PX200 but, uhh, better?

Jun 24, 2005 at 2:41 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 21

SunByrne

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Posts
899
Likes
106
So, for portable use when I need a little isolation, I've been using PX200s. I like the portability and moderate isolation, but you know, they just don't sound all that great. It's not the bass--I can position them to get decent bass--it's the rolled-off treble that bugs me. Is there anything out there with a similar size and level of isolation but which sounds better?

Thanks.
biggrin.gif
 
Jun 24, 2005 at 2:50 AM Post #3 of 21
Everyone seems to rave about the inexpensive Sennheiser HD201's.. seems to be a suitable upgrade from the PX200's without breaking the wallet.

EDIT : Oops, they are quite big and not as small as the PX200's. I would recommend the Portapros but they are open.. hmm.
 
Jun 24, 2005 at 2:54 AM Post #4 of 21
I love the KSC-35s for sound and portability (like the PortaPros), but unfortunately way too open for this...
 
Jun 24, 2005 at 3:25 AM Post #8 of 21
What about D66? Moderate isolation, comfort, fairly portable, good detail and speed, perhaps a bit lacking in the midbass.
 
Jun 24, 2005 at 3:36 AM Post #9 of 21
Quote:

Originally Posted by fr4c
a bit expensive, but i find the Audio Technica ATH-ES5 to be quite enjoyable.


I second the ATH-ES5 as being a bit better (though not leagues) than the PX200.

Isolation/leakage might be an issue. Some thoughts are in this thread.

http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=115042

Best,

-Jason
 
Jun 24, 2005 at 3:47 AM Post #10 of 21
from the ones mentioned above the eggo d66 and k26p are portable supraaural and closed. the k26p i read many here said have bloated bass. the eggo d66 does have good high and will isolate as much as the px200, but will sacrifice a large amount of bass and is a bit bigger in size. some people tried to open up the cup and put foams in to improve the bass.
 
Jun 24, 2005 at 3:06 PM Post #12 of 21
SunByrne, I don't think you would like the k26p too much. If you find the bass of the PX200 sufficient, the k26p will overwhelm you with its bottom end. It also has a rather dark treble compared to the PX200. The k26p does isolate better, however.
 
Jun 24, 2005 at 3:16 PM Post #13 of 21
Thanks for all the feedback! Sounds like I've found a spot in the headphone world where there isn't a clear alternative. I think the D66s are too big, and I really dislike canalphones, so the MD33s are out as well. The ATH-ES5 looks intriguing, thought, perhaps I'll give those a whirl, though they are a bit on the pricey side. Or maybe I'll just learn to live with the PX200s.

confused.gif
 
Jun 24, 2005 at 3:31 PM Post #14 of 21
Quote:

Originally Posted by SunByrne
Sounds like I've found a spot in the headphone world where there isn't a clear alternative.
confused.gif



Certainly, there a lot of compromises when it comes to portable cans, but I don't think there is any spot in the headphone world where there is a clear alternative.
 
Jun 24, 2005 at 3:36 PM Post #15 of 21
I've compared the ATH-ES5 to the Sennheiser PX100 and PX200 using a SuperMacro-3 and iPod line out. It sounds better than the PX200, and slightly better than the PX100.

However, it is a pain to unfold, adjust, and put on your head. The way it adjusts to different head sizes is not well-designed.

See bangraman's review of the ES5.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top