[Habib]

koss has better sound, but everything else goes to PX200. If I need isolation or walk around with my music then PX200 is the way to go. KSC35 has no isolation whatsoever. Depends on your needs. If isolation is not necessary and you can deal with clips get the KSC35. Otherwise you are pretty much stuck with PX200. Get both and decide yourself

 

[Rizumu]

Quote:

Originally posted by ADS I have both, and both fit my ears very well. The KSC-50s (slightly worse than the 35s) are in a completely different class compared to the PX-200s. The difference is obvious. The PX-200s are much honkier, and the sound is very closed in. The only reason I ever use my PX-200s is when I don't want to bother other people with sound leakage.

Same here. KSC-35's are heads and tails above the PX200. The PX200 is a much better design and wonderful for portable, very durable too, and great for walking around with. I have Ety's though so they were pretty much defunct. Sound is what I most care about too, so I kept the KSC-35's, even though they're not as well suited for portable.

 

[JaZZ]

To my ears the PX 200 sounds more refined and smoother, with clearly better detail and resolution and better balance, apart from the slight treble roll-off. The midrange is sweet, and the bass is tight and quite deep if you manage to get a good seal (no problem here). This compared to the Portapro with loose «ComfortZone» adjustment, which should provide virtually the same sound as the KSC-35. The Portapro sounds a bit punchier and airier, but also less clear and less clean, slightly grainy in the midrange, and its bass is rather boomy. But actually I like both for what they are: great portable headphones. The PX 200's isolation is a real plus on the go, and it's very comfortable (can't speak for the KSC-35). The only downside: it's quite sensitive to wind noises.

 

[Tyll Hertsens]

The bass is intollerably rolled off in the PX200; I like the sound of the KSC35 a lot better. But if it were me I'd go with the PX100: the sound is similar to the KSC35, both have little isolation, but the PX100 is such a superior headphone in terms of comfort and durability that I'd have to go there.

 

[maurus]

bass is intollerably rolled off in the px200?

after "burn-in"? after a good fit?

px100 has a very good sound, sometimes too dark.

I go for the senn px200 for isolation, confortably, portable, resistent and a sound more clear and defined.

 

[bangraman]

The bass is intollerably rolled off in the PX200

I prefer the PX100 too over the KSC-35 for exactly the reason Tyll specified, but I must have incredible bass-recovery ears as well... either that or I'm not being hyper-critical.

 

[kyrie]

Quote:

The bass is intollerably rolled off in the PX200;

To my ears px200 has stronger bass than the ksc35! In fact, a bit too much for my taste.

 

[boodi]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyll Hertsens The bass is intollerably rolled off in the PX200; I like the sound of the KSC35 a lot better. But if it were me I'd go with the PX100: the sound is similar to the KSC35, both have little isolation, but the PX100 is such a superior headphone in terms of comfort and durability that I'd have to go there.

I'm listening to my new Px 100 - i think the sound out of them is much more "compressed" and sibiling then the sound out of ksc 35 - they also miss in musicality , and in separtion , where the ksc 35 are not the best but can provide sure a better rapresentation .

Px 100 definitely lack soundstage - ksc 35 have it ( a bit noticeable but they definitely got one - little - soundstage )

Ksc 35 are sure overdrived in the bass - bass to mid frequencies, i fell fatigued after 1-2 hours of listening .
Px 100 frq. rapresentation is significantly overall much more " linear oriented".

which one ?

don't know

 

[JaZZ]

PX 200 rolled-off bass? No way! At least not with my ears. But that's already been discussed a few times: the fit of the small ear cushions obviously is somewhat critical and depending on individual anatomics.

 

[waylman]

i bought both of these and ended up returning the ksc's. The sound quality on the ksc's is marginally better. I hate the clip design though. It's useless especially if you wear them at the gym. I'm very happy with the PX200's.

 

[ray4jc]

the first time i listened with a pair of ksc35's i couldn't believe how good it sounded, i did find them fatiguing....after a little while however the sound and fit...must be my ears...

now i own the px200 and i was actually surprised by the sound, i have found that they seem to reveal errors in recordings well..i've got lots of scratched cd's....but my only quirk is what macdef said if you don't get them to seat correctly on your ears they don't sound nearly as good....

what i'd like is a larger headphone...say one that had larger pads that the px200 that sealed better...that had a little bit of the ksc35 sound....

ray

 

[jona]

Most agree that in this price class the KSC-35 offers excellent sound, but minimal isolation. IMHO- The popular PX-200 has substantial variation in build quality. I have heard one example which essentially matched (perhaps exceeded) the 35's in absolute sound quality, but I've heard 3 others which sounded like garbage next to my 35's (via the same PCDP source). Rolled-off base and muddy treble- very poor sonic experience indeed. Unfortunately, the only PX-100 I have heard was not worth the box it shipped in. Unless you need the isolation, I would strongly recommend the KSC35's. If you go with the PX-series, I would advise buying from a dealer with a good return policy.

Jon

 

[Jodiuh]

Quote:

Originally posted by jona I have heard one example which essentially matched (perhaps exceeded) the 35's in absolute sound quality, but I've heard 3 others which sounded like garbage next to my 35's (via the same PCDP source).

Damnit Jon! Now I'll be in forever wonderment about my pair...

Edit: Ooh, a hoosier, I'm in Valparaiso, near Chicago, you?

 

[Davie]

After reading the new Headroom review of the PX200 I tried them out again, concentrating on the bass. I found the bass quite respectable, even after shifting them around on my head quite a bit. I don't know if it's the burn in, but my impression has changed quite a bit from when I first got them and wrote a review saying that the bass was lacking ("an extension of the midrange" I believe was my phrase).

I think the bass on the KSC-35 is somewhat exaggerated, but otherwise I prefer their sound to the PX200. I find the PX100 darker sounding than the KSC-35 and am not sure I would recommend them as an alternative. The open, slightly emphasized highs of the KSC-35 are one of their likeable qualities for me, and the PX100s certainly don't sound that way to me.

Overall, I give the nod to the PX200 for the main reason that I've had rattle/grattle problems with two pairs of KSC-35s, so I would consider durability a real weakness. And has been mentioned above, they offer no isolation.

 

[meat01]

I think the KSC35's sound better, but for airplane travel, I have to use the PX200's because Airlines don't like amps in mint tins and the PX200's block outside noise better. They are both extremely comfortable.