Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › MrSpeakers Alpha Dog Revealed! - The World's First Production 3D-Printed Headphones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MrSpeakers Alpha Dog Revealed! - The World's First Production 3D-Printed Headphones - Page 112

post #1666 of 7993
Quote:
Originally Posted by kstuart View Post
 

Tweet on Twitter from MrSpeakers:

 

 

That's good news. I'm counting the days.  :o

post #1667 of 7993
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post

I have a random question. How much did the 3.2 version improve over the 3.0 in terms of overall performance on the MD. I was thinking of upgrading it before I do the AD but I don't know. I wouldn't mind having a mid centric piece for a bit. 

If it sounds like a whole new hp then I just might.

The 3.2 lessened a little of midrange magic for some bass magic, and some more treble clarity. Mids are still good, but if you've grown accustomed to the midrange, it might be a tradeoff you may not like. It's subtle, but it's there.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 9/18/13 at 5:31pm
post #1668 of 7993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

The 3.2 lessened a little of midrange magic for some bass magic, and some more treble clarity. Mids are still good, but if you've grown accustomed to the midrange, it might be a tradeoff you may not like. It's subtle, but it's there.
This. A worthwhile improvement for most. MLE describes it well.
Edited by aamefford - 9/18/13 at 5:55pm
post #1669 of 7993

I do not know if this has been answered yet but how long is the 1/4" single ended cable going to be? I want to use these as semi-portable headphone, but really long cables can be annoying like the M50s cable.

post #1670 of 7993
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamefreak054 View Post
 

I do not know if this has been answered yet but how long is the 1/4" single ended cable going to be? I want to use these as semi-portable headphone, but really long cables can be annoying like the M50s cable.

 

Good question +1

post #1671 of 7993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post


The 3.2 lessened a little of midrange magic for some bass magic, and some more treble clarity. Mids are still good, but if you've grown accustomed to the midrange, it might be a tradeoff you may not like. It's subtle, but it's there.

 

so one could expect the midrange of the AD to be even less forward than the 3.2 based on the differences described.

post #1672 of 7993

The AD cables are 6'.  

post #1673 of 7993
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post
 

 

so one could expect the midrange of the AD to be even less forward than the 3.2 based on the differences described.

 

?  No.  Definitely not.  The AD is more balanced across the spectrum.  

post #1674 of 7993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post

I have a random question. How much did the 3.2 version improve over the 3.0 in terms of overall performance on the MD. I was thinking of upgrading it before I do the AD but I don't know. I wouldn't mind having a mid centric piece for a bit. 

If it sounds like a whole new hp then I just might.

The 3.2 lessened a little of midrange magic for some bass magic, and some more treble clarity. Mids are still good, but if you've grown accustomed to the midrange, it might be a tradeoff you may not like. It's subtle, but it's there.

I'm beginning to think that the change from the 3.2 to the 3.2 Universal is a bigger improvement in sound quality than people think (clearly they think it is zero).    The Fostex jack and included cable (and the Vmoda cable for that matter) are dubious in terms of construction and quality.  I was planning on doing a comparison when the Alpha Dog was announced, so I ditched my plans because it is now a relatively trivial matter.

 

But my impression of the bass quality of the 3.2 Universal is higher than MattTCG thinks, and my impression of the 3.2 improvement vs my 3.0 is higher than MLE or aamefford indicated.   My impression is that the 3.0 has many great aspects and many weird and poor quality aspects, while the 3.2 Universal is an all-round excellent phone.  The adjustments made by Dan to fix the problems with the 3.0 were exactly right, which is why I am putting my money up for the Alpha Dog.

 

And, from the above, I can't help but think that the 3.2 Universal sounds better than the regular 3.2...

post #1675 of 7993
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspeakers View Post

?  No.  Definitely not.  The AD is more balanced across the spectrum.  
And this as well. I have heard them, both beta tour and CA Audio show.
post #1676 of 7993
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspeakers View Post
 

 

?  No.  Definitely not.  The AD is more balanced across the spectrum.  

 

oh okay sorry about that. my bad memory recalled reading something like this  when someone asked if the treble increased and the AD had less forward mids than the MD. Just trying to get clarity since my rev is 3.0

 
Probably misread while browsing quickly. 
Thanks for addressing my misconception.
post #1677 of 7993
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizzlybeast View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrspeakers View Post
 

 

?  No.  Definitely not.  The AD is more balanced across the spectrum.  

 

oh okay sorry about that. my bad memory recalled reading something like this  when someone asked if the treble increased and the AD had less forward mids than the MD. Just trying to get clarity since my rev is 3.0

 
Probably misread while browsing quickly. 
Thanks for addressing my misconception.

If you (or anyone else) has a 3.0, definitely send it to MrSpeakers for the upgrade to 3.2 - or else for the upgrade to Alpha Dog when the Alpha Dog upgrade program is announced.

post #1678 of 7993
I'm clearly a minority, but I did enjoy the 3.0 maybe more than the 3.2.

When I first got the 3.2 I was disappointed because I had been on a mid-lover streak.

After some brain burn in it grew on me.

Later at a show I compared my 3.2 and a 3.1 amd while the differences are subtle, they are noticeable. I ended up slightly preferring the 3.1.

The Alpha dogs will likely suit me perfectly, at least I hope. You never know until it's on though.
post #1679 of 7993
It's not improbable to see people preferring the older MD if midrange is top priority. The 3.2 made the MD a bit more accessible sound-wise to the masses, withmore bass and more ssparkle, but reduced the mids a teeny bit. Definitely not something midrange 1st lovers would all like. Me I like a balanced sound with some romanticized bass. Had Dan made yet another MD with focus in bass and mids with some treble roll off, I probably would've loved it a little more than the 3.2. But overall, tbe 3.2 hit a sweetbspot for me, as a little trade off in mids for sparkle and bass is fine, as long as mids aren't sucked out.
post #1680 of 7993

I'm a mids guy, but the 3.2 remains my favorite so far. I just didn't feel that the 3.2 lost very much in the mids. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › MrSpeakers Alpha Dog Revealed! - The World's First Production 3D-Printed Headphones