android
Go Back   abi>>forums > General Audio > Headphones

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-01-2012, 04:41 PM
Gcarvalho Gcarvalho is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 9
Default SENNHEISER HD-201 for clipzip

Hellow
First off all i´ve been browsing the forum for somme time now and today i decided to register
Im from portugal so sorry in advance for somme typos and errors in english:S

Now let me start leaching from you all

My question:

I recently bought a clipzip i already rockboxed it, now i want to buy somme low cost headphones (yeah yeah all after the same) for it.. Here from a site «Pixmania» i can buy SENNHEISER HD-201 for 19.90€ about 26,7 dolars shipping included i can for the same price get Philips SHL9300
Ive read on this foruns that sennheizer hd 201 need a amp that the sound is low for the clip zip, but how is it? Are they a compleat no for clipzip?
Is there somme better headphones in this range?

Tanks you for your comments
Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

  #2  
Old 03-01-2012, 07:40 PM
JK98 JK98 is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,984
Default

The HD201 would not be good with the Clip+. It is 108 db/V 24 ohms, which is 91.8 db/mw. You probably won't get enough volume, and may need to have the volume near maximum all the time. It will also probably give you bad battery life.

I usually use earbuds or an IEM with my Clip+. I like the Sennheiser MX580 earbuds.
I also use the JVC HAS160 headphone with my Clip+. In the US the HAS160 is $13. It sounds great for the price. In some parts of Europe it is around 12 Euros or so. The JVC Riptidz IEM is around $8 in the US. Amazon UK has the Radiopaq Jazz IEM for 10 UK pounds. That is a fantastic deal(list price is 60 pounds). You may be able to get a good deal on some AKG headphones.
Reply With Quote

  #3  
Old 03-01-2012, 11:27 PM
Marvin the Martian's Avatar
Marvin the Martian Marvin the Martian is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east central NY state
Posts: 10,602
Default

The HD201 is no good for a Clip, Clip+, or Clip Zip....I used to have them and I had to use an extra headphone amp. JK98 has some good suggestions there for alternative earphones.
__________________
iPod Touch 5G 32GB, Touch 4G 32GB, Clip Sport 8GB. Rockbox-> Clip Zip 4GB, iPod Nano 2G 4GB, iPod 5.5G 80GB
2012 Nexus 7 32GB, Asus MeMoPad 8 16+64GB, LG Optimus G Pro, Nokia Lumia 900 and Lumia 520
Reply With Quote

  #4  
Old 03-02-2012, 07:54 PM
Gcarvalho Gcarvalho is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 9
Default

Hum nice good advice.
So i can buy here the jvc ha-s 160 for arround 15€ about 19-20 dolars. And i have the option for a few more dolars the jvc ha-s 360 ( about 30 dolars ).
I have also the chance off buying KOSS HiFi PortaPro for arround 39 dolars.
The question is realy what can the litle player play without amp.?
Thanks ppl
Reply With Quote

  #5  
Old 03-02-2012, 07:59 PM
The DarkSide's Avatar
The DarkSide The DarkSide is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Qns Vlg, NYC
Posts: 16,032
Default

It can play the headphones you mentioned, and many more. But the HD201 isn't one of them. Also, look at the HD202 - a pretty good closed headphone for a low price.
Reply With Quote

  #6  
Old 03-02-2012, 08:12 PM
Gcarvalho Gcarvalho is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 9
Default

i really like the jvc 160 and koss porta pro (talking about the looks because i never tried any) Does the koss justify the 2times more expensive? the hd 202 is a litle more expensive than theese 2 here in portugal
Reply With Quote

  #7  
Old 03-02-2012, 11:50 PM
Marvin the Martian's Avatar
Marvin the Martian Marvin the Martian is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east central NY state
Posts: 10,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gcarvalho View Post
i really like the jvc 160 and koss porta pro (talking about the looks because i never tried any) Does the koss justify the 2times more expensive? the hd 202 is a litle more expensive than theese 2 here in portugal
I think you should go for the JVC 160....it's a decent and affordable, and it works very well with the Sansa players.
__________________
iPod Touch 5G 32GB, Touch 4G 32GB, Clip Sport 8GB. Rockbox-> Clip Zip 4GB, iPod Nano 2G 4GB, iPod 5.5G 80GB
2012 Nexus 7 32GB, Asus MeMoPad 8 16+64GB, LG Optimus G Pro, Nokia Lumia 900 and Lumia 520
Reply With Quote

  #8  
Old 03-03-2012, 12:40 AM
Gcarvalho Gcarvalho is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 9
Default

Ok thanks for your advice
I will buy and give the feedback
Ty
Reply With Quote

  #9  
Old 03-03-2012, 12:44 AM
The DarkSide's Avatar
The DarkSide The DarkSide is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Qns Vlg, NYC
Posts: 16,032
Default

I have the JVC HA-S160 as well, and it's a great little headphone. A much better deal than the others IMO. You'll like them,...
Reply With Quote

  #10  
Old 03-03-2012, 04:19 AM
dgb52 dgb52 is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seal Beach
Posts: 1,016
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The DarkSide View Post
I have the JVC HA-S160 as well, and it's a great little headphone. A much better deal than the others IMO. You'll like them,...

I have them also and they work great with the Zip
Reply With Quote

  #11  
Old 03-03-2012, 04:51 AM
skip252 skip252 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,154
Default

I have both the Portapro and the JVC Flats. I like the Portapro more but not twice as much. I got mine for $30 and wouldn't mind paying that again. If the price was much higher than that I'd have to think it over.

