dgs
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Posts
- 314
- Likes
- 10
Why I decided to compare these earbuds/phones is sort of a long story,
but the “Reader’s Digest Version” is that, as an avid ety 4p/4s user, I had become incredibly spoiled with my portable sound--I wanted something to sound as good as my etys, to be as portable, blah, blah, blah, and, needless to say, I had been tremendously disappointed by everything thus far.
I needed a truly portable phone that I could use on call in the hospital and still HEAR my beeper or telephone in the event of an emergency (bad headline for both me and etymotic: patient dies because MD could not hear beeper through etys
). I couldn’t find the MX500s when I went looking about 8 months ago, but I could find the 400 everywhere, so I bought a pair. They were good, but not great, and with all the hubbub about the mx500, I began to wonder if the mx500s sounded different, despite various reports that “they sound the same--the only difference is the volume control on the 500.” Then, after getting a conversion cable for my ety4p to 4s, I started to really think that even if the drivers were identical in the 400/500, the addition of the volume control was probably providing some resistance and changing the sound somewhat. So, when I came across the mx500s about a month ago, I bought them thinking that I would get my answer through direct comparison. Now, after about one month of almost daily of use, I can offer some comparisons. Since the $15-20 headphone price point includes the ks35, I throw them in as well. I offer no comparisons to the ety 4p/s because it just wouldn’t be fair. If I get the er6, I might be so inclined to compare them here, but I have no doubt what the end result would be, so why bother?
Disclaimer:
These are purely my opinion of the sound differences. No objective measures of frequency spectrum were made. Since I used only one pair of 400s, 500s, and 35s, I cannot be certain that the differences I heard were not the product of minor manufacturing variations between individual drivers and not due to a real difference between models. In other words, although my comparison is internally valid (I really heard these differences) and reliable (I think others listening to my earphones would hear similar differences), I cannot speak to the true or external validity (do these differences exist across the board between these phones) and reliability (would someone using different sets of these phones get the same results) of this comparison.
Equipment:
Since I use these earbuds exclusively in a portable situation, I decided to use my Sony MZ-R700 as the only source. No JMT, no pcdp trials, just MD. The mx500’s volume control was set to max volume through all comparisons. With much self-sacrifice, I stopped using my etys for almost a full week to do this comparison because I found that when I switched from the etys to any of these phones, I found myself just pointing out the flaws in these phones. So, these comparisons are exclusively between phones, and not in comparison to a standard or reference. Oh, and I should mention, neither senn earbud has the stock foamies. They both have identical radioshack foamies.
Music:
Dave Matthews: Pig, Stay
Tool: Ticks & Leeches
Evgeny Kissin: Chopin, Prelude No. 3, Sonata No. 2, op. 35, 3rd movement (Funeral March)
Soggy Bottom Boys: Man of Constant Sorrow
Jeff Buckley: Lover, You Should Have Come Over
RadioHead: Packt Like Sardines in a Crushd Tin
Ella Fitzsgerald/Duke Ellington: Imagine My Frustration
Keith Jarrett/Gary Peacock/Jack DeJohnette: 'Round Midnight
First, the 400 vs the 500:
Midrange/Treble:
The 400s have a very clear sound. They have a push in the uppermid/low treble (UMLT). Thus, most vocals and both electric and acoustic guitars are slightly prominent and fuller, with slightly more detail. On many recordings in which this range makes up the bulk of the sound (ie. Dave Matthews), the 400s are a tiny bit cleaner sounding. There is also a fuller snare drum sound on most recordings: on the 500s, the snare can sound artificial, not as full, and at times, a little tinny (that’s tinny, not tiny). I offer as an example, the opening rimshot on the tune, Pig, by Dave Matthews. It is clearly more pronounced and articulate on the 400s than the 500s, with more attack and more realistic capture of the various overtones. That said, this UMLT push makes the 400s much more fatiguing over time. As I listened to the 400s for an hour, something interesting happened with their sound--they began to sound more and more midrange heavy, so that after an hour or so, they sounded completely unbalanced across the sound spectrum, and they became somewhat irritating to listen to. On the other hand, the 500s sounded a little recessed on a comparison of UMLT. Cymbals were just slightly recessed (mostly hihats), and vocals seemed a little recessed as well. The best way I can describe it is that throughout all vocal recordings, the 400s made the vocals sound in FRONT of the rest of the music, and the 500s placed the vocals slightly BEHIND the rest of the music. However, after listening for a little while (10 minutes or so), my ears acclimated to the 500s, and the vocals began to sit more in line with the rest of the sound spectrum. And over time, the 500s were CLEARLY less fatiguing. Also, with the 500s, they became MORE balanced-sounding as time went on, so that after an hour, I still felt like I was hearing more across the entire frequency spectrum than with the 400s. On the 400s, for example, the horn section hits on the Ella tune were almost irritating where on the 500s, they were more balanced with the rest of the band. On the other hand, the baritone sax that plays behind Ella through the first verse was more articulate on the 400s than the 500s. Finally, Ella’s voice, something that never is irritating, was fuller, but much harsher on the 400s, making me squint two or three times.
