[Christian de Looper]

I think that they’re sending out review units before the actual release speaks to Beats’ confidence in the new Studio . I do now recognize your name btw since I’ve read a few of your reviews before.

How do they compare to the HD1 over-ear which you called the best wireless headphone? I’m looking at replacing mine with the Studio depending.

Glad my name is being recognized! haha. I also write regularly for Digital Trends, TechRadar, and Business Insider -- though not really in the headphone space. I've had to send back the HD1s because they were a review unit, so it's hard to do a direct A/B comparison -- but I will say that the HD1s offer a more natural sound profile, which is something I personally prefer. They're amazing headphones, and one of the few to get our "gold medal" award. One point to the Studio 3 over the HD1 is the ability to turn off ANC -- but yeah still prefer the HD1. The HD1 is a little more comfortable too, which is always a bonus.

 

[MICHAELSD]

Glad my name is being recognized! haha. I also write regularly for Digital Trends, TechRadar, and Business Insider -- though not really in the headphone space. I've had to send back the HD1s because they were a review unit, so it's hard to do a direct A/B comparison -- but I will say that the HD1s offer a more natural sound profile, which is something I personally prefer. They're amazing headphones, and one of the few to get our "gold medal" award. One point to the Studio 3 over the HD1 is the ability to turn off ANC -- but yeah still prefer the HD1. The HD1 is a little more comfortable too, which is always a bonus.

I’ve come across your site in the past!

The one main advantage Beats has is the W1 chip and AAC support. Sennheiser knocked it out of the park with the tech in the HD1 besides codec support. aptX to me isn’t that great, and AAC over Bluetooth when implemented correctly can sound better than using a wire to listen to AAC files. Beats Studio3 + Apple Music which uses AAC should be a winning combo.

 

[Christian de Looper]

I’ve come across your site in the past!

The one main advantage Beats has is the W1 chip and AAC support. Sennheiser knocked it out of the park with the tech in the HD1 besides codec support. aptX to me isn’t that great, and AAC over Bluetooth when implemented correctly can sound better than using a wire to listen to AAC files. Beats Studio3 + Apple Music which uses AAC should be a winning combo.

Totally, the W1 is an awesome addition and connectivity + battery life on the Beats is a pretty serious advantage. The Beats headphones will work beautifully with an iPhone if you have one -- and if you like the sound profile on offer then I say go for it! Plus it seems like you have plenty of other headphones for a more natural profile if you want it.

 

[buddhabone]

Does anyone know when they will actually be in Apple Stores?

 

[MICHAELSD]

Does anyone know when they will actually be in Apple Stores?

When they’re released in mid-October.

 

[RamGuy]

It's hard to take that Mashable review seriously. It doesn't seem like "Lance Ulanoff" have any real experience judging by how he claims things like;

"but not the new W2 chip Apple just introduced in the Apple Watch Series 3; guess that’ll have to wait for the Studio4's"

This just proves that he just write things without prior knowledge to what he his actually talking about. The Apple W2-chip is not a successor to the Apple W1-chip, its simply a new version of the chip handling both bluetooth and wireless (WiFi) tailored for the new Apple Watch. Why would you have the Apple W2 inside any pair of headphones when they don't feature WiFi? It seems like he just heard about the name and concluded 2 is better than 1 so this Apple W1 has to be a older inferior chip and goes on telling everyone about it in his review...

 

[plakat]

It's hard to take that Mashable review seriously. It doesn't seem like "Lance Ulanoff" have any real experience judging by how he claims things like;



This just proves that he just write things without prior knowledge to what he his actually talking about. The Apple W2-chip is not a successor to the Apple W1-chip, its simply a new version of the chip handling both bluetooth and wireless (WiFi) tailored for the new Apple Watch. Why would you have the Apple W2 inside any pair of headphones when they don't feature WiFi? It seems like he just heard about the name and concluded 2 is better than 1 so this Apple W1 has to be a older inferior chip and goes on telling everyone about it in his review...

He is right in that Apple tends to name classes of chips with letters (A, M, W) and use numbers to indicate the generation, which would make the W2 a successor to the W1. I don't think they'll produce to very similar chips for long, but I don't think the W2 is necessarily better for the application "Bluetooth headphone", so even if the W2 is the successor to the W1 that does not make the Studio3 obsolete...

 

[trellus]

I like the instant connection, and improvement in the sound signature compared to previous models.

If they improve the Studio 3 the way they have the Solos since version 2.0, then these should be really nice.

I couldn't hear any different between the Solo 2.0 Wireless and the Solo 3.0 Wireless -- although, frankly, both sound excellent to me. I thought the only diff between 2.0 and 3.0 Solos were

• No wired variant of the 3's unlikes the 2's
• Ridiculously longer, better battery life in the 3's
• W1 chip for convenience with iOS devices

 

[MICHAELSD]

I couldn't hear any different between the Solo 2.0 Wireless and the Solo 3.0 Wireless -- although, frankly, both sound excellent to me. I thought the only diff between 2.0 and 3.0 Solos were

• No wired variant of the 3's unlikes the 2's
• Ridiculously longer, better battery life in the 3's
• W1 chip for convenience with iOS devices

RTings.com found the Solo3 to be markedly superior to the Solo2. You can use their side by side tool to compare their measurements.

http://www.rtings.com/headphones/tools/compare

 

[AlwaysForward]

I don't mind answering here -- the answer is yes, they sent out a review unit. I actually haven't been able to try out the Solo3's, so I can't speak to comparing them. In general I found the high-end to be decent, but in my view it could have used a bit of a boost. It wasn't dull or anything, and the highs that were there were pretty well-tuned -- but there just wasn't enough of them IMO.

