On The Graph And To The Ear
Source: Tom's Guide US | Keywords: 8, audio, player, earphones
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Isolation: Good Or Bad?
- 3. Testing And Evaluation Methods
- 4. Testing And Evaluation Methods, Continued
- 5. AKG K26P: Bass! But Too Much?
- 6. On The Graph And To The Ear
- 7. Koss PortaPro: Gramps Kicks Up A Fuss
- 8. On The Graph And To The Ear
- 9. Koss The Plug: Direct Injection
- 10. On The Graph And To The Ear
- 11. Sennheiser PX200: Quality You Can Count On
- 12. On The Graph And To The Ear
- 13. Sennheiser PXC250: Higher Quality, Lower Noise
- 14. On The Graph And To The Ear
- 15. Sennheiser MX500: Earbuds That Don't Hurt
- 16.
- 17. Sennheiser MX550: More Of The Same?
- 18. On The Graph And To The Ear
- 19. Sony MDR-EX71SL: Ow!
- 20. On The Graph And To The Ear
- 21. In Conclusion
14. On The Graph And To The Ear
As we do with other earphones that have a noise reduction system, we took measurements both with and without the electronic circuitry in operation (the PXC250 can still be used even if your batteries are dead). We also took a measurement to evaluate the effectiveness of the noise reduction. In passing, we noticed that with the PXC250, Sennheiser has corrected exactly the little shortcomings that our measurements on the PX200 had pointed up - proof that our test procedure must be valid!

Without noise reduction, we got the same response as with the PX200. You can see that this is the same set of phones! With noise reduction enabled, we find that Sennheiser has corrected the faults we'd noticed before, in order to get perfectly balanced response.

The noise reduction is as claimed (a maximum of around 15 dB) and showed no anomalies.

- PXC 250 Noise...
Without the noise reducer, the impedance was already fairly high, at above 200 ohms; with the reduction, it was very high. Obviously that won't be important in practical terms when listening with a portable player.
Since the headset itself is identical to the PX200, our comments on wearing it apply to the PXC250 as well.
Without the noise reducer, the result was obviously very similar to the PX200, since it's essentially the same set of phones. But with the electronic circuitry enabled, the sound was transfigured - this is high-quality reproduction! The only thing that the most demanding users might find lacking is a bit more presence in the extreme highs. A little boost to the top band on the equalizer will provide that, but it's not indispensable. The entire bass range was present, detailed and open, without having a masking effect on the rest of the spectrum. Transients had good impact as well; it would be hard to find better in the compact earphones category.
The volume level possible with a powerful earphone amplifier was quite high. With just an MP3 player, however, the volume was usually just enough, though at times you might find it little short of sufficient. You'd do well to use the PXC250 with a player that has a fair amount of output power.
As you've probably gathered by now, the PXC250 was our favorite of all the sets we tested. It's also the most expensive - but we feel it's worth the price.
- Previous page Sennheiser PXC250: Higher Quality,...
- Next page Sennheiser MX500: Earbuds That Don't...
Hi .. here is a belated 2007 comment on the Sennheiser PX 200. It arrives now as I just received a non-returnable pair for Xmas to use with my iPod Touch.
I have never used headphones much.. but .. your review seems to me to be dead on. I know that there are better phones (e.g. the Grado SR 60/80 at al). However, as I "check the sliders" on the iPod EQ -- they seem to fill the mid-range hole that you have reported.
On close, they are pretty good -- but their closed design just cuts the kind of live ambience that you can get with a non-closed design like the Grado's.
The bass PUNCHES too -- just listen to The Eagles - Hotel California.