Originally Posted by MattTCG
^^ +1 I didn't take the comment as derogatory.
I didn't take it as derogatory, it took it as confused and inarticulate.
Here is the whole quote:
As much as I liked the Mad Dog, they look and feel like a modified headphone. The Alpha dog, on the other hand, does not, but the big question is: Does the sound quality stand up to it's looks.
The blog, on the whole, has the sort of styling that makes you think that there is something significant going on. Whereas, the Head-Fi member reviews on the bar to the right ---> (Recent Reviews) are people's opinions written with whatever skills they happen to possess, and everyone is welcome to do so.
But in the quote above, not only is the comment pointless, but it is not proofread at all (Dog capitalized first time and not second time, and the classic " it's " where he means " its " which occurs several times). "Stand up to" is the wrong phrase, he means "match". Basically, the whole paragraph is clumsy. What he meant to say was:
" As much as I like the Mad Dog, they don't look like anything special. The Alpha Dog, on the other had, has a unique custom look with more style. So the question is - does the sound quality match its good looks ? "
Also he may not be aware of this, but he compared the Alpha Dog to the Mad Dog 3.0, not the corrected version 3.2... so I don't think there is anything more significant to the blog post than any other impressions in this thread or in the Head-Fi members reviews.