Bass:
The bass on the two phones differs substantially. The 400s have a slightly tighter bass (probably due to my perception of a slight push in the upper bass (UB). This gave a sense of clarity to the bass, especially on the jazz recordings, that was just plain muddy at times on the 500s. Similarly, the bassline at the beginning of Tool’s “Ticks and Leeches,” sounded less distinct on the 500s, but not significantly so. This is to be contrasted with a clearly more present low bass on the 500s. The 400s have plenty of mid and high bass, but they really don’t extend into the low bass nearly as well as the 500s. The drums that begin that song (all toms) sounded punchier on the 400s, but with more bottom on the 500s. However, with Keith Jarrett, the acoustic bass sounded quite nice on the 500s, not too much, and not too muddy. So, I can say I find a “tendency” towards muddiness on the 500, but I find that this difference is mostly during direct A/B comparison of the two phones, and it is certainly inaudible in almost every portable application.
Overall Sound:
The sound of the 500 is much more transparent. On classical recordings, like the Kissin, the piano is both fuller and more realistic, but with that same slightly recessed UMLT. On the 400s, the melody comes out a little more, with a richer tone on that part of the piano’s range, but the sound of the rest of the piano seems squashed into that same range. So, overall, I would say that there are significant differences that make the 500 a much more pleasing earphone to listen to. I have found that I never take the 400s anywhere with me now--they just sound a little too “middy” for my tastes. Thus, with the 500 as the winner here, I will now compare the 500 to the ks35.
Mx500 vs. Ks35:
There are some who might argue that this isn’t even a fair comparison. The ks35 has SUCH a better “presence,” or “soundstage,” that comparing the two phones is not reasonable. With that said, I will compare them anyway.
Midrange/Treble:
The mx500’s dip in the UMLT hurts it a bit in this comparison. The ks35 has a much richer/fuller sound across this part of the spectrum, with fuller vocals and more realistic instruments. But, unless doing direct A/B comparisons, the mx500 do not sound particularly lacking in this regard. Also, the ks35 has a fairly nice sweet spot at the mid to upper treble (MUT) that the mx500 lacks. This makes hihats, cymbals, and electric guitars have a more detailed and engaging sound than on the 500s, although sometimes the 35s can be a little grainy (ie. the hihat on the first verse of "Stay" by Dave Matthews). There is very little question to me that the sweet spot on the ks35 makes for an overall superior-sounding UMLT. But, this also tends to make them a bit more fatiguing than the 500s, which I can listen to all day without a problem.
Bass:
The bass on the ks35 is sometimes a bit prominent (but much less so than the portapro, for those who want a reference point). That being said, the bass has a tremendous amount of extension for such little, cheap phones. It blows the 500s away in this regard. For example, on "Packt Like Sardines in a Crushd Tin," the first tune on Amnesiac by RadioHead, the electronic bass drum that comes in about 4 measures into the song is present and convincing on the 500s, but on the 35s, it reaches SO much lower and has much more "tone" to the punch. In other words, it's not just a punchy blip sound, but it sounds like a real note.
The 500s, when compared to the 400s, had a looser bass, when compared to the 35s, they have less bass extension, but they are about equal in terms of "looseness," although on some recordings, the 35s seem way looser than the 500s. For instance, piano on "The Funeral March" sounds BIG and exciting on the ks35, but on the 500, there is less murkiness in the lower octaves (from about middle C down), which makes for a more accurate and subtle experience. Or put another way, the 35 presents the piano as "more dramatic," and the 500 presents it as "more articulate."
