- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Posts
- 1,460
- Likes
- 326
And this is what really "scares" me and has driven me away from ordering... I keep reading impressions and they vary from end to end! Either they are thin, bright, low bass impact, not at all neutral, etc. Or they are "full-bodied", more "musical", etc.
Is it due to the way different people interpret sound?
Is it gear?
Or is it product variation Beyer/AKG style!?
Spending $1600-$1700 on a product that can not even best the XCs (to my ears, the Alpha Dogs do VERY well against the XCs and I preferred them over the Audeze's) I don't think it's a good deal... More impressions?! Any other comparisons with other "light-on-bass" dynamic headphones such as the T1s, T5p's, or even "low-end" fare such as Grados and/or Shure SRH940s, etc.? Heck, even against Dan's own Alpha Dogs and/or Mad Dog Pros?
Thanks.
I own the Alpha Dogs and briefly compared them to Ether Cs at the San Diego meet with Dan's setup. Out of the Gumby/Mjolnir 2 stack the Ether C's handily bested my Alpha Dogs. The main difference was slightly more drive and presence with both bass and mids, faster bass as in snappier and quicker, and noticeably more soundstage width and "air" between high frequencies. The Ether C will come off as sounding "bright" if paired with a bright source and if compared to the darker Alpha Dogs. Both have excellent stage depth, but the Alpha Dogs were beat in stage width probably due to the cup shape and larger drivers of Ether C. Also, they don't clamp as hard so getting a good fit and seal is required to experience bass out of the Ether C. Clamp force with Alpha Dogs is stronger and such bass might have more quantity than Ether C based on listening conditions.