigger soundstage that gives you the impression that the instruments are really positioned there, which is what binaural recordings are all about. On the other hand, on the Mad dogs, while the recordings still sound good, it never create the wow factor and definitely sound less convincing/ believable. I personally will be very disappointed if I am to buy the mad dogs hoping that its soundstage best lcd-2's. Of course, this is only based on what I hear.

 

My statement is not controversial.  My statement is my opinion and my preference.  We all have them and we all hear different.  For you to try to convince me what the LCD-2.2s can do with binaural recordings is pointless.  I like what I like and so do you.  

 

I don't like the LCD-2.2s period, because to me they sound closed in and congested I like the LCD-3s in that family of headphones.  Again, I don't get that with the Mad Dogs - maybe because the treble is extended better - IMO..

 

We can end this decision now and talk more on the Mad Dogs and not the LCD-2.2s.

post #579 of 2885

Sadly I don't agree with that either.  Sounding open/airy is something the LCD2 does better than the Mad Dogs.

 

Oh, and yes.  Alpha pads with ever so slightly bigger openings would be amazing.  Almost would make me buy those headphones.


Edited by TMRaven - 7/7/13 at 7:46pm
post #580 of 2885
Weird, I have big ears that are quite long to fit my banana shaped head. I find the Alpha Pads to be perfect.

I'm sorry to those that have even bigger, though it only appears to be a few: You got the bad end of the genetic lottery I suppose.
Edited by Kamakahah - 7/7/13 at 8:04pm
post #581 of 2885
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

 

My statement is not controversial.  My statement is my opinion and my preference.  We all have them and we all hear different.  For you to try to convince me what the LCD-2.2s can do with binaural recordings is pointless.  I like what I like and so do you.  

 

I don't like the LCD-2.2s period, because to me they sound closed in and congested I like the LCD-3s in that family of headphones.  Again, I don't get that with the Mad Dogs - maybe because the treble is extended better - IMO..

 

We can end this decision now and talk more on the Mad Dogs and not the LCD-2.2s.

Hi Preproman, to be frank, the reason why I brought this up, is due to the fact that you are one of the posters here who I value and respect your opinions and views quite a lot and I always enjoy reading your reviews and your sharing. I really can tell that you love the music headphones bring to you, given your enthusiasm in exploring new gears. That's why I thought I need to clarify if the difference in my opinions and yours is due to the fact that you may have forgotten how LCD-2 sound. Seriously, I enjoy my mad dogs very much, and given its price, it is definitely one of the best closed headphones around and I will not hesitate to recommend the mad dogs to anyone who is looking for a pair of closed headphone, just that I am not sure it is that good enough sound wise to better lcd-2. However, in terms of comfort, mad dogs over lcd-2 by a mile :)

post #582 of 2885
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspeakers View Post

I have heard very few issues about pad hole size.  I think two times, actually. They are comfy for the majority of people, and making a change is a big deal.  You can't make the inner hole a lot bigger without making the pad a lot harder, then it won't seal, and/or you loose the comfort (or it becomes super squishy and then presses on the pinea).  So for now, we're leaving this as is but I have noted the feedback.

What about say 2 layers of stacked foams? An inner layer that is hard and provides structural support, and an outer layer that is cushy and gives seal and comfort. That way it (perhaps) solves the dilemma you talk of, as the pads could afford to have a thinner cross section but still have both rigidity and seal.

 

Just some pad-fi brainstorming.


Edited by jerg - 7/7/13 at 9:07pm
post #583 of 2885

Audeze pads manage to be harder yet seal remarkably well.  They have a little bit of an advantage in that the lcd is actually a tad bit larger in diameter though, so they have more room to play around with hole size.  

 

The hardness goes a long ways in making the fit more stable and less clunky.  When the pads are squished and convoluted, the opening itself isn't as defined as it could be.


Edited by TMRaven - 7/7/13 at 9:36pm
post #584 of 2885

There are many variables that contribute to fit and form, it's quite hard to get right and not at all easy and it has a big impact on comfort.  I'm happy with where the pads are, but nothing is perfect for everyone.  

 

I am always open to ideas and input, but I am concerned about the thread wandering OT, and I think specifications for non-existant pads is pretty OT, so if anyone has further suggestions I ask you to PM me instead.

post #585 of 2885
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post
 

 

 

How can you have an amazing soundstage and be awfully boxy and closed in sounding at the same time?blink.gif

 

By openness I mean more airy, more air around the instruments so more separation.  Not necessary sound stage depth, width, height - Left to Right - Front to back.  But I give that to the Mad Dogs as well over the LCD-2.2s

 

On the mini X they're getting lots of juice.


Edited by jibzilla - 6/3/14 at 2:20pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › **MrSpeakers Mad Dog: Impressions and Discussion Thread**