I like the Portapro quite a bit more than the Flats but I've discovered that's not the case for everyone. Some of the people I know that have heard both of mine and some prefer one, some the other. With the opinions split like that I'd think either would be worth getting.
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 03-03-2012, 10:43 AM
The DarkSide's Avatar
The DarkSide The DarkSide is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Qns Vlg, NYC
Posts: 16,032
Default

I owned both the jvc flats & the portapro, and I no longer have the portapro. I prefer the less bright sq of the jvc flats.
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 03-03-2012, 08:10 PM
JK98 JK98 is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,984
Default

I don't like the JVC HAS360. It feels very light and flimsy. It is treble deficient. There isn't even a metal band in the headband. Many complained about breaking it. The JVC HAS650 is very nice though. Its sound is warmer than the HAS160, and it has more bass and more detail. The HAS160 and HAS650 feel very solidly built, and have a metal band in the headband.

Imo the JVC HAS160 and HAS650 both sound better than the Portapro. The Koss Sportapro sounds almost exactly the same as the Portapro but is half the price. The Portapro/Sportapro has bass that is poorly controlled and lacks treble. I used to like the Portaproand Sportapro over 10 years ago when I bought them. After buying other much better compact headphones(Sennheiser PX100, JVCHAS160, JVCHAS650, and JVCHAS600(not nearly as compact as the HAS160 and HAS650) I lost interest in the Portapro and Sportapro. The Portapro and Sportapro are also open, so they won't block any noise. While the HAS160 is closed, it is quite small, so it doesn't isolate so well(still much better than an open headphone though). I say go for the HAS160 unless you can get the HAS650 at a good price.

The Clip+ can drive most portable headphones under 64 ohms fine without an amp, although is seems to work best with headphones or earphones 32 ohms or less.
The HAS160 is 32 ohms, as is the HAS650. There are a few cheap Sennheiser headphones that are very inefficient which wouldn't be good, and a few low efficiency ones of of other brands.
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 03-04-2012, 06:04 PM
Gcarvalho Gcarvalho is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 9
Default

hum tanks ppl nice reading here.
The has 650 here is almost 4 times more expensive than the 150 ones Xd tomorrow i go to my local store buy somme 150 and ill give the feedback tanks
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 03-05-2012, 12:41 AM
JK98 JK98 is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,984
Default

The HAS150? We were talking about the HAS160. The HAS150 is the older model. I haven't heard the HAS150, and found just one post by someone who claimed to have both the HAS150 and HAS160. He said the HAS160 has better bass. A reviewer on head-fi rated the HAS150 a 5 out 10 for sound. I think the HAS160 should score much more than that. He didn't review the HAS160.
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 03-05-2012, 07:09 AM
The DarkSide's Avatar
The DarkSide The DarkSide is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Qns Vlg, NYC
Posts: 16,032
Default

I believe my jvc's are the ha-s160: http://reviews.cnet.com/headphones/j...-34464354.html
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 03-05-2012, 11:24 AM
JK98 JK98 is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,984
Default

I like the JVC HAS160 much more than the Portapro. I have had the Portapro for over 10 years, and got the HAS160 just a few months ago. I do like the Sennheiser PX100 a bit more than the HAS160. The PX100II is so much more expensive than the HAS160. The PX100II has a warm balance, while the balance on the HAS160 is very neutral. While the Portapro has a warm balance, its bass is poorly controlled(read boomy). Both the PX100II and the Portapro have worse treble than the HAS160.
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 03-05-2012, 11:56 AM
skip252 skip252 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JK98 View Post
The HAS150? We were talking about the HAS160. The HAS150 is the older model. I haven't heard the HAS150, and found just one post by someone who claimed to have both the HAS150 and HAS160. He said the HAS160 has better bass. A reviewer on head-fi rated the HAS150 a 5 out 10 for sound. I think the HAS160 should score much more than that. He didn't review the HAS160.
I finally dug out my older Flats. They're the 150. I picked them up a couple of years ago when BigLots had them for around $9.

I checked them against the newer 160 a family member has. I don't hear a significant difference and neither does anyone else that I let listen to them both. I'll go with that rather than your reviewer's opinion.

I would get either model depending on which was available. Either should be a decent choice if you can find them cheap enough.
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 03-05-2012, 12:38 PM
The DarkSide's Avatar
The DarkSide The DarkSide is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Qns Vlg, NYC
Posts: 16,032
Default

There you have it!!! Get either one, since I'll say I trust skip252's opinion.
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 03-05-2012, 12:46 PM
Marvin the Martian's Avatar
Marvin the Martian Marvin the Martian is offline
Ultra Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: east central NY state
Posts: 10,602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JK98 View Post
The HAS150? We were talking about the HAS160. The HAS150 is the older model. I haven't heard the HAS150, and found just one post by someone who claimed to have both the HAS150 and HAS160. He said the HAS160 has better bass. A reviewer on head-fi rated the HAS150 a 5 out 10 for sound. I think the HAS160 should score much more than that. He didn't review the HAS160.
Take that guy's reviews with his preferences in mind.....he's not a fan of bass.
__________________
iPod Touch 5G 32GB, Touch 4G 32GB, Clip Sport 8GB. Rockbox-> Clip Zip 4GB, iPod Nano 2G 4GB, iPod 5.5G 80GB
2012 Nexus 7 32GB, Asus MeMoPad 8 16+64GB, LG Optimus G Pro, Nokia Lumia 900 and Lumia 520
Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 PM.