Overall Sound:
Like I mentioned above, the 35s have much more transparency than the 500s. While this sometimes translates in my ears as "laid-back," it also sometimes translates into "open."
The ks35s are considerably more difficult to drive than the mx500s, although they sound great out of a portable. Given this, the 35s often sound much more laid back on acoustic music, such as in the opening guitar riff on the "Man of Constant Sorrow." With the 500s, there is good attack and engagement, while on the 35s, I keep wanting to turn it up at this section.
Even though I said I wouldn't include "amped" HPs in this review, I will say that adding my JMT improves the sound of both headphones (while making the 400s sound even more "midrangy."), but improves the 35s more. The JMT helps balance the sound of the 35s nicely, removing almost all traces of "boomy" bass, and aiding in an overall more detailed and transparent presentation. I would liken it to the senn580, which sounds dark and murky off a pcdp but brightens considerably and becomes more detailed and pleasing with the JMT.
Final Thoughts:
The 400 is out.
The 500 and ks35 each have their applications.
ks35: I like this phone alot when I am sitting around for a time, although sometimes those little earclips can become a little uncomfortable. The added bass extension, richer and sweeter mid and treble, and overall open sound of these HP is really nice when I'm stationary, although I have to resist the temptation to keep increasing the volume on them. The fatiguing quality of these phones (which, by the way, I found is reduced by the use of an amp) is a bit of a turn off for long work sessions where I'm listening to music. But for under $20, these heaphones are really fantastic.
mx500: I like this phone better for all "ultraportable" applications (ie. walking around, when the chance of frequent interruptions is high, and so on), and I use them for most of my long listening sessions when I cannot use my etys for various reasons. When I first go them, I sometimes found the mx500 drivers pushing on my pinna a bit, which hurt after about an hour. This seems to have largely stopped (switching to radioshack foamies seems to have helped with this). Although they are not quite as spacious sounding as the 35, they definitely have a very pleasing presentation. I actually use these more often--they sound much better than any earbud I’ve used (obviously excluding the etys), including the ex70 (which is technically a canalphone) and various others (never used the 888). Furthermore, they are clearly more convenient to me to put on and take off over and over again during the course of several hours of intermittent interruption. These are the least fatiguing of the three reviewed here, IMO. I also find them to be the most accurately balanced of the three (although this is open to tremendous debate based on source, preference, amplification, etc.). But IMO, I will gladly trade a little bass extension (or in this case, a pretty moderate amount) in order to be able to hear all the notes.
So, both have their place, both are excellent values, and at this price point, they are cheap and convenient enough to have both and to switch back and forth based on the immediate need/want.
Disclaimer:
These are purely my opinion of the sound differences. No objective measures of frequency spectrum were made. Since I used only one pair of 400s, 500s, and 35s, I cannot be certain that the differences I heard were not the product of minor manufacturing variations between individual drivers and not due to a real difference between models. In other words, although my comparison is internally valid (I really heard these differences) and reliable (I think others listening to my earphones would hear similar differences), I cannot speak to the true or external validity (do these differences exist across the board between these phones) and reliability (would someone using different sets of these phones get the same results) of this comparison.
Equipment:
Since I use these earbuds exclusively in a portable situation, I decided to use my Sony MZ-R700 as the only source. No JMT, no pcdp trials, just MD. The mx500’s volume control was set to max volume through all comparisons. With much self-sacrifice, I stopped using my etys for almost a full week to do this comparison because I found that when I switched from the etys to any of these phones, I found myself just pointing out the flaws in these phones. So, these comparisons are exclusively between phones, and not in comparison to a standard or reference. Oh, and I should mention, neither senn earbud has the stock foamies. They both have identical radioshack foamies.
