[Feather225]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif But they don't isolate much.

Compare:


Isolation QC3 better
Popularity QC3 better
Sound Stage ESW9 better
treble ESW9 better
mid ESW9 better
Low ESW9 better
appearance ESW9 better IMO
Price ESW9 better

Plus isolation on ESW9 is not that bad...I mean it doesn't really affects me because I play my music pretty much loud enough that I don't really hear any noises...

I would definitely pick ESW9 with no doubt, QC3 really don't worth $350...maybe to those who think its cool because everyone will know that he/she paid $350 for it (kindda like showing off) but really not for headfiers...

 

[limpidglitch]

Want to buy my QC3? Dirt cheap, hardly used, and bit dusty. Way to heavy for a supra aural, you've got to sit dead still to keep them on you head. If they run out of charge and the noise cancellation quits, thats also the stop for the music. The SQ must be one of the most un-inspiring I've ever heard. Forget about active noise cancellation, it should be placed in the same category as wireless, if you want to block out the surroundings, buy IEMs all ready.

 

[limpidglitch]

…or closed back circum aurals, since IEMs are out of the picture. Would DT150 or DT250 be too big for portable?

 

[Rednamalas1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feather225 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Plus isolation on ESW9 is not that bad...

Isolation on ESW9/10 are as good as D1000s. Which isn't much. They make excellent transportable cans, but as a true portable, IEMs would be my choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feather225 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I mean it doesn't really affects me because I play my music pretty much loud enough that I don't really hear any noises...

try listening to music around 110 dbs for few hours, you won't have to worry about noise attenuation. Ever.

Or, as an attractive alternative, you could listen to music at reasonable volume with an IEM and not get a cochlear implant every 2 months.


Jon: ANC7 were quite good in term of SQ, and had decent noise cancellation, but it's very fit-dependent (which I had no problem with). Go with IEMs.

 

[jonathanjong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by limpidglitch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Want to buy my QC3? Dirt cheap, hardly used, and bit dusty. Way to heavy for a supra aural, you've got to sit dead still to keep them on you head. If they run out of charge and the noise cancellation quits, thats also the stop for the music. The SQ must be one of the most un-inspiring I've ever heard. Forget about active noise cancellation, it should be placed in the same category as wireless, if you want to block out the surroundings, buy IEMs all ready.

Salesman of the Year Award.

Def. no QC3.

 

[jonathanjong]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rednamalas1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Jon: ANC7 were quite good in term of SQ, and had decent noise cancellation, but it's very fit-dependent (which I had no problem with). Go with IEMs.

I would, but buddy doesn't like them, cept the Image which cost far more than ANC7.

 

[Zerius]

I'd like to add my 2cents to this discussion. I have tested the Beats vs ANC-7. Personally, right now I own PL-30s, KSC-75's and HD595s. The ANC-7 does a great job at noise canceling, the same as the bose qc3 and the dre beats, I believe all three NC headphones share the same design for noise canceling and they are equal in terms of NC performance. The Beats however sound the best, atleast to me. There bass is clear and present, being strong and sounds clean like what you would expect from a subwoofer, comfort goes to the dre beats as well. The ANC-7 wins over them is that they can be used without noise cancelling, ( but lacking the internal amp, the sound is not great) the beats won't work with NC turned off or without batteries. Also the ANC-7's are alot cheaper, and I think you should head to the apple store to audition the beats, see if you think they are worth the money.

 

[limpidglitch]

thanks

 

[MorganC14]

If you're looking at the QC3, I would also suggest taking a look at the QC2. They are more comfortable than the 3 in my opinion, I believe they can be found for less, and while they do not have a rechargeable battery they do take AAAs. I keep spare batteries on me when I travel with them. That can make a gargantuan difference.

 

[Herve]

what about the Phiaton PS300 NC?

 

[Zalithian]

Herve, it's usually a good idea to check the date of the posts before posting in the thread. I don't think replying to old posts is illegal or anything but the last response was in January so I would imagine this was resolved or the poster won't get your suggestion =p

 

[Herve]

Thanks for the advice Zalithian.
I thought that by leaving my comment this thread was going to go back in the pool of the new threads . I did not want to create a new one since this thread was relevant to my concerns.

 

[Herve]

Okay, this thread is kind of old but the price of the Bose QC3 is still the same and quite expensive (350$). To me, the QC3 sounds a bit boomy and the midrange is slightly overdone for listening at classical without major tweaking of the equalizer. Did anyone compared the QC3 side by side with the Phiaton PS300 NC? This latter headphone is a QC3 alike and is 50$ cheaper. Some reviews say that the phiaton has a "stellar" sound (review here). One Cnet, the review of the phiaton is not that great...
Any comment ??