If you’ve read some of our other Phaiser reviews you’ll know that there is not a lot of difference between some of their products. Usually, Phaiser makes some minute changes to an existing product and then sell it under a new model name (for an additional cost).
This is nothing new in the headphone industry (it’s something many big brands do). However, today we feel relieved because this not that kind of review…
These two models are both excellent options, and that can make your decision-making process a little difficult (which is probably what led you to this article).
But never fear, we have got your back.
Maybe this is not the Phaiser Comparison you are looking for? We got some more below:
Today we are going to dissect and discuss every little detail of both products in our Phaiser BHS-530 vs BHS-750 comparison review.
THE COMPARISON OF “PHAISER BHS 530″ VS “PHAISER BHS 750″
|BUY WITH AMAZON||BUY WITH AMAZON|
Both the 530 and the 750 are capable of producing excellent quality HD audio. Phaiser’s entire business model and reputation revolve around their ability to provide near premium quality audio (without the premium price tag). And with both these products, they live up to their reputation.
On both products the higher frequencies are exceptional (considering the price bracket). Symbols and other high-frequency instruments which can often get lost in the mix with low-quality headphones are clear, crisp, and stand out as much as can be expected.
Again the both headphones excel in the mid range of frequencies too, the 530 is quite possibly a little bit better – but only just.
The “main” difference in audio quality is found down in the lower frequencies and the bass tones. Both headphones do very well (better than most other products in this price bracket), but the 530 actually performs a little better than the 750. This is mainly due to the larger 10mm drivers present in the 530 (compared to the 8mm drivers in the 750).
The bass in the 530 is warmer, and it handles the super low notes effortlessly where the 750 (and most other headphones in this price bracket) wobble a little bit.
Verdict: “BHS-530 Wins”
Despite being the cheaper and older product, the BHS-530 is the winner in terms of audio quality. This being said, the two products are quite similar in all honesty, there’s not a huge amount of difference with the audio output.
But if we had to pick a winner for this section (and we do) it would be the 530.
Both of these products are marketed as running headphones. Running headphones need to be ultra secure on your head at all times during your workout. Interestingly the 530 and the 750 take two very different approaches on how to achieve this.
The 530 is what we like to call the classic design. The ear pieces go around the outside of your ear looping round until the ear bud fits snugly in your ear canal. The ear buds themselves are made out of high-density memory foam which allows a total seal of the ear canal and provides extra stability.
The 750 uses an in ear design to achieve stability during a workout. This means a rubber triangle is used to wedge the headphone underneath the upper crease in your ear. This puts a little pressure on the earbud (also memory foam) and the end result is excellent stability.
Verdict: “BHS-750 Wins”
For a classic headband style product, the 530 performs very well. It’s a tried and tested design that many other brands utilize with success. They are very stable, and slippage is uncommon.
However, despite how well the 530 performs the 750 is incredibly stable. Once the headphones are in place, they are not going to move or dislodge without you intentionally trying to remove them. It’s an advanced modern design that has only been around for a few years (and it works impeccably).
This being said the 750’s can be tricky to put in your ear (at first) and the sensation of wearing them is different to what you may be used to. However, after only a few uses they become an efficient and stable way of wearing headphones and most people never look back.
We were quite surprised to learn that the battery life in the 530 is significantly better than the 750. The 530 when fully charged can play audio (or be used to make hands-free calls) for 7 hours. The 750, on the other hand, can only manage 5 hours before needing to be plugged in again.
We suspect this is due to nothing more than simple ergonomics. The larger headband style headphones of the 530 have much more space in which to put a large battery (compared to the two tiny earbuds of the 750). We suspect the 750’s battery is actually more advanced, just much smaller.
The additional 2 hours of playback time is a huge plus point for the 530.
7 hours is a very respectable amount of charge, especially at this price point. Some of the most expensive premium products from the top brands struggle to get more playtime than this from a single charge. Top marks for Phaiser and the BHS-530 here.
Apart from the three most important topics we mentioned above, there is not really that much difference between other aspects of these headphones. Here are some similarities between them.
- They are both coated in Liquipel nano coating which makes them sweatproof. (And they both have a lifetime sweatproof warranty).
- They both run on one of the latest versions of Bluetooth (version 4.1) and have an excellent range of 10 meters.
- They are both available in a wide range of colors
- They both have an excellent charge rate.
Our Recommendation: BHS-530
When we first started this article we were expecting the BHS-750 to be the obvious choice as it’s the newer product. However, we cannot really see any reason why we would recommend the 750 over the 530. Admittedly the 750 is probably a little more stable in the ear than the 530, but the 530 is pretty darn stable too.
Apart from that minor win for the 750, the 530 wins all of our tests. It has better audio quality, better battery life, and is the cheaper product.
We can confidently say that the BHS-530 is our unanimous recommendation.
- Editor Rating
- Rated 5 stars
- Phaiser BHS-530 vs BHS-750: The Contender (Our Comparison Review)
- Reviewed by:
- Published on:
- Last modified: