CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS
Lobby => Headphone Measurements => Topic started by: Marvey on April 09, 2013, 12:33:48 AM
-
Hans sent these in to me. I think they have the Alpha pads. Measurements redone (squished pad issue = bad effect on bass - including subjective impressions)
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=930.0;attach=3230;image)
-
Wow! Where did the bass go! p:8
Seems like the anti-DT-990.
-
Update: Just wanted to put this up near the top that these measurements are for the 3.0 revision.
Wow! Where did the bass go! p:8
That's a good question. They weren't too far off from the Paradox when I had those. Paradox had more in the 100Hz-300Hz range but very close other than that. That was before I got the alpha pads, though. I hope something is not wrong with them or got damaged during shipping. I could be very wrong but I thought they would measure better in the bass based on what I've heard and every other measurement for them.
I forgot to mention, purrin, that the V-moda cable I sent with that is messed up and sometimes needs to be wiggled and bent to work right. Not sure if you used that one or not. Might also be the T50RP jack itself.
And yes, these are with the alpha pads.
-
Yeah - I noted that with the V-Moda cable. The bass is still there, good extension, but a little bit light - confirmed subjectively from several test tracks I used. The treble is slightly rough and sibilant sounding.
-
The Paradox & the Mad-Dogs that I heard at the LA meet both had bass presence. The Mad-Dogs @ that LA meet IMO had even more bass than the Paradox... Now seems it's gone! Maybe it's broken.
Dan did say mids would be more audible tho http://www.head-fi.org/t/613576/mad-dog-by-mrspeakers-modified-fostex-t50rp-review/4995#post_9334580 (http://www.head-fi.org/t/613576/mad-dog-by-mrspeakers-modified-fostex-t50rp-review/4995#post_9334580)
Obviously it seems kind a hard to predict what one is going to get here.
-
harmonic distortion 90db SPL/A white noise
-
The Paradox & the Mad-Dogs that I heard at the LA meet both had bass presence. The Mad-Dogs @ that LA meet IMO had even more bass than the Paradox... Now seems it's gone! Maybe it's broken.
Dan did say mids would be more audible tho http://www.head-fi.org/t/613576/mad-dog-by-mrspeakers-modified-fostex-t50rp-review/4995#post_9334580 (http://www.head-fi.org/t/613576/mad-dog-by-mrspeakers-modified-fostex-t50rp-review/4995#post_9334580)
Obviously it seems kind a hard to predict what one is going to get here.
In theory, you would think they wouldn't be quite this light in the bass. But this very well could be accurate! I will have to double check when I get them back.
Thanks for the measurements, purrin! Very interesting regardless. The HD is about what I expected. Wonder how they compare to the Paradox and stock T50RP, because I don't think there are HD measurements of those on here.
-
I'll check the seal and re-measure again. Will also compare to my stat reference. Haven't really listened to headphones in a while...
-
That's interesting. This version would be more in line with subjective impressions at the Austin meet where folks said the MD's were all mids (Maxvla, twiosp or MorbidToaster, correct me if I'm wrong here).
I agree with ultrabike though. At the LA meet the Mad Dogs were boomier (more mid-bass) than the Paradox. I don't think these were the Alpha pads though, but rather the Dog Pads (??). It's really hard to keep track of all of the changes. I'm sure MrSpeakers is doing right by his customers by offering upgrades as he makes them, but it must be kinda frustrating to have to keep an eye out for any revisions as they come. It was part of the problem when I was modding the T50RP's -- they were never "finished" and I'd always feel the need to tinker with them to get them better. You'd think if someone offered a product commercially, that it'd be "finished".
I have noticed though that when someone has one that measures badly, or doesn't like them, Dan's explanation is that the headphones were from a bad batch that somehow made it into the wild, or from a previous revision that has since been changed. That explanation is convenient the first time, but after a while starts elicit skepticism.
-
You'd think if someone offered a product commercially, that it'd be "finished".
You would think! Unfortunately this is not the case for a lot of industries and products. Doesn't mean it's OK, though. :(
I have noticed though that when someone has one that measures badly, or doesn't like them, Dan's explanation is that the headphones were from a bad batch that somehow made it into the wild, or from a previous revision that has since been changed. That explanation is convenient the first time, but after a while starts elicit skepticism.
Definitely something I've picked up on as well...
-
Yeah, some of us here have felt like guinea pigs for Audio-GD as Kingwa pumps out a new product every other week.
And I don't want to seem like I'm picking on Dan. I've talked to him at a couple of meets and he's a nice guy. I wish him all the success. Just think it's something that should be noted for anyone making an informed buying decision.
