[helloh3adfi]

What's the difference between IE200 and IE600? Both have 7 mm DD. I am able to use EQ.

 

[ericpalonen]

What's the difference between IE200 and IE600? Both have 7 mm DD. I am able to use EQ.

Hello!

Let's start at the ground level.

First, please note (and most importantly): When you use EQ you are only equalizing the MUSIC, and not changing the capabilities of the transducer.

Similarities:

• IE 600 and IE 200 are both balanced with a nudge of engagement in the response curves
• Both feature the 7mm TrueResponse transducer platform made by Sennheiser (although the actual transducer is different)
• Both feature the same housing geometry and MMCX connectors
• Both come with silicone and foam ear adapters, and can use the dual-staging option for a different sound experience
• Impedance (18 ohms) and max SPL (118dB - IE 200, 119dB - IE 600) are similar

Differences

• Response curve is indeed different, though related
• Housing of IE 600 is 3D printed ZR-01 alloy for hardness and durability, made in Germany
• IE 600 does not have the nozzle stem port that the IE 200 has for the dual-staging tuning
• IE 600 features dual frequency absorbers
• IE 600 includes the balanced 4.4mm cable as well as single-ended 3.5mm
• IE 600 measures a bit better in terms of THD over the already-stellar IE 200
• IE 600 has a hard-shell carrying case

Hope that helps!

 

[fjf]

What's the difference between IE200 and IE600? Both have 7 mm DD. I am able to use EQ.

None. Go to https://squig.link/?share=Super_22_Target,Sennheiser_IE_600,Sennheiser_IE_200_(D1) then equalize then autoeq and you'll have the equalizer parameters to convert the 200 into a 600, more or less, at least tuning-wise.

 

[helloh3adfi]

What is the advantage or use of

• IE 600 features dual frequency absorbers

? Other than that the materials of the IE600 are better which makes them sturdier. Other things are negligible. I'd buy 3rd party cables anyway.
IE200 got a plastic housing instead of metal, right? Looking at Moondrop Aria I quite like the metal housing feeling more so than plastic.

Hope that helps!

Thanks. Btw. your signature only features Sennheiser headphones and In-Ears. You probably use other brands as well, don't you?

 

[Detroifa]

None. Go to https://squig.link/?share=Super_22_Target,Sennheiser_IE_600,Sennheiser_IE_200_(D1) then equalize then autoeq and you'll have the equalizer parameters to convert the 200 into a 600, more or less, at least tuning-wise.

Funny, I did this but the other way around this morning (applied the 200 eq on the 600) sounded like a generic chi fi iem to my ears.

 

[johnnym]

None. Go to https://squig.link/?share=Super_22_Target,Sennheiser_IE_600,Sennheiser_IE_200_(D1) then equalize then autoeq and you'll have the equalizer parameters to convert the 200 into a 600, more or less, at least tuning-wise.

That’s a rabbit hole I’m looking forward to diving in to. I’ve not heard of these squigs before.

 

[ericpalonen]

None. Go to https://squig.link/?share=Super_22_Target,Sennheiser_IE_600,Sennheiser_IE_200_(D1) then equalize then autoeq and you'll have the equalizer parameters to convert the 200 into a 600, more or less, at least tuning-wise.

This is fun to play with and all, but you cannot "convert" one to the other. What you're seeking is commonly referred to as acoustic modeling. Yes, you can nudge the response to get closer to whatever target you want, but that is strictly a frequency response play and does nothing for the other elements of the earphone that make up its sound; physical construction, materials used, proximity of components, positioning of components in the back volume, the back volume size, frequency absorbers that PHYSICALLY alter the actual soundwave moving inside the acoustic chamber, the nozzle dimensions, the hardness of the materials, the location of the frequency absorber, the amount of acoustic fleece, the tuning of the driver, so on and so on and so on. The squig is cool in that you can make measured adjustments to a frequency response target, but they should be taken as just that. Curves are not conclusive of "the sound" just as colors of paint are not a used to benchmark if the art they make is enjoyable.

What you are EQ'ing is the source signal, not the headphone. Nor are you altering it's guts, which are a tangibly different physical aspect of acoustics that gets ignored all too often. If you get one of your headphones to sound more "reminiscent" of another with EQ based on someone else's mapping, and you prefer it that way, that's great and we hope you enjoy it. But to say there is no difference between the two models is straight up and down 100% false. If you owned both of these and have had the chance to compare them side by side, by all means let the community know your thoughts on your experience listening to them both, as this seems to be what people are in search of.