Music:
Dave Matthews: Pig, Stay
Tool: Ticks & Leeches
Evgeny Kissin: Chopin, Prelude No. 3, Sonata No. 2, op. 35, 3rd movement (Funeral March)
Soggy Bottom Boys: Man of Constant Sorrow
Jeff Buckley: Lover, You Should Have Come Over
RadioHead: Packt Like Sardines in a Crushd Tin
Ella Fitzsgerald/Duke Ellington: Imagine My Frustration
Keith Jarrett/Gary Peacock/Jack DeJohnette: 'Round Midnight
First, the 400 vs the 500:
Midrange/Treble:
The 400s have a very clear sound. They have a push in the uppermid/low treble (UMLT). Thus, most vocals and both electric and acoustic guitars are slightly prominent and fuller, with slightly more detail. On many recordings in which this range makes up the bulk of the sound (ie. Dave Matthews), the 400s are a tiny bit cleaner sounding. There is also a fuller snare drum sound on most recordings: on the 500s, the snare can sound artificial, not as full, and at times, a little tinny (that’s tinny, not tiny). I offer as an example, the opening rimshot on the tune, Pig, by Dave Matthews. It is clearly more pronounced and articulate on the 400s than the 500s, with more attack and more realistic capture of the various overtones. That said, this UMLT push makes the 400s much more fatiguing over time. As I listened to the 400s for an hour, something interesting happened with their sound--they began to sound more and more midrange heavy, so that after an hour or so, they sounded completely unbalanced across the sound spectrum, and they became somewhat irritating to listen to. On the other hand, the 500s sounded a little recessed on a comparison of UMLT. Cymbals were just slightly recessed (mostly hihats), and vocals seemed a little recessed as well. The best way I can describe it is that throughout all vocal recordings, the 400s made the vocals sound in FRONT of the rest of the music, and the 500s placed the vocals slightly BEHIND the rest of the music. However, after listening for a little while (10 minutes or so), my ears acclimated to the 500s, and the vocals began to sit more in line with the rest of the sound spectrum. And over time, the 500s were CLEARLY less fatiguing. Also, with the 500s, they became MORE balanced-sounding as time went on, so that after an hour, I still felt like I was hearing more across the entire frequency spectrum than with the 400s. On the 400s, for example, the horn section hits on the Ella tune were almost irritating where on the 500s, they were more balanced with the rest of the band. On the other hand, the baritone sax that plays behind Ella through the first verse was more articulate on the 400s than the 500s. Finally, Ella’s voice, something that never is irritating, was fuller, but much harsher on the 400s, making me squint two or three times.
Bass:
The bass on the two phones differs substantially. The 400s have a slightly tighter bass (probably due to my perception of a slight push in the upper bass (UB). This gave a sense of clarity to the bass, especially on the jazz recordings, that was just plain muddy at times on the 500s. Similarly, the bassline at the beginning of Tool’s “Ticks and Leeches,” sounded less distinct on the 500s, but not significantly so. This is to be contrasted with a clearly more present low bass on the 500s. The 400s have plenty of mid and high bass, but they really don’t extend into the low bass nearly as well as the 500s. The drums that begin that song (all toms) sounded punchier on the 400s, but with more bottom on the 500s. However, with Keith Jarrett, the acoustic bass sounded quite nice on the 500s, not too much, and not too muddy. So, I can say I find a “tendency” towards muddiness on the 500, but I find that this difference is mostly during direct A/B comparison of the two phones, and it is certainly inaudible in almost every portable application.
Overall Sound:
The sound of the 500 is much more transparent. On classical recordings, like the Kissin, the piano is both fuller and more realistic, but with that same slightly recessed UMLT. On the 400s, the melody comes out a little more, with a richer tone on that part of the piano’s range, but the sound of the rest of the piano seems squashed into that same range. So, overall, I would say that there are significant differences that make the 500 a much more pleasing earphone to listen to. I have found that I never take the 400s anywhere with me now--they just sound a little too “middy” for my tastes. Thus, with the 500 as the winner here, I will now compare the 500 to the ks35.
Mx500 vs. Ks35:
There are some who might argue that this isn’t even a fair comparison. The ks35 has SUCH a better “presence,” or “soundstage,” that comparing the two phones is not reasonable. With that said, I will compare them anyway.