Anyway, thanks for sending these in! I know a few of us were definitely curious how the new Alpha Pads measured.
-
I have felt the same way too. I don't like the many changes, but still I order and send him the phones back, etc. lol But I'm actually quite Ok with the Mad Dogs. Love their sound and comfort. And yes, I find them mid-centric (like the unmodded T50RPs) but that's not bad (for me). If I want a bit more bass, I go to my Ultrasone Signature cans... I also want to try the Paradox's some day.
-
That FR definitely looks off; heck it's worse than the 2012 measurement of the Dan Clark Mad Dog prototype in terms of balance. If that bass is 10 dB louder in relation how the current FR looks, then I'd say it's a bingo but this is just...no.
-
That FR definitely looks off; heck it's worse than the 2012 measurement of the Dan Clark Mad Dog prototype in terms of balance. If that bass is 10 dB louder in relation how the current FR looks, then I'd say it's a bingo but this is just...no.
Tyll's very recent measurements of them, while they had their share of problems, were rather flat from 20Hz-1KHz (not perfect, but better than this). Same for when Dan measured them. Dan actually measured my pair personally once while he was double checking something on them for me...but I'm also talking about MD measurements in general outside of mine. Last I checked, you could only see the latest MD measurements by going to the April updates on IF and looking at the PDF for all headphone measurements. Based on all that, you'd think these measurements would actually be much flatter with more bass up to the 1KHz point instead of sloping down like that. If so, that would actually be a pretty decent FR.
Maybe this just truly is how they sound! I wouldn't be shocked or anything. My ears could have adapted to them over time since I own very few headphones now, but I'm still curious about these measurements. I was thinking about it, and I'm not sure how they could have been damaged in my hands or during shipping to sound like that. Guess we'll have to see if Marv finds anything different when he checks them again. I'll make sure they didn't magically change in sound once I get them back as well but am not expecting anything different.
-
Looks more like a 500hz 'lower mid hump' than bass rolloff. :)p17
Shave that 500hz hump off and it looks rather linear.
Jokes aside, I wonder if it really is the alpha pads lowering bass output. Somebody said putting the alpha pads on he-400 lowered its bass output too.
-
And yes, I find them mid-centric (like the unmodded T50RPs) but that's not bad (for me).
According to the graph they do indeed seem to retain some of the mid-forwardness of the stock can. For some reason I found that quality quite unlikeable in the stock T50RP.
The Mad Dogs I heard over at RMAF seemed a touch more even from bass to mids than the graphed ones.
-
Looks more like a 500hz 'lower mid hump' than bass rolloff. :)p17
Shave that 500hz hump off and it looks rather linear.
Jokes aside, I wonder if it really is the alpha pads lowering bass output. Somebody said putting the alpha pads on he-400 lowered its bass output too.
That is actually true...maybe these do have a hump there and other measuring rigs didn't represent it correctly?
The alpha pads shouldn't lower the bass output compared to the dog pads. If you trust Dan's measurements, they're almost identical to the bass output from the dog pads. I believe he has a comparison on his site. That, and the latest measurements from Tyll have a pretty flat, solid response from 20Hz-1KHz. I'm under the impression Tyll's latest measurements also use the alpha pads, but even if it was the dog pads instead you'd think they would at least measure the same as the alpha pads below 300Hz since they do on Dan's measurements.
I wish I could have sent the dog pads in as well for comparison purposes. Unfortunately, the alpha pads required removing some sort of foam on the front side of the baffle that was used on the dog pads. Can't put the foam back on otherwise unless you're really careful or get new foam...and I threw that foam away. :/
-
And yes, I find them mid-centric (like the unmodded T50RPs) but that's not bad (for me).
According to the graph they do indeed seem to retain some of the mid-forwardness of the stock can. For some reason I found that quality quite unlikeable in the stock T50RP.
That was due to resonances on the stock T50RP messing the sound up... I actually had a "stock" and the Mad Dogs side by side and the changes were very evident. Pretty sure it's the same with the Paradox, basically that's why people mod them, to still have a mid-centric headphone without resonance.
-
And yes, I find them mid-centric (like the unmodded T50RPs) but that's not bad (for me).
According to the graph they do indeed seem to retain some of the mid-forwardness of the stock can. For some reason I found that quality quite unlikeable in the stock T50RP.
That was due to resonances on the stock T50RP messing the sound up... I actually had a "stock" and the Mad Dogs side by side and the changes were very evident. Pretty sure it's the same with the Paradox, basically that's why people mod them, to still have a mid-centric headphone without resonance.
