[kstuart]

Quote:

I received a pair of Mad Dog 3.0 Alpha Pad headphones in trade for another pair of headphones.

The pads are thicker on one side than the other.  If one obeys the "L" marking for "Left", then both pads are thicker on the front.

Generally the available pictures don't illustrate any of this, but one picture partially SEEMS to indicate that the pads ARE thicker on the BACK.

What is the actual situation ?  Are the alpha pads thicker on one side (is that what Mr. Speakers mean by "angled"?  Has some previous owner put the pads on backwards ?

Thanks !

I had also emailed the question to the Mr Speakers site, but did not expect to receive a reply on Saturday night, but here it is:
 
Quote:

 Spin the pads and all will be well. They should be thicker in the back.

I did so, and it made a significant improvement in the sound quality (which is not surprising, given that the pad mods are dependent on the pads fitting correctly).

 

[Asr]

Quote:

@ ASR  Hmm...this "review" sounds more like a commercial for KEF hp's than anything else to be perfectly honest and also an explanation of why you don't find orthodynamic hp's "musical." But honestly, it feels somewhat out of place here. I do get your point... I think. You don't enjoy orthos or find them musically  engaging. You mention several world class orthodynamic hp's that didn't "sound good" to you or "move you." 
 
I'm sorry but those hp's that you mention are some of the most "musical" that I've ever heard, anywhere at any price. He500, He6, LCD2 and 3...non musical 

?. I do agree that the Stax are other worldly and quite "musical" but it would be rather fruitless for me to compare the Stax with the MD considering the price discrepancy. The MD for me like many of the other orthos mentioned above are beautifully musical, but then again I love the sound of orthodynamic hp's. I think that point you make is that you don't enjoy the sound of orthos including the MD or any ortho. So it doesn't matter what the MD brings to the table or at what price...you wouldn't have enjoyed it, correct? I appreciate and respect all opinions on the forum and you're certainly entitled to yours. Everyone hears things differently and the sound made by orthos obviously doesn't suit you. 
 
Possibly your post might be more appropriate in a KEF appreciation thread.

 
A lot of new posts since I last posted in this thread, had to dig back several pages. But I saw your post and wanted to further respond.
 
(1) I'll be honest, my post went spontaneously off-track from what I originally intended, which was a sonic analysis of the Mad Dog (and I'll probably write this up later anyway). But I went off-track because I was enthusiastic about the KEF M500 and was listening to them while writing that post. If anything, as AnakChan pointed out, I meant to raise awareness of the KEF M500, not write a "commercial" or advertise it. It's not like I'm on the payroll for KEF or any of its retailers.

 
(2) My conclusion about not liking planar magnetics is something I very recently realized - specifically right before I finally shipped off the Mad Dog as part of a sale. I wasn't really saying that "I don't like all orthos and orthos are bad!" - I was more saying that "I've realized that I haven't really liked any of the orthos that I've heard", from Audeze to HiFiMan and now Fostex (T50rp). And I have only one major complaint against all of the planar magnetics that I've heard: none of them have made music sound physically direct to me. I have the same complaint about electrostatic headphones too though. It seems that only dynamic headphones achieve physical directness to my ears. The not-sounding-musical aspect about planar magnetics was just something I noticed along the way as well.
 
(3) I think the best words for me to use with respect to the Mad Dog are that I admire and respect them. It was truly technically the best $300 set of headphones that I've ever heard and sonically beat out everything cheaper and quite a few more expensive than it. I'll continue to recommend the Mad Dog too for anyone looking into a great set of closed headphones up to its price - it's not like I have anything against it. It's just that I ended up not favoring it. My personal satisfaction with a set of headphones is a completely different aspect than how good I think it is. There are other headphones that I really don't like either, the HD800 for example, but I admire & respect it too.
 
Quote:

Using "musical" as a description for a headphone is so vague it's practically invisible.