What is the advantage or use of

• IE 600 features dual frequency absorbers

? Other than that the materials of the IE600 are better which makes them sturdier. Other things are negligible. I'd buy 3rd party cables anyway.
IE200 got a plastic housing instead of metal, right? Looking at Moondrop Aria I quite like the metal housing feeling more so than plastic.


Thanks. Btw. your signature only features Sennheiser headphones and In-Ears. You probably use other brands as well, don't you?

We use frequency absorbers in many headphones and earphones. They can predictably damp the energy of a specific range of cycles in soundwaves, and when used strategically, are suited well for reducing the buildup of a specific frequency -- specifically the ones that mask/obscure details. This is especially helpful with transients, which are at the core of how we perceive detail and nuance in so many instruments.

We know people use third party cables and that is great. Out of the box, the IE 600 includes two, and the IE 200 does not. That's not a biased opinion. If you want the Moondrop Aria for its metal housing then that's your preference.

I make no effort to hide that I work for Sennheiser and this is clearly stated with my giant sponsor badge in the footer lol. I've heard a zillion other headphones, good ones too, but do not discuss them for what I think are obvious reasons. I'll evaluate even more at CanJam NYC coming up and look forward to doing so in order to see what the competition is doing.

Funny, I did this but the other way around this morning (applied the 200 eq on the 600) sounded like a generic chi fi iem to my ears.

Applying an EQ curve from one headphone (that was created with measurement tones, not a song), to a musical signal that is going into another headphone that already has a specific sound, and then realizing that it does not sound like anything special is not a surprise at all. If I put all-season tires on my track car to see if it could make it perform more like an everyday driver, and was underwhelmed by the amount of traction I had, it would be reasonably easy to draw a line between the cause and the effect.

TLDR: equalizing an audio signal and acoustic modeling are not the same.

 

[PixelSquish]

How would these compare to the Meze Rai Penta?

I owned the Rai Penta for a year and change and just got these yesterday so I am going from memory.

The Penta were amazing to me - the mids and highs were perfection, the lows were just a little more subdued than I prefer. If the lows had a little more boost, as they were very high quality already, just a bit too quiet for me. But they are beautiful sounding IEM's so clear and detailed yet refined and silky at the same time. I wanted to keep them but I sold them to finance some TWS instead, as I wrongly discounted wired IEM's for TWS which I always used on the go, and decided to just use full size cans at home. If they had closer to the IE600 bass I'd still have them.

 

[Detroifa]

That’s a rabbit hole I’m looking forward to diving in to. I’ve not heard of these squigs before.

Oh yeah it's been around for awhile.

This is fun to play with and all, but you cannot "convert" one to the other. What you're seeking is commonly referred to as acoustic modeling. Yes, you can nudge the response to get closer to whatever target you want, but that is strictly a frequency response play and does nothing for the other elements of the earphone that make up its sound; physical construction, materials used, proximity of components, positioning of components in the back volume, the back volume size, frequency absorbers that PHYSICALLY alter the actual soundwave moving inside the acoustic chamber, the nozzle dimensions, the hardness of the materials, the location of the frequency absorber, the amount of acoustic fleece, the tuning of the driver, so on and so on and so on. The squig is cool in that you can make measured adjustments to a frequency response target, but they should be taken as just that. Curves are not conclusive of "the sound" just as colors of paint are not a used to benchmark if the art they make is enjoyable.

What you are EQ'ing is the source signal, not the headphone. Nor are you altering it's guts, which are a tangibly different physical aspect of acoustics that gets ignored all too often. If you get one of your headphones to sound more "reminiscent" of another with EQ based on someone else's mapping, and you prefer it that way, that's great and we hope you enjoy it. But to say there is no difference between the two models is straight up and down 100% false. If you owned both of these and have had the chance to compare them side by side, by all means let the community know your thoughts on your experience listening to them both, as this seems to be what people are in search of.



We use frequency absorbers in many headphones and earphones. They can predictably damp the energy of a specific range of cycles in soundwaves, and when used strategically, are suited well for reducing the buildup of a specific frequency -- specifically the ones that mask/obscure details. This is especially helpful with transients, which are at the core of how we perceive detail and nuance in so many instruments.

We know people use third party cables and that is great. Out of the box, the IE 600 includes two, and the IE 200 does not. That's not a biased opinion. If you want the Moondrop Aria for its metal housing then that's your preference.

I make no effort to hide that I work for Sennheiser and this is clearly stated with my giant sponsor badge in the footer lol. I've heard a zillion other headphones, good ones too, but do not discuss them for what I think are obvious reasons. I'll evaluate even more at CanJam NYC coming up and look forward to doing so in order to see what the competition is doing.