I'm sorry to butt in but the Paradox is NOT mid-centric. It's NOT bass-centric and it's NOT treble-centric. I don't tune my headphones to sound like an LCD-3.
-
One thing to keep in mind are that bass measurements are very tricky. Getting the right seal does matter quite a bit.
That being said, I would like to point out that my bass measurements for planar type transducers tends to vary much more than that of other websites which tend to show them as extended and flat. Take at look at 007,009, LCD2r1, HE500, etc.
-
FYI: Something's weird. They sound different today. Will retake measurements. Don't know if something got loose during shipping.
-
basically that's why people mod them (T50RP's), to still have a mid-centric headphone without resonance.
Nope... not why I mod them, mine are not bass, mid or highs centric either, they need to be modded to become that way.
IMO this can only be done properly with a measurement rig, not by ear alone.
-
One thing to keep in mind are that bass measurements are very tricky. Getting the right seal does matter quite a bit.
That being said, I would like to point out that my bass measurements for planar type transducers tends to vary much more than that of other websites which tend to show them as extended and flat. Take at look at 007,009, LCD2r1, HE500, etc.
You have a good point, and it could very well just be that.
FYI: Something's weird. They sound different today. Will retake measurements. Don't know if something got loose during shipping.
Interesting... :-Z
I can't imagine what could be potentially messed up on them, at least on the inside. I took a peek inside the MD a long while back (main reason Dan checked my pair out, to make sure I didn't mess them up...oops! But I didn't.), and while I won't give any details, the insides should be OK. The only thing I could think of is the seal between the baffle and cups getting messed up or something happening to the pads. Small rip or hole somewhere, perhaps near the stitching? Maybe they got overly compressed or shifted from ideal placement during shipping? I could see any of those causing issues with the sound or seal.
Or I suppose they just didn't get a good seal for measurements...but I'm not the expert on this subject matter!
No idea, but I do appreciate you taking the effort to look into it a bit! :)p6
-
NP. I didn't think the first measurements made much sense. I redid them a few times. The only thing I would suspect is the pads needed a day to un-squish from while they were in the box. This would seriously affect bass - and this bass is much stronger today (at least subjectively).
-
NP. I didn't think the first measurements made much sense. I redid them a few times. The only thing I would suspect is the pads needed a day to un-squish from while they were in the box. This would seriously affect bass - and this bass is much stronger today (at least subjectively).
I believe this was the same with my Paradox when I received them. And since I didn't have a nice stand for them, the clamping force would squish the pads together when not in use. Took a few minutes on my head to adjust back to normal. I guess that's one downside to pads like these.
-
OK. New measurements are up now. I think giving the pads time to fluff up provided a better seal. I actually don't hear the MD's as bass lite anymore. It definitely sounded off yesterday when I got them out of the box.
-
Any changes to the distortion measurements?
-
Those look better! Thanks! The 200Hz-1KHz hump is interesting. I'll have to listen more closely for that when I get them back, though feel free to take your time with them, Marv. Dan reported that the alpha pads raised the 200Hz-5KHz spectrum by 2-5dB (greater increase the higher up you go, mostly). Now I'm really curious how the older pads would have measured on your setup! The response might actually measure smoother up to 5KHz or so on your setup with the old pads but with a darker tilt, if I had to guess. But, eh, that's OK. Not worth the hassle. For anyone curious, here's the comparison measurements Dan posted: https://www.mrspeakers.com/image/data/mrspeakers/LCD2_DP_AP.png (https://www.mrspeakers.com/image/data/mrspeakers/LCD2_DP_AP.png) (Blue = alpha pads, Red = old dog pads, Green = LCD2)
It does sound like there's a bit of variability across Mad Dogs of the same revision, so mine might measure better, worse, or the same as a "perfect" unit. That's always something to consider. I'm sure Luis has his headphones more closely matched due to the time he spends on each one.
I actually like a slightly darker than pure neutral sound (they're both good to my ears), and it appears as though these have a dark/neutral-ish tilt. The lowered treble works well for my ears, though I have noticed that peak around 10KHz. It's interesting, but not unexpected, to see it primarily in just one channel though. Seems common for the T50RP.
The one thing I really like about the alpha pads is their comfort and fit, though I eventually plan on making my own suspension headband for it. Dan's comfort band just doesn't cut it for me. I've been lazy and just stick old earpads between it and the top of my head when listening, haha. I do get a better seal with the alpha pads than the older pads, and whether or not they measure better than the old pads, I do prefer how they sound.
