Headphone for my A3000

[Greg1982]

Hey guys

I'm having trouble with my current headphone (ones that came with the player) My left one keeps falling out. I did come across these Koss Sparkplug they look like they might fit better

I was wondering if anyone has had any experiance with them or know of any better??

Hope you can help

Greg

[Guest Stuge]

Have you tried MDR-EX51 OR71??

In-ear earphones will definately fit better like the koss (that you have shown here)

[µcris]

I have the MDR-EX71. I cannot tell you if it fits better than koss but I can tell you that it fits very well and it sounds very very well. I never had a earphones with a so good bass.

Edited February 7, 2006 by µcris

[Obli]

Why do people use these 'buds'? Well, OK, so they're small, well hidden and light... but they all sound rubbish in comparison to bigger 'phones.

I was very impressed with the Sennheiser PX-100s. They're larger, head-band style headphones but they sound great (fantastic through my hifi, great with the NW-A1000), they're comfortable, light, compact (they fold up in to a case) and are decent value for their performance. I picked up a pair for £29.99 (found them available in Argos) which appears cheaper than the RRP of the Sony MDR-EX71s. Only drawback of these headphones is that they don't isolate outside sound - the Sennheiser PX-200s do but sound quality suffers as a result.

Sennheiser PX100s

Sennheiser PX200s

[Dinko]

I never had a earphones with a so good bass.

Which is just as good as it is bad.

If you like a bloated bass line (or have an iPod which is by definition bass-deficient, hence the headphones can compensate for what the iPod lacks) these Sony phones are great.

If you, however, prefer a more balanced, natural and transparent sound, and/or own a player other than an iPod, the Sony 71/51 in-ear phones are probably to be avoided.

[jrhughes]

> the Sennheiser PX-200s do but sound quality suffers as a result.

What?? The PX-200 is way ahead of the PX-100 in the sound department!

I'm not trying to pick an argument, but just making the point that, within reason, what sounds great to someone might sound not so good to someone else, and vice-versa ;o)

I have the PX-100 and two pairs of PX-200. The PX-100 is fine, but I always felt that they were too overblown in the lower frequencies. Very comfortable, though.

So, I tried the PX-200 and was initialy disappointed with what was, by comparison, quite a "thin" sound. But, a combination of my learning how to wear them properly (they need to be quite low down on the ears) and running-in has resulted in a wonderful, natural sound with deep, controlled bass. There's no need for the overblown wooliness or the even more exaggerated bass response of the EX71s, as another poster has mentioned, with equipment that's able to produce a reasonably flat frequency response. These things are wonderful, especially for the price. I can't listen to my PX-100s for long, any more. Or my EX71s.

I've just invested in the Sure E3c and am listening to them now, as it happens, connected to my A1000. These things cost me £150 but they are great, especially considering their size. The sound is quite similar to the PX-200, which is a sound I prefer.

Thankfully, the PX-100 and the PX-200 are inexpensive enough to be able to try one and, if you don't think it's wonderful, try the other. If you like a lot of bass at the expense of some definition, go for the PX-100 or maybe the EX71 (depending on whether you want a headband-type or ear-canal type). If you like a more natural sound with deep, taut bass, go for the PX-200 and let then run-in for a bit.

Cheers.

[Obli]

No, thanks for the reply jrhughs, it's nice to hear comments from someone who actually owns both models. I haven't actually tried the PX-200s *gasp!* but after hearing your informative opinion, I may try them!

What I should have said is "the Sennheiser PX-200s do (isolate outide noise) but I read on a random website review that sound quality suffers as a result (in comparison with the PX-100s)". Sorry about that

This may be of interest (if you don't know this already); if you look at the links I supplied in my previous post, the frequency responses are quite different for both models.

[CEBEP]

I am using Ethymotic ER-6i and compared to my SE K750 - NW A1000 can not handle them in max volumes (volume unlocked). probabely the amp is lower on line-out values

[jrhughes]

That's OK, Obli; no apology necessary. I have read similar "reviews" of the PX-200 which slate it in comparison with the PX-100. I am certain that a large proportion of these opinions are based on the fact that they are not sitting properly on the ears and/or haven't been run-in yet. In order to get the (superior, in my opinion) low frequency reproduction form the PX-200 to full effect, they do need to be low down on the ears, so that the centre of the drivers fire directly into the ear canal. Careful placement is quite important with these, but once you adjust the headband accordingly, it becomes second nature.

