or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Review: ZMF Modified Fostex T50RP. Superb!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review: ZMF Modified Fostex T50RP. Superb! - Page 18

post #256 of 807
I read you cant just slap in the alpha pads (for the MD at least) there is some retuning needed.

And from various threads they confirm that te pads are one of the important factors affecting the sound.

Hope somebody can clarify for me. Cheers!
post #257 of 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taveren View Post

I read you cant just slap in the alpha pads (for the MD at least) there is some retuning needed.

And from various threads they confirm that te pads are one of the important factors affecting the sound.

Hope somebody can clarify for me. Cheers!

 

I did and they sound better then all of the other pads I have tried, Stax, J-money and the Brainwavz pads. (to my ears)

post #258 of 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fearless1 View Post

I did and they sound better then all of the other pads I have tried, Stax, J-money and the Brainwavz pads. (to my ears)

Cool! So no retuning required? Would you mind to elaborate on the improvement from the stock pads? Thanks
post #259 of 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taveren View Post


Cool! So no retuning required? Would you mind to elaborate on the improvement from the stock pads? Thanks

 

The stock T50rp pads are terrible. The Stax pads are awesome looking on them, but sadly do not sound the way I envisioned. The Shure pads put your ear too close to the driver. The J-money pads are my second favorite, but are not close to the Alpha pads.

 

The Alpha pads change the sound for the better to my ears, bass response is better, soundstage is wider, and they are very comfortable.  I use them on my W1000x, D7ks and the KH K-K1000(Kenwood, an awesome HP)

post #260 of 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post
 

They sound really good. More musical to me than the mad dogs I had. I love the midrange.

The mad dog 2.0 is what I had and while it's probably not fair because the 3.2 has changed its still a close idea because the 2.0 has more mids, 3.0 is just with the pads, 3.2 is more bass and treble and even less mids. 

 

So based on that (maybe a good base point) the ZMF is the clear winner because it was clearer, had nicer/fuller mids, and sounded a mile more natural to me. I abandoned the Mad dog and Alpha dog persuits. I can say that The Alpha pads are really nice. I liked those a lot more than the brainwavz... but thats purely aesthetic and comfort wise, not sound. 

How can you say one is better than the other without hearing both? -1 for credibility.

post #261 of 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublea71 View Post
 

How can you say one is better than the other without hearing both? -1 for credibility.

I should rephrase saying a clear winner. I meant for me. 

 

I have owned the mad dogs and I have owned the ZMF's. I have researched the mad dog 3.2 extensively. If the new mad dogs have less mids than the previous versions then tonally FOR ME the zmf's are the clearer winner. I really disliked the mad dog with dog pads and loved the ZMF's. 

 

Everyone says the 3.2 has less pressence in the mids than previous versions. I cannot imagine liking that because I am a mids head first basshead second.

 

I should clarify that I was saying that the zmf would be the winner for me vs a headphone with less full mids. I have heard enough headphones to know that if the following upgrades of the mad dogs made the mids less prominent I would not like it. Sometimes a little coloration is necessary to make things sound natural because neutral doesn't equal natural. 

 

Let me clearly say... the ZMF is more natural than the mad dog with dog pads. Maybe I should say that the upgraded md's having less mids is a red flag for me instead of saying one is better without having heard the 3.2

 

 I agree with you saying -1 for credibility. I should try and say it better. sorry about that. :frown:


Edited by grizzlybeast - 10/5/13 at 11:21pm
post #262 of 807
Hey grizzlybeast dont worry much about it, im sure doublea71 just wanted to straighten up the facts.

What amp or dac/amp are you using with your ZMFs?
post #263 of 807

When I had them I used an aune t1 as a DAC and an emotiva mini as an amp. I used the aune t1 by itself with the ZMF's too. 

post #264 of 807

you connected the ZMF to the Emotiva via the speaker taps?

 

I was also considering that set up but cannot find any banana plug cables to 3.5 or 6.5mm female jack. I only came across those with xlr adapters.

post #265 of 807

I don't know if this helps, but it's from a review of the 3.2 on Audiohead regarding the change in the mids between versions...

 

Quote:
While the 3.2 isn’t Dan’s first walk in the park, the latest update to his mod creation offers up a few augmentations to the sonics from his previous iterations, he explains. “The current tuning in version 3.2 is our most neutral in the mids and highs, and I also think our most fun. Compared to 3.1 and 3.0, we’ve increased the upper midrange and decreased the lower mids, so vocals, guitars and other instruments have a more natural and detailed texture to them. We’ve also increased the bass a little, so the bass has more slam, yet is faster and more textured.” 

 

I'd really love to hear the ZMFs - wish there were a loner/tour happening.

post #266 of 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taveren View Post
 

you connected the ZMF to the Emotiva via the speaker taps?

 

I was also considering that set up but cannot find any banana plug cables to 3.5 or 6.5mm female jack. I only came across those with xlr adapters.

 

yes I  did. I had a btg audio banana plug 8 strand interconnect - 6.33. cost me 45 bucks. but i found a cheaper way to go.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/181172518198

and two of these:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0010CEIH8/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

 

they have the above ones for 7.99 each too. so total is like 25 bucks and you are good to go. 

 

if you dont already have a dac you can get a modi for 99 + the emotiva 215 + interconnects mentioned above for 345 total and that would do the ZMF very well. the emotiva isn't that small though.

 

yes doublea it helps but not enough to persuade me otherwise. I love my lower mids dearly... does make me wanna hear it though. 


Edited by grizzlybeast - 10/6/13 at 9:19am
post #267 of 807

You're blowing my mind.. how do people use speaker amps for headphones?  Isn't the emotiva like 50 watts per channel?  I have an Aune T1 and a Maverick Audio A1.. the T1 I had to turn to full volume to get a good volume level with 0 gain..  it also has 8 and 16 gain settings so I assume the 8 gain would be fine for t50rp..  I'm using the Maverick A1 with it and it sounds great, I only have to turn the volume knob to about 8:50 on the dial for music listening

post #268 of 807

^http://www.head-fi.org/t/629352/he-500-lcd2-d5000-dt770-sr80-on-a-speaker-amp-emotiva-mini-x-a-100-project

 

sorry for being OT but it works well for the ZMF none the less.

 

The aune t1 is great for other headphones and has as much power as a magni/modi stack with tube swapping options. It did okay on the ZMF and I used it sometimes but the emotiva did better with the aune as a DAC.


Edited by grizzlybeast - 10/6/13 at 4:48pm
post #269 of 807

Thinking about taking the plunge, I have had the newest version Mad Dogs most recently but decided to shift them. Still regretting that, but I like the customization options Zach offers. A little personalization goes a long way.

post #270 of 807
Yeah he keeps improving the options. I have been pestering him to put his logo on it to acknowledge the mod
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Review: ZMF Modified Fostex T50RP. Superb!