Ultimately, I did prefer the Paradox when I had it. I still found the Mad Dogs with the older dog pads to be brighter or thinner sounding than the Paradox, though. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is about their frequency responses that make that difference for me. Either way, I was able to get the Mad Dogs refurbished for around $260, and I got the alpha pads for free because Dan wanted me to beta test them for some reason. Not really sure what his reasoning was behind that, but I can't complain! Overall I'm very satisfied with them for the price.
I'm also curious if distortion changed at all, but it's fine if you didn't redo those measurements. Thanks again! :)p5
-
And yes, I find them mid-centric (like the unmodded T50RPs) but that's not bad (for me).
According to the graph they do indeed seem to retain some of the mid-forwardness of the stock can. For some reason I found that quality quite unlikeable in the stock T50RP.
That was due to resonances on the stock T50RP messing the sound up... I actually had a "stock" and the Mad Dogs side by side and the changes were very evident. Pretty sure it's the same with the Paradox, basically that's why people mod them, to still have a mid-centric headphone without resonance.
I'm sorry to butt in but the Paradox is NOT mid-centric. It's NOT bass-centric and it's NOT treble-centric. I don't tune my headphones to sound like an LCD-3.
Hey hey hey... That's for me to find out!! HEHEHE :)p7
-
OK. New measurements are up now. I think giving the pads time to fluff up provided a better seal. I actually don't hear the MD's as bass lite anymore. It definitely sounded off yesterday when I got them out of the box.
You know, I have always said on HF that I always take a bit of time to "get used" to the sound of the Mad Dogs because quite frankly they can sound underwhelming at first. Usually I hear them as all mids and a bit of bass but then after a while I "warm" up to it. Maybe it has to do with the pads, not sure, but it has always been this way for me.
Anyway, pleasant headphones to listen to all day. Thanks for the measurements!
-
Yeah, they are slightly darkish. They sound pretty good though. I heard slight harshness around the treble. Can't say what the cause it is, the T50RP drivers are notoriously inconsistent after 5kHz, even on the same headphone. The alpha pads are very nice.
Will retake other measurements soon.
-
Those look better! Thanks! The 200Hz-1KHz hump is interesting. I'll have to listen more closely for that when I get them back, though feel free to take your time with them, Marv. Dan reported that the alpha pads raised the 200Hz-5KHz spectrum by 2-5dB (greater increase the higher up you go, mostly). Now I'm really curious how the older pads would have measured on your setup! The response might actually measure smoother up to 5KHz or so on your setup with the old pads but with a darker tilt, if I had to guess. But, eh, that's OK. Not worth the hassle. For anyone curious, here's the comparison measurements Dan posted: https://www.mrspeakers.com/image/data/mrspeakers/LCD2_DP_AP.png (https://www.mrspeakers.com/image/data/mrspeakers/LCD2_DP_AP.png) (Blue = alpha pads, Red = old dog pads, Green = LCD2)
It does sound like there's a bit of variability across Mad Dogs of the same revision, so mine might measure better, worse, or the same as a "perfect" unit. That's always something to consider. I'm sure Luis has his headphones more closely matched due to the time he spends on each one.
I actually like a slightly darker than pure neutral sound (they're both good to my ears), and it appears as though these have a dark/neutral-ish tilt. The lowered treble works well for my ears, though I have noticed that peak around 10KHz. It's interesting, but not unexpected, to see it primarily in just one channel though. Seems common for the T50RP.
The one thing I really like about the alpha pads is their comfort and fit, though I eventually plan on making my own suspension headband for it. Dan's comfort band just doesn't cut it for me. I've been lazy and just stick old earpads between it and the top of my head when listening, haha. I do get a better seal with the alpha pads than the older pads, and whether or not they measure better than the old pads, I do prefer how they sound.
Ultimately, I did prefer the Paradox when I had it. I still found the Mad Dogs with the older dog pads to be brighter or thinner sounding than the Paradox, though. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is about their frequency responses that make that difference for me. Either way, I was able to get the Mad Dogs refurbished for around $260, and I got the alpha pads for free because Dan wanted me to beta test them for some reason. Not really sure what his reasoning was behind that, but I can't complain! Overall I'm very satisfied with them for the price.
I'm also curious if distortion changed at all, but it's fine if you didn't redo those measurements. Thanks again! :)p5
I could definitely spot the same bumpy pattern from 300 Hz ~ 1kHz comparing the new Maddog measurements of here and of InnerFidelity (http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/MrSpeakersMadDogA.pdf), however the bass and treble behaviour I cannot spot any correspondence. There is definitely something off somewhere, either with product variation or measurement deviation, because there is typically some degree of pattern correspondence between FRs here and that of IF for other headphones.