 
Since this point was brought up more than once, I should say how I personally define "musical". I agree it's a vague word particularly when used in a group setting where not everyone will agree on its definition, but in my mind it refers to something very specific. For me it refers to a headphone's ability to do, and not do, some key things:
 
- It sounds real. And by that I mean the instruments have realistic-sounding timbres/tonalities/textures. A violin, or violin section, will hopefully sound real on it. My point of comparison for that is my own violin which I still play (though I don't take lessons, as I quit years ago), and the string groups & orchestras that I still perform in too. The vast majority of headphones I've heard have fake-sounding instruments for one reason or another. Not enough treble or too much treble, or weird mid-range peaks. The amount of treble needs to be a balance for especially violins to sound real.
 
- It sounds integrated and cohesive. It can't unnaturally diffuse/separate the sound too much (like the HD800). Real, live music isn't separated like it is on the HD800. A band or orchestra is typically grouped up inside a room or on a stage. It seems like the new trend for headphones in general is to separate/diffuse the sound, which IMO is the wrong direction. A band should sound like the members are all playing together. An orchestra should sound like it's a group of unified instrument sections. I can't tell you guys how many headphones I've heard completely go about presenting orchestral music the wrong way by diffusing the sound. A real-life violin section sounds like a unified violin section, not a group of individual violins. There's a difference between those and so many headphones I've heard make the 1st and 2nd violin sections sound like a group of individual violins, not the 1st and 2nd sections that they are. Headphones that properly integrate the imaging/soundstage and make it a cohesive whole are rare in the market. The accurate, sonic result should be a band or orchestra presented with that close-knit (not up-close which is different) feeling, like the musicians/vocalists are performing together in the same room and not off doing their own thing in a separate space. It's sort of like the "forest vs the trees" analogy. Most of the latest headphones (dynamic, planar magnetic, and electrostatic alike) are really good at letting you see the trees. But few are good at letting you see the forest.
 
It's for all those reasons that the KEF M500, along with the Grado HP1000, and Stax OII MKI as well, are what I call "musical"-sounding, as that's how I define it. They nicely present music as a forest, not individual trees. The Mad Dog, on the other hand, merely did what so many other headphones have done for me: it presented the musical "trees" instead of the forest.

 

[Mad Dude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asr /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
[...] I wasn't really saying that "I don't like all orthos and orthos are bad!" - I was more saying that "I've realized that I haven't really liked any of the orthos that I've heard", from Audeze to HiFiMan and now Fostex (T50rp). And I have only one major complaint against all of the planar magnetics that I've heard: none of them have made music sound physically direct to me. [...]

 
That's exactly how I feel about orthos as well, but I've never been able to put it into words.

 

[eac3]

Quote:

You could also consider the project sunrise ii, or project ember. Can be had for a bit cheaper and they have good reviews. Not as sexy looking though.

 
Thanks, I will see if I can find some reviews as I like the look of it.
 
Quote:

If you have patience, have time, no crush, want to try DIY project then google or search in this forum. Bottlehead DIY projects such as S.E.X II, it can drive ortho well such as LCD-2/3, tube rolling or upgradable parts. It is good to start a tube set up and it is as good value as Mad Dog.

 
Thanks. I looked more into it and don't mind the DIY if it will have more bang for the buck. I also came across the following posts which I decided to pursue this route:
 
 
Quote (Link):

So for my first step into the world of high quality home audio I ordered a pair of these headphones and I'm looking to get an amp that will properly drive them.
I've heard some people talking about the Lyr but I was wondering if anyone knew if a Bottlehead Crack would be up to the task and if so which would be more worth my time.
 
(I know its largely subjective but I appreciate any input!)

 
Quote (Link):

Power is not an issue between those two. I would probably have to recommend the Lyr because of its lower output impedance. The Crack is nice, but is really mostly optimal on high impedance headphones (120 ohms +) as it is an OTL amp. The Lyr seems to be much more suitable for the relatively low impedance (50 ohms) of the Mad Dogs.