Midrange/Treble:
The mx500’s dip in the UMLT hurts it a bit in this comparison. The ks35 has a much richer/fuller sound across this part of the spectrum, with fuller vocals and more realistic instruments. But, unless doing direct A/B comparisons, the mx500 do not sound particularly lacking in this regard. Also, the ks35 has a fairly nice sweet spot at the mid to upper treble (MUT) that the mx500 lacks. This makes hihats, cymbals, and electric guitars have a more detailed and engaging sound than on the 500s, although sometimes the 35s can be a little grainy (ie. the hihat on the first verse of "Stay" by Dave Matthews). There is very little question to me that the sweet spot on the ks35 makes for an overall superior-sounding UMLT. But, this also tends to make them a bit more fatiguing than the 500s, which I can listen to all day without a problem.
Bass:
The bass on the ks35 is sometimes a bit prominent (but much less so than the portapro, for those who want a reference point). That being said, the bass has a tremendous amount of extension for such little, cheap phones. It blows the 500s away in this regard. For example, on "Packt Like Sardines in a Crushd Tin," the first tune on Amnesiac by RadioHead, the electronic bass drum that comes in about 4 measures into the song is present and convincing on the 500s, but on the 35s, it reaches SO much lower and has much more "tone" to the punch. In other words, it's not just a punchy blip sound, but it sounds like a real note.
The 500s, when compared to the 400s, had a looser bass, when compared to the 35s, they have less bass extension, but they are about equal in terms of "looseness," although on some recordings, the 35s seem way looser than the 500s. For instance, piano on "The Funeral March" sounds BIG and exciting on the ks35, but on the 500, there is less murkiness in the lower octaves (from about middle C down), which makes for a more accurate and subtle experience. Or put another way, the 35 presents the piano as "more dramatic," and the 500 presents it as "more articulate."
Overall Sound:
Like I mentioned above, the 35s have much more transparency than the 500s. While this sometimes translates in my ears as "laid-back," it also sometimes translates into "open."
The ks35s are considerably more difficult to drive than the mx500s, although they sound great out of a portable. Given this, the 35s often sound much more laid back on acoustic music, such as in the opening guitar riff on the "Man of Constant Sorrow." With the 500s, there is good attack and engagement, while on the 35s, I keep wanting to turn it up at this section.
Even though I said I wouldn't include "amped" HPs in this review, I will say that adding my JMT improves the sound of both headphones (while making the 400s sound even more "midrangy."), but improves the 35s more. The JMT helps balance the sound of the 35s nicely, removing almost all traces of "boomy" bass, and aiding in an overall more detailed and transparent presentation. I would liken it to the senn580, which sounds dark and murky off a pcdp but brightens considerably and becomes more detailed and pleasing with the JMT.
Final Thoughts:
The 400 is out.
The 500 and ks35 each have their applications.
ks35: I like this phone alot when I am sitting around for a time, although sometimes those little earclips can become a little uncomfortable. The added bass extension, richer and sweeter mid and treble, and overall open sound of these HP is really nice when I'm stationary, although I have to resist the temptation to keep increasing the volume on them. The fatiguing quality of these phones (which, by the way, I found is reduced by the use of an amp) is a bit of a turn off for long work sessions where I'm listening to music. But for under $20, these heaphones are really fantastic.
mx500: I like this phone better for all "ultraportable" applications (ie. walking around, when the chance of frequent interruptions is high, and so on), and I use them for most of my long listening sessions when I cannot use my etys for various reasons. When I first go them, I sometimes found the mx500 drivers pushing on my pinna a bit, which hurt after about an hour. This seems to have largely stopped (switching to radioshack foamies seems to have helped with this). Although they are not quite as spacious sounding as the 35, they definitely have a very pleasing presentation. I actually use these more often--they sound much better than any earbud I’ve used (obviously excluding the etys), including the ex70 (which is technically a canalphone) and various others (never used the 888). Furthermore, they are clearly more convenient to me to put on and take off over and over again during the course of several hours of intermittent interruption. These are the least fatiguing of the three reviewed here, IMO. I also find them to be the most accurately balanced of the three (although this is open to tremendous debate based on source, preference, amplification, etc.). But IMO, I will gladly trade a little bass extension (or in this case, a pretty moderate amount) in order to be able to hear all the notes.
So, both have their place, both are excellent values, and at this price point, they are cheap and convenient enough to have both and to switch back and forth based on the immediate need/want.