-
I could definitely spot the same bumpy pattern from 300 Hz ~ 1kHz comparing the new Maddog measurements of here and of InnerFidelity (http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/MrSpeakersMadDogA.pdf), however the bass and treble behaviour I cannot spot any correspondence. There is definitely something off somewhere, either with product variation or measurement deviation, because there is typically some degree of pattern correspondence between FRs here and that of IF for other headphones.
Here's the link to Tyll's latest MD measurements, as the ones you linked are rather old (from 840 version, I believe): http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/MrSpeakersMadDog2013.pdf
Dan was not sure why the upper mids and treble came out so weird on that one. Same for the rather high distortion, though it doesn't look like the MD has super low distortion to begin with. It's hard to say exactly what's going on here.
-
Whoa, what's up with that distortion?
-
These new FR measurements look a lot more similar to how mine sound than the one I was looking at yesterday. Thanks for measuring these, purrin.
-
I could definitely spot the same bumpy pattern from 300 Hz ~ 1kHz comparing the new Maddog measurements of here and of InnerFidelity (http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/MrSpeakersMadDogA.pdf), however the bass and treble behaviour I cannot spot any correspondence. There is definitely something off somewhere, either with product variation or measurement deviation, because there is typically some degree of pattern correspondence between FRs here and that of IF for other headphones.
Here's the link to Tyll's latest MD measurements, as the ones you linked are rather old (from 840 version, I believe): http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/MrSpeakersMadDog2013.pdf
Dan was not sure why the upper mids and treble came out so weird on that one. Same for the rather high distortion, though it doesn't look like the MD has super low distortion to begin with. It's hard to say exactly what's going on here.
Oh my bad.
That distortion looks too consistent and non-spiky to be actual high THD I think. At any rate the square waves are impressive.
-
Whoa, what's up with that distortion?
No one knows...Dan said he'll check the unit when he gets it back from Tyll. :-\ Looks like the first distortion measurements you got from mine weren't quite that bad, so I'd hoping my pair is more indicative of how the MD actually is. Not sure if they would improve or not with a remeasure.
-
how bad is the treble sibilance/roughness? very curious about all these modded T50rp phones. though I suspect the Paradox is probably a tad more impressive - don't quite remember what it sounded like, just that it was really nice. a bit tempted to get a pair of decent closed phones for office now.
-
I wouldn't mind seeing the distortion plots for a stock T50rp and Paradox as well.
-
Holy moly the new IF graph for mad dogs is flat as ruler to 1khz, but it also shows it to have an he-400 like dramatic dip in the upper midrange.
-
Holy moly the new IF graph for mad dogs is flat as ruler to 1khz, but it also shows it to have an he-400 like dramatic dip in the upper midrange.
Yeah with the IF measurements, it makes it so that it looks like HE400 (http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/HiFiMANHE400.pdf) and the new MDs (http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/MrSpeakersMadDog2013.pdf) are near-identical, except HE400 has a bit more mid-midrange bump, and much more upper treble. Purrin's measurements show two entirely unrelate-able FRs instead. All very curious.
-
how bad is the treble sibilance/roughness? very curious about all these modded T50rp phones. though I suspect the Paradox is probably a tad more impressive - don't quite remember what it sounded like, just that it was really nice. a bit tempted to get a pair of decent closed phones for office now.
I don't find them to be too sibilant or rough, and I generally am sensitive to that. I think the T50RP in general can have a bit of trouble in the 7-10KHz range. I think the measurements here characterize the MD well enough. The treble is a bit lumpy but overall pretty good and in line with the rest of the response (if not a bit subdued). When I had the dog pads and did a direct comparison between the MD and Paradox, they both had a bit of a peak around 10KHz and were't far off from each other in treble response. But compared to most other headphones, properly modded T50RPs are actually pretty darn good when it comes to treble.
Put simply, you don't have much to worry about. :)
Holy moly the new IF graph for mad dogs is flat as ruler to 1khz, but it also shows it to have an he-400 like dramatic dip in the upper midrange.
I don't always trust Tyll's measurements when it comes to upper mids and treble (no offense if you're reading this, Tyll!). His Paradox measurements also showed a big dip at 5KHz. Seems like a lot of headphones he measure have big dips in that area. That said, Dan said he thinks something was wrong with the pair he sent Tyll and will be investigating it. I think the measurements here are more indicative of how they'd measure beyond 1KHz at least.