 
 
Quote (Link):

I would probably follow this recommendation.  I've got two OTL headamps plus the Schiit Asgard.  I love tubes, and really enjoy the OTL's with my HD650's and ATH M-50's, but the Mad Dogs sound better on my Asgard than with either of my OTL headphone amps.  If you'd like to do tubes with them, I'd suggest trying to hunt down a Decware Taboo with the headphone out.

 

[eac3]

delete

 

[Shini44]

i got my mad dog + alpha pads today, sadly my Yulong D100 MKII will be with me tomorrow :<  Dat feeling when you can't test the gear right away...

 

[Hasashi]

the pads are indeed thicker on the back; the owner must have just put them on backwards by accident
 
all this vintage amp talk is tempting me..

 

[MattTCG]

^^ Give in to your inner demons!! 

 Buy a vintage receiver and you thank me. 

 

[Lorspeaker]

When i bot my first serious can, the DT880/600ohms,
i liked it cos it gave me a broad presentation of the orchestra, as if i am in the audience..maybe 10th row.
THe music was sweeping and "cohesive" to borrow ASR's words...i heard the forest
Then i craved for "more" clarity...T1 answered that.

 
 
As for the hifimans, the pads are mostly flat instead of angled..so that might affect the feel of where i am at vis a vis the orchestra. 
The sound is tall and all over my head..of being inside the orchestra, i enjoy the awesome dynamics of the he6; have to tame this beast somehow.
 reminds me of once being seated in there during my youth..everyone blasting their heads off in all directions, the percussion  just behind me

 
I am having a good time with the LCD2, the additional slammm, the suction of the angledpads,
the ability of my tube amp to drive it sweetens that, i like some tube organics in my music.
 
My approach is to appreciate each can as a different tinted WINDOW to a particular piece of music, and try to enjoy that.
Grado for its rawness, denons for subbass etc...anyway no two concert halls are alike acoustically...
its difficult to get a fix on what "true sound" should be... cept to rely on our memorybank of sound, 
like what ASR preferred, something faithful to his violin-sound/timbre. Thats FiNE ! 

 
 
Back to the Maddogs...
a CLOSED planar is definitely worth a place in my noisy home, its comfy, its clear, its cool neutrality, its non abrasiveness, its tube-able-ness,
just need to release some cash...something needs to be sacrificed. 

 

[kstuart]

Quote:

A real-life violin section sounds like a unified violin section, not a group of individual violins.

Only in a room that is not designed for music performance.
 
===
 
In general, you are arguing that one specific aspect of sound reproduction is what makes something sound "real", whereas by now, it is clear that it is many different factors.  Humans' natural pattern-matching ability causes them to notice one particular thing at a time - that they then associate with "real" sound.  But no one thing is sufficient.
 
This probably accounts for people loving particular headphones and then selling them later - they find that the one "strong point" of a particular pair of headphones is insufficient for realism.   This is why experienced headphone pros like Mike Ting recommend that one own several different pairs, rather than just one "flagship" pair.

 

[hans030390]

Quote:

^^ Give in to your inner demons!! 

 Buy a vintage receiver and you thank me. 

 
Relative to how much people spend on headphones and associated gear, vintage receivers can be pretty darn cheap if you're willing to look around. I've seen some Technics and Kenwood receivers for $40-100 on Craigslist. Some of the Sansuis, Pioneers, etc. are generally $150-500 depending on the condition and model. That's not to say all vintage receivers are good...but they can at least be cheap to try out.
 
I also have a fairly new Sherwood RX-4503 stereo receiver. I wanted to see how it handled the Mad Dogs compared to my Leckerton UHA-6S MkII. I wasn't expecting much, but it actually didn't sound bad! It can certainly drive the MD much louder than the Leckerton...enough to easily fill a room if you turn it up all the way (which would certainly damage your ears). It was also surprisingly smooth to listen to, as though it was more effortless than the Leckerton. The Sherwood isn't quite as flat in the bass as the Leckerton. It sounds as though it starts to roll off very slightly below 40Hz or so. Treble might also roll off a bit more than the Leckerton, but it was still there and fairly detailed. The Leckerton sounded more punchy and focused with a smaller soundstage overall. I'm sure a lot of this has to do with the flatter bass and treble extension. Yet, there was something about the Sherwood that just sounded more natural, more smooth, and easier to listen to. They certainly sounded more expansive on the MD. But, even then, the Sherwood had more of a lower fidelity sound to it. One interesting thing I noticed is that the Sherwood receiver has a slight background hiss to it on my speakers (verified to be the receiver). It's nearly silent on the Mad Dogs until you really crank the volume.
 
