[stephennic]

Hi,

Just bought a new sennheiser cx-300-II. After 1 hour it sounds better than the old cx-300. A smoother and sweeter sound with a tighter not so boomy bass, more natural mids a bit fuller voices and not as harsh or brittle highs a bit more natural sounding overall headphones. I found the old cx-300 a bit bright and harsh these ones i can actually relax more too- it has more warmth but still with detail. So far Ive only being listening too Gregorian masters of chant. I will update as it burns in more and listen to other music. The old cx-300 I would of given 6.5-7 perhaps for sound, this at least 7.5 out of 10 so far.

Cheers,

Steve.

 

[ABathingApe]

Hi Steve,

I just got my pair of CX300-II's in the mail yesterday. I've been experimenting with the tips, seeing as I can't decide which ones feel better. I've noticed that they are pretty accurate. They sound better to me at middle of the road volumes, where the bass become present and not overwhelming yet. I purchased these to be a pair of gym headphones, because I can't justify bringing my 530's (partially due to the cabling issues that may occur due to wear and tear). I found the sound stage to be much smaller, and at times, having to crank the volume to get the highs to where I want them. The bass can easily get out of hand, but for the music I listen to at the gym (progressive trance) these actually sound amazing for the price! I'd be interested to hear how these compare to other headphones you own.

J

 

[AT0]

I have been having a hard deciding whether to get the new or old CX-300s, so by the sound of things I should cough the small amount extra and get the new ones? Sorted out the apparent bass issue would be a big bonus as I hate how my 212s (cans) can make a right mess of bass.

 

[stephennic]

Hi,

Yes the new Cx-300-II are an upgrade on the older cx-300. Before the older model i found a little harsh on highs and boomier bass and the new model fills out the mids a little more too. If I had to measure it at this stage with only a few hours use - 10-15% better I suspect it would improve a bit more with use. I found with audio things take awhile to break in (burn in) some people dont believe in it but from my experience in each component and speakers i have bought things have improved with burn in.

How does in compare with my AKG-71 (Fullsize -$79). Well the cx-300-II at this stage has deeper bass, more sparkly highs,the akg have a bigger and deeper soundstage and fuller mids probably a little more forward too and warmer sound (slightly rolled off top end). Detail at this stage is fairly equal. I have only the AKG for about 2 weeks too and its only being used for about 5 hours.

Cheers,

Steve.

 

[kurtzi]

So, after reading your opinions, the new cx-300 II don't seem to be a big improvement in sound if compared to the older ones, as I suspected. Anyone comparing the new model with cx-400?

Cheers
K

 

[stephennic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kurtzi /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, after reading your opinions, the new cx-300 II don't seem to be a big improvement in sound if compared to the older ones, as I suspected. Anyone comparing the new model with cx-400? Cheers K

Hi,

After burning in a bit longer i say its now about 20- 25% better than the old cx-300 which I would call a significant improvement. The soundstage has opened up more and the sound becoming more detailed and spatial. I talked to a seller of the new cx-300-II and thet said its the old model of the cx-400. Rated (price taken into account) the old cx-300 6.5-7.0/10 this new one at least 8-8.5/10.

Cheers,

Steve

 

[stephennic]

Hi,
My rating would be soundwise. On the sennhiser cx-300-II I noticed the treble is now more defined and detailed, seperation between instruments are better (more airy), bass tighter, voices are more warm and natural and detailed than the old cx-300. It has al less artificial sound the new model - smoother and less fatigueing. Maybe closer to 25% improvement 8.5/10 (price taken into account) so far.

Cheers,

Steve.

 

[Ultrazino]

Wow. I'd grade my CX 500 like 6.5/10 and the CX 400 5.5/10. I wonder how they compare to the CX 300-II or 400-II.

I have yet to find an IEM with clear sound! I don't even think that's physically possible.

 

[Zalithian]

The CX series isn't exactly high end. If you want clear sounding IEMS, I'd go for the Westone 3's, Ety ER4P/S, or Ultimate Ears TF.10's, probably - maybe even the PFE's.

 

[AT0]

With headphones, like most things, you typically get what you pay for. Sennheiser CX-300s are decent value for money but they are definitely low end headphones, no way around it.

I am really interested to hear how they compare to other products in their price range such as those from Ultimate Ears, Sony etc. It isn't fair to compare a sub $50 headphone with ones that cost in the hundreds of dollars.

 

[kurtzi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephennic /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi, After burning in a bit longer i say its now about 20- 25% better than the old cx-300 which I would call a significant improvement. The soundstage has opened up more and the sound becoming more detailed and spatial. I talked to a seller of the new cx-300-II and thet said its the old model of the cx-400. Rated (price taken into account) the old cx-300 6.5-7.0/10 this new one at least 8-8.5/10. Cheers, Steve

Thanks for the update stephennic. This afternoon I'm going to try, if I can, the 300-II at a local store, so we will be able to compare our feelings.

Cheers
K

 

[stephennic]

Hi,

Remember I am not comparing the cx-300-ii to a high end model, I'm comparing it to the old model cx-300 - my friend has the old model. Im rating the sound within the budget price range.

Yes the new cx-300ii is not perfect I still think the bass could be tighter, it dosent have the big soundstage of my AKG, the mids are not as full as they could be, and not the top end is not open as it could be either, and it dosent have all the detail either. But for the price to me its very good value, its musical and sweet sounding, smooth, fairly open and detailed, reasonably well balance tonally probably slight emphasis on bass though, and compared to the old model it is better.

I found it does improve with burn in. If you want hifi reviews of it , I think in 2008 in won the best inner ear headphone in what hifi mag for under 50 pounds. Hifi choice magazine (techrader.com) gave it 5 stars, the good gear guide 4 stars, modsenergy.com gave a good review too.

It comes with 3 earplug sizes and a bag, the smallest one was too small for my ears so it didnt fit right, it lacked bass then as it was loose, the middle for me fitted best.

Cheers

Steve.

 

[vegetaleb]

I was going to buy the most acclaimed RE2 but when I saw that those CX300 II are better than the old CX300 I am starting to think twice...
I want to hear all the music details of Trance and Psytrance songs with a good(not heavy) bass,the RE2 as I understand has it all but the Bass,so how's those CX300 II at this stage and how can you compare them to RE2 or even Nuforce Ne-7M???
Please answer asap because I am going to Virgin Megastore in a couple of hours

 

[Ultrazino]

I haven't tried them but people say the CX 300-II is very similar to the CX 400 which has a too strong bass, IMO.

I don't know, you might like it.

 

[vegetaleb]

I have a pair of Sony Ex32 which have an over-bass that I don't like because it's covering all the other details,even setting Lows at -4 doesn't help,it's like installing a subwoofer of 1000w with a pair of woofers of 200w in a car