-
Well I know that all his measurements have a dip near the 3-4khz region, but I've learned to compensate for that. I just find it amusing that this particular set measures like an HE-400. I thought the mad dog was supposed to sound like an lcd-2.
-
I don't think the MD sounds like an HE-400 at all. The HE-400 seems bassier, is more laid-back, and has more upper treble. I would say the MD sounds more towards the LCD-2, but not so rolled.
Here's measurement comparison.
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=51.0;attach=176;image)
LCD2r2
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=391.0;attach=1726;image)
MD
(http://www.changstar.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=930.0;attach=3230;image)
-
Yes, which is why I find that latest measurement from IF weird, unless there's huge variance in mad dog products.
HE-400 in red, mad dogs in blue:
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/mdhe400_zps086ba256.jpg)
-
Hmm, I know there's been ongoing improvements with the MD's. And again, the T50RP treble is inconsistent from unit to unit.
-
Yes, which is why I find that latest measurement from IF weird, unless there's huge variance in mad dog products.
HE-400 in red, mad dogs in blue:
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/mdhe400_zps086ba256.jpg)
I don't think there's a huge variation in the Mad Dogs. I'm talking within the same revisions...obviously the Mad Dog versions with different pads will have more variation.
I know Dan tests every unit before sending them out, so they're all matched fairly closely. I don't believe his matching standards are quite as high as those seen in the Paradox, but still pretty good. Dan has a very different business model than Luis, though, and pumps out headphones pretty quickly. Due to these factors, you are more likely to see a bit of variation across units and more likely to see bad units escape quality inspection. At least, that's my guess. All of this is really a guess on my part from what I've been told by others since the inception of these products. I try to follow them fairly closely...
As I've mentioned, Dan actually measured my pair before with the dog pads and shared that with me. They matched his reference measurement on his website quite closely but weren't exact. I'd say it was on par with small variation you'd see in any good headphone. He also recently posted another MD measurement of a pair I believe he pulled to demonstrate a "lumpier" measuring unit. Still very close to his official measurements on his site.
Of course, this could all be incorrect, but I doubt it. The only way to really test would be to get a bunch of MDs and measure them on the same setup. I think with the IF measurements, it's really more about the setup Tyll uses. It's not uncommon to see headphones with big dips in the upper mids and treble that you don't see on other measurement setups. The Paradox is a good example...compare the IF measurements to the ones on here. You can see how they match in some ways, but they're still pretty different looking.
I've actually stopped using IF so much for measurements. I think there's a lot to be learned from them, but I also see many headphones on there measuring similarly when they'd look pretty different when Marv measures them. I see more variation with the measurements on this site.
-
Dan recently made it known that the Mad Dogs went through a few revisions already this year. The initial alpha pad release was 3.0 with 3.1 and 3.2 tunings following shortly after. He's also offering the option to retune any Mad Dogs for $30, though you do still have to pay for the alpha pads if you don't have those yet. He claims future revisions will dramatically slow down now, especially since he's focusing on the balanced MD and such.
Anyway, I'm not here to personally comment on his business or practices, though I do appreciate his additional transparency on the matter. I just wanted to lay out the situation so that I could post his comparison measurement of the three revisions:
(http://i.imgur.com/TyoQG4e.png)
Blue = MD 3.0
Green = MD 3.1
Red = MD 3.2
For reference, the Mad Dogs I sent to Marv are the 3.0 revision. Mine originally came with the dog pads, and I later swapped them out for the alpha pads. I'm not sure if that makes a difference or not, but Marv did measure them with the alpha pads. I figured posting this would be interesting to some (maybe not), but I mainly just wanted to put this info up here for completeness. I'm assuming it's OK if I share the measurements Dan posted on HF (re-uploaded to imgur)...
-
Dan recently made it known that the Mad Dogs went through a few revisions already this year. The initial alpha pad release was 3.0 with 3.1 and 3.2 tunings following shortly after. He's also offering the option to retune any Mad Dogs for $30, though you do still have to pay for the alpha pads if you don't have those yet. He claims future revisions will dramatically slow down now, especially since he's focusing on the balanced MD and such.
Anyway, I'm not here to personally comment on his business or practices, though I do appreciate his additional transparency on the matter. I just wanted to lay out the situation so that I could post his comparison measurement of the three revisions:
(http://i.imgur.com/TyoQG4e.png)
Blue = MD 3.0
Green = MD 3.1
Red = MD 3.2
For reference, the Mad Dogs I sent to Marv are the 3.0 revision. Mine originally came with the dog pads, and I later swapped them out for the alpha pads. I'm not sure if that makes a difference or not, but Marv did measure them with the alpha pads. I figured posting this would be interesting to some (maybe not), but I mainly just wanted to put this info up here for completeness. I'm assuming it's OK if I share the measurements Dan posted on HF (re-uploaded to imgur)...