Don't get me wrong: the PX-100 is a fine headphone but it is just too overblown for my taste. They sound false, just like having a graphic equaliser connected to a home hi-fi (back in the 1980s, when that seemed like a good idea) and boosting the lows and highs way too much. The initial impression is "wow!" but the sound soon becomes very fatiguing.

Of course, some of those opinions will be from people who do prefer the very warm, heavily bassy sound, or maybe just have a player that is rubbish at reproducing the low frequency end. The A1000/A3000 definitely does not fall within that category. As a friend of mine once said, "whatever lights your garden." I think he'd been drinking.

Cheers.

[bangraman]

Funnily, if the E3c's do sound similar to the PX200 then your PX200 are fitted wrong.

My experience with the PX100's is that they have a high-end roll-off. A mild, unfatiguing treble.

The PX200's do sound worse than the PX100 on many levels, not just tonal. There's the 'honk' that's a byproduct of the closed-back construction of the PX200, and I would say both phones are pretty bassy... with the PX200 delivering more wool in the bass.

However, as has been pointed out the PX200's offer isolation, which is a real plus for portable use. Generally speaking I think the PX100's are very good phones for the money but they're just too leaky for out and about use.

I like the PX200 because it's a much more usable miniphone as a result of that isolation... but I realise there are compromises as a result.

test edit

[jrhughes]

>Funnily, if the E3c's do sound similar to the PX200 then your PX200 are fitted wrong.

You are in no position to make that judgement. My point is that the E3c has a similar type of sound to the PX-200, as opposed to that of the PX-100. What's more, I would suggest that, if the PX-200 can sound anything like the E3c at all, then they are fitted perfectly well.

>The PX200's do sound worse than the PX100 on many levels, not just tonal...

>...with the PX200 delivering more wool in the bass.

I emphatically disagree with you. But then, if you'll notice, the point I was trying to make from the beginning is that this is a very personal thing. To me, the PX-200 clearly sound far better than the PX-100 and I'd reverse your "wolly bass" statement. I can't listen to the PX-100 for long without experiencing some fatigue due to the overblown, wolly bass. I never use any boosting or equalisation settings on any of my equipment, incidentally. The PX-200 (and E3c) are, to me, much more naturally sounding than the PX-100 (and EX71) and more of a pleasure to listen to. That will not be the case for everyone, just as your statements do not apply universally.

Cheers.

[bangraman]

I see you removed the inaccurate reference to the treble.

The sound of a PX200 fitted without a full 'seal' is that of a reduced bass, emphasised midrange combined with the treble roll-off of both the PX100/200. The E3c, properly fitted, has in absolute terms a reduced bass, an emphaised midrange and a rolled-off treble.

I have/had every C-model Shure on the market. In fact I was one of the prototype triallers for the E3c. I have/had multiple PX100/200.. .and it doesn't end there. I've given all of them to a number of people and got their feedback. My statements don't apply universally, but simply by dint of the catchment area I have, it's likely to be a more universal opinion than yours unless you review phones in a similar way. I rather think I am in a position to make such a judgement, jrhughes.

No icon?

[jrhughes]

Inaccurate reference to the treble? Whatever you're talking about, I didn't omit anything intentionally.

If you think that, by virtue of your testing, you are in the position to state what sounds good and what doesn't to the majority of the population, then I really can't be bothered to argue with you. I agree with what you said about an improperly fitted PX-200, though, regarding bass/midrange. I know that I fit mine properly and enjoy full, taut bass as a result - and I stand by my statement that you are in no position to judge whether my PX-200 are fitted properly or improperly to my ears. To reiterate: I am not *directly* comparing the sound from the £40 PX-200 to the £150 E3c. I am merely saying that the two produce a similar *type* of sound (i.e., natural, taut, detailed..) in comparison to that of the PX-100. Don't read any more into it than that.

I've made my point; to those who have understood it, I hope you don't dismiss the superb PX-200 for use with the NW-A1000 / A3000 (just to get back on topic ) ).

[bangraman]

Taut bass for example is something I can't place as an attribute of the PX200. But yeah... we're getting into advanced nitpicking.