[coyote65]

could someone tell me what difference there is?
quality? volume level?

thanks all

 

[nakedtoes]

PX100 - open can
PX200 - close can

 

[coyote65]

doh! thats all?
then they've the same drivers...

 

[proximal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by coyote65 doh! thats all?

Well, they sound rather different.

 

[coyote65]

LOL english insnt my tongue, but it seems that px1oo sounds better then the other more expansive models..............

 

[Taurui]

Opinions on this vary. Some people prefer the PX200s sound, some people prefer the PX100s sound. Just get what you need ... if you don't want people around you to hear your music, get the PX200. If you're often in Airplanes and want to listen to music anyway, get the PXC250 for noise blocking. If you don't need isolation and leak-prevention, get PX100

-Taurui

 

[Langrath]

I can’t understand how people can prefer px100 before px200. I have both, and I must say that I never use px100 after I bought px200. There is a lot more of bass in px100 that is true, but too much. PX200 has the bass but not the bass x 2. I don’t understand why people love overwhelming bass that drowns midrange.
The midrange and treble is much more detailed in px200 than in px100. If I compare px200 with my HD595 using amp for both, most of the details in sound heard from HD595 are also heard in px200, but no sound stage compared to HD595, of course. In px100 lots of detailed sounds are drowned of the bass, and the midrange and treble are muffled.
Not that px100 is bad headphones. They are good portables for the price. But in my opinions PX200 is a step up and much better in sound quality. At least if you want to hear details and not only a big, big bass.

Georg

 

[coyote65]

thanks everybody for the answers

 

[Lisa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langrath I can’t understand how people can prefer px100 before px200. I have both, and I must say that I never use px100 after I bought px200. There is a lot more of bass in px100 that is true, but too much. PX200 has the bass but not the bass x 2. I don’t understand why people love overwhelming bass that drowns midrange. The midrange and treble is much more detailed in px200 than in px100. If I compare px200 with my HD595 using amp for both, most of the details in sound heard from HD595 are also heard in px200, but no sound stage compared to HD595, of course. In px100 lots of detailed sounds are drowned of the bass, and the midrange and treble are muffled. Not that px100 is bad headphones. They are good portables for the price. But in my opinions PX200 is a step up and much better in sound quality. At least if you want to hear details and not only a big, big bass. Georg

That's the problem with the px200.
Your discribtion of the px100 is exactly like i hear it. The px200 however sound like utter crap to my ears. (Note people, MY ears) You know those "telephones" made from two cans and a string that kids (used to) make and play with? That's what the px200 sounded to my ears (Note people, MY ears) only with less bass.

 

[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisa That's the problem with the px200. Your discribtion of the px100 is exactly like i hear it. The px200 however sound like utter crap to my ears. (Note people, MY ears) You know those "telephones" made from two cans and a string that kids (used to) make and play with? That's what the px200 sounded to my ears (Note people, MY ears) only with less bass.

I would agree with Langrath on this one and have more or less the same opinion of them. If you're getting the above results you either have a bad seal due to an incompatibility between your ear shape and the PX200's small pads or you haven't burned them in long/hard enough.

 

[sc53]

I guess I have a head and ears on the smaller side (being female) and I am having a hard time deciding between the PX100 and PX200. I figured I would send one back, but sometimes I prefer the PX100 and sometimes the 200. I get a good seal on the PX200's and hear reasonable bass. Sometimes I think I hear more detail on the PX100's. But then I switch to the 200's and I think the most detail is there. I have Senn 650's for home listening and neither of these pipsqueaks even comes close to those, but both are quite good for their intended (portable, plane or train travel) purpose.

 

[Lisa]

Keep the px200 if you can't deside. If they sounded that good to me I would. Would love to have a bit of isolation.

 

[john_jcb]

I found that the PX200's character changed more than any headphone I have during the 200 hours of burn in. I did not realize just how much they had changed until a friend at work bought a pair after hearing mine. When she got them she came over thinking they were defective as they sounded so much different. As they burned in her headphones changed and sounded like mine but it took a long time.

 

[Langrath]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisa That's the problem with the px200. Your discribtion of the px100 is exactly like i hear it. The px200 however sound like utter crap to my ears. (Note people, MY ears) You know those "telephones" made from two cans and a string that kids (used to) make and play with? That's what the px200 sounded to my ears (Note people, MY ears) only with less bass.

I think it depends on ear shape. If I move px200 a little on my ears I can get that "telephone effect" you are talking about. Perhaps your ears are shaped so you can't get acceptable sound from px200?

Georg

 

[steevc]

I just got the PX200. They sound tinny if I put them centrally on my ears, but nice and rich if I move them slightly forward. I bought them on-line without testing first, so it looks like I am lucky to have the right sort of ears

--
Steve