The consensus among MD owners on hfi seems to be that the 3.1 / 3.2 revisions boosted the bass so it is much more in balance with the midrange now. I guess it makes sense then that the bass in the OP measurements of the 3.0 seem too little in relation to the midrange "hump".
Deriving what changed from this FR comparison to the 3.0 measurements in OP, yeah the big effect would be that the midrange hump is significantly lowered.
-
The consensus among MD owners on hfi seems to be that the 3.1 / 3.2 revisions boosted the bass so it is much more in balance with the midrange now. I guess it makes sense then that the bass in the OP measurements of the 3.0 seem too little in relation to the midrange "hump".
Deriving what changed from this FR comparison to the 3.0 measurements in OP, yeah the big effect would be that the midrange hump is significantly lowered.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I'd have to guess the latest revision would be more to my tastes, so I'll probably get mine retuned. I've only invested maybe $275 into my MD total (refurb unit), so an extra $30 isn't a big deal for me. I can see why others would be upset and/or annoyed.
-
The consensus among MD owners on hfi seems to be that the 3.1 / 3.2 revisions boosted the bass so it is much more in balance with the midrange now. I guess it makes sense then that the bass in the OP measurements of the 3.0 seem too little in relation to the midrange "hump".
Deriving what changed from this FR comparison to the 3.0 measurements in OP, yeah the big effect would be that the midrange hump is significantly lowered.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I'd have to guess the latest revision would be more to my tastes, so I'll probably get mine retuned. I've only invested maybe $275 into my MD total (refurb unit), so an extra $30 isn't a big deal for me. I can see why others would be upset and/or annoyed.
I can empathize with these MD owners; I was heavily enrolled in the dang HE400 driver failure and later driver sibilance debacle over the majority of last year.
-
Follow up HD measurements as promised - some months later.
- L channel looks about the same as before
- R channel has more 3rd order this time around. Weird. I took the headphone off the rig and re-measured. Two times. Same results. Will check again with another reference to make sure the rig is OK. This is odd. Wondering if something shook loose inside.
This pair's been a bitch to measure.
-
Interesting. Looks like D2 and D3 are a bit high, but not horrendously so. I would really like to know how the stock T50RP and Paradox compare! I have no idea if the 3.2 MD revision improved distortion or not.
Sorry they've been such a pain to measure, but I do appreciate you taking the time to do it! :)
-
Let me dig up a stock T50RP. The T50RP is going to have HD on a slightly higher side, especially toward the lower regions. This is because of the small size of the driver.
-
T50RP stock HD for comparison.
Not too much different from the MadDog's as I expected. It would seem that HD (and FR in the highs) are not very consistent with the T50RPs. This is something a few of us have known or suspected for a while.
-
I hope he finds a way to smoothly bump the highs and then filter out the sibilant 8-10k region. A bit of extra controlled venting would do the trick, it tends to do that, the applying a specific filter to drop the sibilant part.
As it is, it kinda looks like my pair of Paradox, assuming my eq doesn't lie, which it shouldn't. I wonder how the midbass is, Paradox have a slight "perseverance" in the bass.
-
Ahoy, and thanks for running the measurements, twice! I've been enjoying reading the thread.
Purrin, I suspect you were correct about why your first measurement was bass light... In shipping the pads normally deform. If you measure right out of the box you almost certainly won't get a decent seal. If the phones haven't been on a stand it's a good idea to wear them to warm the pads before testing; the foam will shape to fit your head (or fixture) when warm.
The 3.2 version was indeed designed to smooth out the 500-2K region, it's definitely more linear there. It's also the last revision I can foresee, we're really happy with it and I have no plans to change it further (nor will we change the ear pads). 3.2 is what the recent reviews and comments in many of the audio pubs has been based on.
Purrin's graphs look like it was a 3.0, is probably pretty close to what I'd expect. 3.2 should look smoother in the mids and the bass/mid and mid/high transitions.
-
Ahoy, and thanks for running the measurements, twice! I've been enjoying reading the thread.
Purrin, I suspect you were correct about why your first measurement was bass light... In shipping the pads normally deform. If you measure right out of the box you almost certainly won't get a decent seal. If the phones haven't been on a stand it's a good idea to wear them to warm the pads before testing; the foam will shape to fit your head (or fixture) when warm.