Applying an EQ curve from one headphone (that was created with measurement tones, not a song), to a musical signal that is going into another headphone that already has a specific sound, and then realizing that it does not sound like anything special is not a surprise at all. If I put all-season tires on my track car to see if it could make it perform more like an everyday driver, and was underwhelmed by the amount of traction I had, it would be reasonably easy to draw a line between the cause and the effect.

TLDR: equalizing an audio signal and acoustic modeling are not the same.

Thanks for pointing it out.
I do know that by using autoeq it is not equal to experiencing the headphone/iem themselves. Way too many factors to account for like unit/measurement variations, materials used and so on.
I do this more out of curiosity since I was not considering purchase and guessed since the config and platform are similar it would give me an idea of how vocals where placed towards the rest of the frequencies (very v shaped imo).

 

[ericpalonen]

I do this more out of curiosity

As firm as I am about the difference in modeling vs EQ, I wholeheartedly support experimenting like crazy. The tool is cool and helps readers make more-informed decisions (or unearths additional questions to check into), but is not a magic wand. Whether it's a $20 earbud or $2,500 full size set of cans, I'd want to cover all the bases as well. I appreciate the initial reply and above all else hope you can try as many as headphones as possible in your journey

 

[fjf]

This is fun to play with and all, but you cannot "convert" one to the other. What you're seeking is commonly referred to as acoustic modeling. Yes, you can nudge the response to get closer to whatever target you want, but that is strictly a frequency response play and does nothing for the other elements of the earphone that make up its sound; physical construction, materials used, proximity of components, positioning of components in the back volume, the back volume size, frequency absorbers that PHYSICALLY alter the actual soundwave moving inside the acoustic chamber, the nozzle dimensions, the hardness of the materials, the location of the frequency absorber, the amount of acoustic fleece, the tuning of the driver, so on and so on and so on. The squig is cool in that you can make measured adjustments to a frequency response target, but they should be taken as just that. Curves are not conclusive of "the sound" just as colors of paint are not a used to benchmark if the art they make is enjoyable.

What you are EQ'ing is the source signal, not the headphone. Nor are you altering it's guts, which are a tangibly different physical aspect of acoustics that gets ignored all too often. If you get one of your headphones to sound more "reminiscent" of another with EQ based on someone else's mapping, and you prefer it that way, that's great and we hope you enjoy it. But to say there is no difference between the two models is straight up and down 100% false. If you owned both of these and have had the chance to compare them side by side, by all means let the community know your thoughts on your experience listening to them both, as this seems to be what people are in search of.



We use frequency absorbers in many headphones and earphones. They can predictably damp the energy of a specific range of cycles in soundwaves, and when used strategically, are suited well for reducing the buildup of a specific frequency -- specifically the ones that mask/obscure details. This is especially helpful with transients, which are at the core of how we perceive detail and nuance in so many instruments.

We know people use third party cables and that is great. Out of the box, the IE 600 includes two, and the IE 200 does not. That's not a biased opinion. If you want the Moondrop Aria for its metal housing then that's your preference.

I make no effort to hide that I work for Sennheiser and this is clearly stated with my giant sponsor badge in the footer lol. I've heard a zillion other headphones, good ones too, but do not discuss them for what I think are obvious reasons. I'll evaluate even more at CanJam NYC coming up and look forward to doing so in order to see what the competition is doing.


Applying an EQ curve from one headphone (that was created with measurement tones, not a song), to a musical signal that is going into another headphone that already has a specific sound, and then realizing that it does not sound like anything special is not a surprise at all. If I put all-season tires on my track car to see if it could make it perform more like an everyday driver, and was underwhelmed by the amount of traction I had, it would be reasonably easy to draw a line between the cause and the effect.

TLDR: equalizing an audio signal and acoustic modeling are not the same.

Of course, we all understand you have to say that. Don't worry!.

 

[fjf]

Funny, I did this but the other way around this morning (applied the 200 eq on the 600) sounded like a generic chi fi iem to my ears.

Yes, but you KNOW which one is the more expensive. Placebo effect, most likely. Get a 200 and try it the other way around. You can still sell the 600.

 

[ericpalonen]

Of course, we all understand you have to say that. Don't worry!.

Thanks for chiming in

 

[Detroifa]

Yes, but you KNOW which one is the more expensive. Placebo effect, most likely. Get a 200 and try it the other way around. You can still sell the 600.

What a trollish reply, are you gonna dictate me what I hear now? Might as well start paying my bills buddy. F outta here

 

[helloh3adfi]

I would be willing to buy your 600 for cheaper.