[desertpeaks]

Hello all!

I am quite blown away with how good the Flats are! Just curious to know if anyone has done any direct comparisons between the 2? I think I will pick up a set of 200's tomorrow and see what I find..just wondering if any of you have compared them side by side?

Thanks!

 

[Jim McC]

I agree with you about the Flats, BUT I had to return them due to them hurting my ears. I never tried the Riptidz. If you want a very comfortable, super lightweight, great sounding on ear headphone it's the Koss KSC75 with the headband mod. It doesn't hurt my ears at all because there's next to no clamping pressure.  

 

[desertpeaks]

Thanks Jim for the HP recommendation! OK, well I'll try the 200's tomorrow...I'll also try the'ole brick trick with the 160's to see if I can reduce the clamping power. I too notice slight discomfort as well after prolonged use. I'm thinking the 200's would be more comfortable... thanks!

 

[desertpeaks]

After comparing both models briefly I actually like the 160's a little more for there tight, controlled bass...and dynamic nature. I think the ear pad placement is more forgiving with the 160's therefore creating better coupling against the ear. The 200's pads are nice but are not forgiving to the curve of one's head. Also, the 200's had an unnatural top end roll off, making them a little dull. Though, the laid back, but distant sound stage attributed more from poor ear pad coupling design. The 160's in comparison are more lively, and dynamic. I think because of the smaller enclosure used with the same size driver as the 200's (30mm)...makes the 160's perform more like tight little near field monitors in a studio. The 200's could get real loud! 107dB ...but the 160's can too..@ 103dB...

Because of the swivel nature of the pads on the 160's it creates an optimal pad to ear coupling enhancing stereo imaging and bass response. I think they present a more controlled sound compared to the 200's. The 200's could sound better if the coupling/clamping methods were more forgiving.


Just my observation so far....

 

[sofastreamer]

thanks for your comparo.

 

[desertpeaks]

You're welcome! Well, after fixing my ear to pad coupling issue with the 200's I am now enjoying them much more! Also, I let them settle (burn) in all night last night. I now notice, while still laud back, but much more transparency and dynamics. While still rolled off, just less aggravated as the 160's does suffer from sibilance. The 200's do too, but is not as noticeable due to the gentle slope on the top end. Bass dynamics and slam are evident with the 200's, with a natural low end. Whereas the 160's are a little plump in the mid bass..masking bass transient material. I do like the tightness of the 160's, but overall the character in comparison seems stuffed, and muffled...as the 200's opened up to a cave like sound stage and effortless, transparent dynamics. Most now easily observed due to proper pad coupling. I'm quite amazed on the 180 in preference from yesterday. For cheap headphones, these are not bad at all. So, I NOW prefer the 200's after all...

 

[desertpeaks]

Well, wanting more and liking that JVC sonic character ...I just ordered a pair of S400's

 

[potterpastor]

JVC Flats are darned good for the money. They are a bright headphones to my ears, accentuated treble, which makes cymbals and highs sound a bit shrill, but not bad. The bass is quite good to my ears. Mids are a bit recessed, but decent. decent instrument separation and imaging. The resolution of the Headphones are certainly not as clear or sharp as a higher end closed headphone, And songs with cymbals or high voices or songs with focus on the highs can sound a bit cloudy and a tad shrill but for $12 you cannot beat it.