The 3.2 version was indeed designed to smooth out the 500-2K region, it's definitely more linear there. It's also the last revision I can foresee, we're really happy with it and I have no plans to change it further (nor will we change the ear pads). 3.2 is what the recent reviews and comments in many of the audio pubs has been based on.
Purrin's graphs look like it was a 3.0, is probably pretty close to what I'd expect. 3.2 should look smoother in the mids and the bass/mid and mid/high transitions.
Hey, Dan. I must have missed something in the thread from the other site. It seems to be locked now and I have no idea what happened. It's a shame that the thread has been shut down for now. Also, thank you for the recent 3.2 upgrade. My pair was one of the two that mechgamer sent in. I like the change in sound and I'm enjoying them a little bit more than I did before sending them back.
-
It was a bit of a "huh?' moment that the thread was locked, but so it goes... Anyhow, a new thread has sprung up, though, so all's well that ends well...
Glad you're enjoying them...
-
Thanks for all the measurements, purrin! The HD of both the MD and stock T50RP are particularly interesting.
Dan, these are definitely the 3.0 revision as I mentioned above. Now that I'm settled in at my new location, I'll probably send you my MDs for tuning once I get them back. :)p6
-
You want to me ship them off to Dan instead?
-
You want to me ship them off to Dan instead?
Let me PM Dan and get back to you...
-
Just wanted to chime in now that I've had the 3.2 revision on hand for a few days. The hump around 200Hz-1KHz seems to have been smoothed out, which I am quite enjoying. They sound less "dry" than before, which I had mentioned a few times in the past. I'm thinking that's probably due to the reduction in that area...? I can't say for sure, but the treble also seems smoother as well. So, overall, they sound smoother and more natural...whatever that might mean.
Though, yes, I would have preferred this right off the bat when I first purchased the Mad Dog, I'm really satisfied with how they sound right now and don't mind the additional $30 fee so much. I think anyone jumping on board right now is getting a pretty good deal for $300.
-
The 3.2 I'm trying out still has a noticeable bump in the upper bass- lower midrange are around 3-500hz, but it's nothing that takes away from its sonic quality. I would think the more bump in that area the more juicy the song. I would never categorize upper bass and lower mids as dry.
-
The 3.2 I'm trying out still has a noticeable bump in the upper bass- lower midrange are around 3-500hz, but it's nothing that takes away from its sonic quality. I would think the more bump in that area the more juicy the song. I would never categorize upper bass and lower mids as dry.
Hm, I will have to see if I can hear anything around that area. Never said it was perfect, just that the broad area in general sounded more smoothed out to me. :)
I'm not entirely sure what it was about the MD 2.0 and 3.0 that made me think "dry," though the 2.0 revision sounded "dry" compared to the Paradox I used to have (Paradox seemingly had more output in the 100-300Hz area). The 3.0 revision primarily boosted the mids, IIRC. Having recently heard how surprisingly sharp and grating the 2KHz spike is on the K702 65th AE, I'm beginning to wonder if it was the reduction in the 1-2.5KHz area (as shown in Dan's measurements) combined with what sounds like an overall smoother response before that point which gives the 3.2 less of a "dry" sound. I keep putting dry in quotes because I'm not really sure that's the correct term to be using...Just the best way I could describe it at the time. As you can probably tell, I am no audio master (but do my best and try to further what I know). ;)
Also keep in mind that it's been a few weeks since I've had the MD on hand, so I haven't been able to do any sort of real comparison other than that based off (potentially poor) memory.
-
ATTN:
This pair was found to be kind of screwy. It got sent back to Mr.Speakers to get fixed. There was an issue with the input jack on the headphone. I could never get consistent measurements on one channel.
The below link has a measurement of the good channel:
http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,1020.msg26736.html#msg26736
I'm asking Mr. Speakers to send me another pair so I can take proper measurements of them.
-
ATTN:
This pair was found to be kind of screwy. It got sent back to Mr.Speakers to get fixed. There was an issue with the input jack on the headphone. I could never get consistent measurements on one channel.
The below link has a measurement of the good channel:
http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,1020.msg26736.html#msg26736
I'm asking Mr. Speakers to send me another pair so I can take proper measurements of them.
I'm actually still having issues with my pair after getting them back, but I think it's just the 3.5mm cable. I can't reproduce the issue with the stock 1/4" cable. If you had issues with both cables, I'm not sure what's up!
I'm assuming Dan would send you a 3.2 unit, which I'm quite happy with.