[Hutnicks]

Quote:

yeah fixed wing. KC-135R to be exact(CFM 56 engines). I've actually used some "IEMs" by a company called AirBuds that worked somewhat well in the jet, however I haven't found any fullsize headphones that would do a decent job of protecting my hearing from the outside engine noise

Well at least it's not a C-130!
 
Given the low frequency vibes coming at you, I would probably suggest looking into an active noise cancelling headphone. Pure acoustic damping is never going to get you past the "somewhat" phase.

 

[doublea71]

Quote:

I wish Dan posted FQ graph comparing 3.0 with the latest 3.2 revision.

+1

 

[aamefford]

Quote:

+1 on the refurbs. I was lucky to pick one up and you'd never know it wasn't brand new. Great deal. Snap it up.

Absolutely this.  I owned a new pair, and bought a second pair that were open box refurbs.  Indistinguishable from new.

 

[gikigill]

Another vote for the graph.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

I can't directly compare, but I feel that the new MD would cater more to bassheads than the LCD2 and HE400. Something about how bass resonates in closed back designs that gives a more satisfying amount of bass presence, IMHO. It's not Denon type bass, so don't expect it to be a basshead and balanced can. It's a balanced can with satisfying bass.

It's not a bloated bass. It just lingers a little more than the LCD2 and HE400. Bass heavy genres shine with the MD.

The MD images amazingly well, but sadly, I still feel the soundstage is decidely closed and still nowhere near what I'd like. I am a lover of open headphones, so it's a personal gripe. Ity has very good depth though. Planars excel in that regard.

 

[mrspeakers]

Quote:

What exactly are the differences between "Gold risers" and the new ones?

 
The color, essentially.   At some point early last year Fostex went from the gold finish to the copper...  They sound the same and the plastic/housing is unchanged.

 

[mrspeakers]

I'll get to graphs, but production, quality and getting the balanced phones out are my priority.  We just added another member to the team to keep up.

 

[Aaron1006]

Mine should be here tomorrow, getting excited .

 

[BobJS]

I have the Alpha 3.0s.   I like the MDs, but when I put them on after listening to most of my other phones, they sound dark (this is not surprising).  I prefer HD600 to HD650.  I prefer HD800 as my favorite phone.  What I'm getting at is, I prefer hearing nice crisp highs over deep, muffled lows.
 
So, in light of this, should I stay at MD 3.0 rather than retune to 3.2?  Recommendations?

 

[Andrew_WOT]

Quote:

I have the Alpha 3.0s.   I like the MDs, but when I put them on after listening to most of my other phones, they sound dark (this is not surprising).  I prefer HD600 to HD650.  I prefer HD800 as my favorite phone.  What I'm getting at is, I prefer hearing nice crisp highs over deep, muffled lows.
 
So, in light of this, should I stay at MD 3.0 rather than retune to 3.2?  Recommendations?

Try to lessen headband clamp by unbending sections next to the cups. There was a video somewhere on how to bend it, unbending is just in opposite direction. From my experience it removes that suffocation feeling by adding some air and increasing soundstage.

 

[Greed]

Quote:

I have the Alpha 3.0s.   I like the MDs, but when I put them on after listening to most of my other phones, they sound dark (this is not surprising).  I prefer HD600 to HD650.  I prefer HD800 as my favorite phone.  What I'm getting at is, I prefer hearing nice crisp highs over deep, muffled lows.
 
So, in light of this, should I stay at MD 3.0 rather than retune to 3.2?  Recommendations?

 
I've had the 3.2 revision for about a day now, and I would say simply the headphone sounds much better as a whole. If you are looking for a make-over for your headphone, and might think the revision will change the house signature then you will be disappointed. The bass was slightly tuned to be more impactful and full. The change is very much appreciated because that was one area where I thought the 3.0 was lacking some. The mids did get pushed back a tad with a less intimate sound, but not enough to call the mids anything short of sweet. They still are quite good. The treble did not change much. I hear some treble extension, but the MD's still are warm sounding headphones with slightly toned down treble response. If you are looking for similar treble energy to that of the HD800, that is a short list. I would try an AKG or even a Grado if you are really looking for that crisp and sparkly sound. I would say stay with your 3.0 if you totally don't like the sound signature of the MD's. The revision does not change it much, but just refines some areas. In comparison, I feel the MD's are a bit congested and muffled to the HD800, but you just have to take it for what it is... a closed headphone.  

 

[jazzerdave]

Quote:

 
I've had the 3.2 revision for about a day now, and I would say simply the headphone sounds much better as a whole. If you are looking for a make-over for your headphone, and might think the revision will change the house signature then you will be disappointed. The bass was slightly tuned to be more impactful and full. The change is very much appreciated because that was one area where I thought the 3.0 was lacking some. The mids did get pushed back a tad with a less intimate sound, but not enough to call the mids anything short of sweet. They still are quite good. The treble did not change much. I hear some treble extension, but the MD's still are warm sounding headphones with slightly toned down treble response. If you are looking for similar treble energy to that of the HD800, that is a short list. I would try an AKG or even a Grado if you are really looking for that crisp and sparkly sound. I would say stay with your 3.0 if you totally don't like the sound signature of the MD's. The revision does not change it much, but just refines some areas. In comparison, I feel the MD's are a bit congested and muffled to the HD800, but you just have to take it for what it is... a closed headphone.  

 
I don't know about you, but I also find the LCD-2 and LCD-3 a bit congested and muffled when compared to the HD800.  Not to say that it's to the same degree whatsoever, but the HD800 makes a lot of headphones look bad (especially when talking about congestion).

 

[BobJS]

Let me ask more succinctly.  I understand 3.0 -> 3.2 will enhance bass.  Will it sacrifice highs?

 

[aamefford]

Quote:

Let me ask more succinctly.  I understand 3.0 -> 3.2 will enhance bass.  Will it sacrifice highs?

IMHO - No.

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

No, it sacrifices a little of the mids. The highs are the same as I remember of the 3.0.