KSC35's, PX100's, PX200's, or KSC55's???????

The 35's and 55's utilize the same drivers, it's all about fit, and the KSC-35's offer the best fit, although the 55's is probably more secure. They will offer better sound than the PXx00 series.

If I were you I'd say to heck with all of those and get some E2c's.

my preferences are ksc35 over px200 though it really depends on whether you want sealed (px200) or not (ksc35)... theyre both portable and comfy and sound good

i wouldnt recommend px100

I have both the KSC-35s and the PX200s. To me, the bass on the 35s is overemphasized to the point that I don't even use them anymore. I much prefer the PX200s, and feel they're pretty amazing for the price. To me the bass is more balanced.

Of course, I also own AKG401s and Ety ER4Ps, two other cans that some complain are bass-light. To me, "good bass" is balanced with the rest of the spectrum, accurate and tight. To some others "good bass" means lots of bass. If you fall into the second category, you're probably better off with the KSC-35s.

Edit: I think the performance you'll get out of either of these may be highly dependent on how they fit your ears. The differences in sound between the KSC35s and KSC55s have been discussed many times, yet they have the same drivers. And the impact of positioning and fit of the PX200s is also well known. So it's difficult to determine which you'll prefer without trying them. Happily they're both fairly inexpensive and come up on the Buy/Sell forum pretty often, so you could try them both and sell one if it doesn't work for you.

Forget the ksc-55, you might as well go for the px100 then.

px100:
pros: looks good, fairly comfortable.
cons: sound inferior to ksc-35.

ksc-35:
pros: sounds exciting, stays on well, detailed, very open
cons: no midrange, bloated bass, uncontrolled treble, looks dorky, earclip may be uncomfortable, very open
(Can you tell that I don't like these so much? Don't take me wrong though, these are very good cans for the price. Just not to my taste.)

px200:
pros: looks good, detailed & balanced sound, practical for use
cons: more closed/muffled-sounding compared to ksc-35, less detail in treble

IMO,
px200>ksc-35>px100

PX200

I can only speak about the PX200's and I must say for $30 they are really really good. They provide a little isolation and work well with laptops, portable devices and anything else unamped....enjoy..

Isaiah

Re: PX200

Where bro

eCost has them for $34

http://www.ecost.com/ecost/shop/detail.asp?dpno=135003

Was one question mark not sufficient in expressing your curiosity?

lol!

There is also a $5 rebate on Senns which would bring the price down to $29.

I own PX100's, PX200's, and KSC50's, which I understand to be the same driver and enclosure as KSC55's but with earclips instead of a headband. Here are my impressions (which boil down to PX100 > PX200 > KSC50):

KSC50: gosh! really nice sounding, and it's only $13 at Amazon. Pretty amazing. Bass is very present, without seeming unbalanced. Can't go wrong, at the price.

PX200: distinctly better, in a way I would characterize as "cleaner." For example if I listen to movie dialog on the PX200's and then switch back to the KSC50's, the actors suddenly become sorta mealy-mouthed ("bmph whmph hmph") compared to what I was hearing a moment before.

On me the PX200 does not seat/seal closely enough to mask out any outside sounds. On some other people it does. For me the PX200 bass is a little light, but people who get a good seal find the bass very present.

However even with an imperfect seal, the PX200 leaks very little of its own sound out into the environment. So it's a very good 'phone if you're in a situation where bugging other people is a concern.

PX100: ahh, I like this even better than the PX200. Bass is very present (a little too aggressive, at times) and timbres are very open and even cleaner-sounding. Nice nice nice.

Most of my listening is jazz (vocal and instrumental) with some rock and DVDs. Main (but not exclusive) source is unamped iPod G2 with very-high-bitrate VBR MP3 files. I regularly use Etymotic ER-4P's w/S-cable with this source and these files, and that's my "reference sound" when judging anything else. (That may also explain why I find the PX100 a little bass-heavy, since others feel the ER-4's bass is a little light for them.)

* I really don't use the KSC50's any more.

* I use the PX200 at work, since it's an open cubicle environment and I don't want my sound bugging anyone else.

* I use the PX100 when leakage isn't an issue.

* (and I use the Etys when I want isolation or want to completely absorb myself in the music)


Caveat: I've had the PX200's only about 4 weeks and the PX100's only about 2 weeks, so it's possible that neither is fully broken in yet.

PX200: Virtually no sound leakage, minimal isolation. KSC-35: Lets everything in and out. So if isolation is the ultimate priority for you, you know what to choose, but I will say that I find the KSC-35's sound superior in almost all ways. I really don't think in a sonic comparison that the PX200 holds a candle to the KSC-35. I still use the PX200 though, while my KSC-35 gets little use, and this is because I find it much more convenient for portable use.

KSC55s and KSC35s are very different sounding beasts. The KSC55s are closer to the V300s for bloated bass and impact. They sound strangely hollow at times too with vocals and most midrange sounds.

I'm going to suggest the Sennheiser only because of build quality. I've had all 4 headphones in this topic, and my Senns have survived fine, my KSC55 died and my KSC35 pads fell apart after little use, and the right ear clip refuses to stay connected anytime except when on my ear. Of the PX100 and PX200, I prefer the PX200 because they do offer some kind of sound muffling for loudish environments. Also, by comparison, the PX100 hides vocals behind the bass, making it hard to listen to words or midrange. The PX200 is mostly about the midrange, so vocals are very clear.