I popped open the Sherwood to take a peak inside. This particular receiver is supposed to have discrete amplifiers for the speakers. I was more curious to see if the headphone out had its own board and amplification or if it fed off the main speaker output. I did not look very long (and know little about electronic schematics), but the headphone out area at the front of the receiver itself seemed to be comprised of nothing but the 1/4" jack. Whether or not there was any electronic parts on the PCB under the jack (or if 1/4" jacks can have amplification and such built inside), I have no idea. From there, the jack was wired directly into the main amp board. I was unable to locate any parts that looked to be specifically for the headphone out in terms of amplification. I'm almost positive I didn't see any opamps, though I'm only familiar with the types you'd normally see in sockets. I'm actually wondering if this receiver pulls more from older designs and maybe even feeds the headphone out with the same amplification used for the speakers? I will have to investigate again, snap some pictures, and see if someone can verify.
 
Anyway, I know I'm off topic, but it's at least semi-relevant given the headphone used. Just something I thought was interesting enough to mention and to look into further!

 

[ToPaLi]

thanks guys for the reply..
my mad dogs will be arriving tomorrow and i was wondering what portabe amp to use with these..i'll be using it with my ipodtouch 2g..
was looking for a nice portable amp that could fit in my pocket and could drive the mad dogs well..my budget limit is at $300..is that possible? i was thinking about c&c bh , fiio 17 , leckerton Leckerton UHA6SMKII ...any advice on what would be better among the 3 or any other amp advice? mr speakers said to get the IBasso pb2..but its over my budget and plus shipping..i got the non balanced mad dogs btw
thanks!

 

[Greed]

Quote:

thanks guys for the reply..
my mad dogs will be arriving tomorrow and i was wondering what portabe amp to use with these..i'll be using it with my ipodtouch 2g..
was looking for a nice portable amp that could fit in my pocket and could drive the mad dogs well..my budget limit is at $300..is that possible? i was thinking about c&c bh , fiio 17 , leckerton Leckerton UHA6SMKII ...any advice on what would be better among the 3 or any other amp advice? mr speakers said to get the IBasso pb2..but its over my budget and plus shipping..i got the non balanced mad dogs btw
thanks!

 
Leckerton UHA6SMKII
Headstage Arrow 4G/4T
JDS C5
Pico Slim (Used)
FiiO E12
ALO Audio Rx MK II (3 if you can find it in your budget)
Tralucent T1 (On the large side)
 
to name a few I've had the chance to hear that work great with the MDs. If it needs to be pocket-size small the choices are limited some what.

 

[kskwerl]

Quote:

thanks guys for the reply..
my mad dogs will be arriving tomorrow and i was wondering what portabe amp to use with these..i'll be using it with my ipodtouch 2g..
was looking for a nice portable amp that could fit in my pocket and could drive the mad dogs well..my budget limit is at $300..is that possible? i was thinking about c&c bh , fiio 17 , leckerton Leckerton UHA6SMKII ...any advice on what would be better among the 3 or any other amp advice? mr speakers said to get the IBasso pb2..but its over my budget and plus shipping..i got the non balanced mad dogs btw
thanks!

I had the PB2 and it was awesome. The Leckerton not so much, don't get me wrong its a great amp but I literally had no room left on the pot to increase volume.
 
You should look for someone on the For Sale forum or do you not want something used?

 

[kskwerl]

Here's a PB2 for 250 http://www.head-fi.org/t/673873/ibasso-pb2