Thanks for the welcome Certainly looking forward to learning and sharing in what seems to be an awesome community!

Great to have you here, love your reviews! Excited to see the Stuio3 receive such a positive review from you. 8.6 is a really strong score and it seems you very rarely hit 9.0 or above for cans.

I was curious how these might compare to the Blue Sadie/MoFi with the "On+" bass boost engaged? The Blue has slightly recessed highs but loads of detail across the spectrum while being able to kick decently. I'm kind of hoping these are like that or perhaps a little better in the bass department (I know they won't compete with the Planar Ella).

Cheers!

 

[Christian de Looper]

Great to have you here, love your reviews! Excited to see the Stuio3 receive such a positive review from you. 8.6 is a really strong score and it seems you very rarely hit 9.0 or above for cans.

I was curious how these might compare to the Blue Sadie/MoFi with the "On+" bass boost engaged? The Blue has slightly recessed highs but loads of detail across the spectrum while being able to kick decently. I'm kind of hoping these are like that or perhaps a little better in the bass department (I know they won't compete with the Planar Ella).

Cheers!

Hey! I really liked Blue's range a lot, but considering I had to send back the review units its a little hard to do an A/B test. From what I remember about the Sadie, the Studio 3 will definitely offer more bass -- in general I found the Sadie to be more naturally tuned. I think that would even be true with On+ engaged -- to me the Sadie was more targeted at those who might want a somewhat subtle boost every now and then rather than a super bass-heavy sound like that offered on the Studio 3. The Sadie -- from what I remember -- offers much more detail and clarity in the high-end. Again, take all this with a grain of salt, wish I could compare them back-to-back!

For me the main reason the Studio 3 scored what it did is its performance. Battery life and good connectivity are important features these days, and Apple hit the nail on the head in that department. It definitely is rare that I go above 9, which is because of the average score system I'm running with -- very rarely do headphones nail design, comfort, sound quality, and performance (if wireless) at a decent price.

 

[RamGuy]

I see that you actually scored the Bose QC35 higher than the Beats Studio3 in terms of audio quality? Would you like to elaborate on what your thoughts are on the sound comparing the two?

I'am sadly one of those who have a really hard time understanding how so many rate the actual audio quality of the Bose QC35 that high as I find the sound to be really awkward. Especially vocals and spoken word just sounds wrong to my ears compared to pretty much every other headphone, in-ears and speaker I own and I have tested four different Bose QC35's and I still own two myself one for me and one for my girlfriend as our go-to for air-plane rides and I still have a really hard time using them for vocal heavy songs and podcasts/audiobooks just because how awkward vocals sounds on them.

If we ignore the audio the Bose QC35 are great, they have great ANC, they have a great app, they keep on receiving firmware updates, they have great and stable bluetooth connection with the best "multi-device" and seamless pairing and switching between multiple devices currently on the market, they are really lightweight and comfortable even though I don't really like they look and feel. But that audio... It just make me not want to use them for anything besides plane rides...

 

[richpjr]

If we ignore the audio the Bose QC35 are great...

That is kind of a problem for a lot of people!

 

[Christian de Looper]

I see that you actually scored the Bose QC35 higher than the Beats Studio3 in terms of audio quality? Would you like to elaborate on what your thoughts are on the sound comparing the two?

I'am sadly one of those who have a really hard time understanding how so many rate the actual audio quality of the Bose QC35 that high as I find the sound to be really awkward. Especially vocals and spoken word just sounds wrong to my ears compared to pretty much every other headphone, in-ears and speaker I own and I have tested four different Bose QC35's and I still own two myself one for me and one for my girlfriend as our go-to for air-plane rides and I still have a really hard time using them for vocal heavy songs and podcasts/audiobooks just because how awkward vocals sounds on them.

If we ignore the audio the Bose QC35 are great, they have great ANC, they have a great app, they keep on receiving firmware updates, they have great and stable bluetooth connection with the best "multi-device" and seamless pairing and switching between multiple devices currently on the market, they are really lightweight and comfortable even though I don't really like they look and feel. But that audio... It just make me not want to use them for anything besides plane rides...

Unfortunately this is another situation of me having to send back the QC35, so I can't A/B them. From my memory I do see why you would feel that way about the Bose headphones, but in general I still preferred the overall sound profile because it was a little more natural. It seemed like they were a little better for those who don't necessarily want the sound profile of the Beats. Also keep in mind that the "sound" score also comprises ANC, and Bose has the best ANC we've ever tested -- so that pushes the sound section up a little as well.

 

[329161]

I’ve come across your site in the past!

The one main advantage Beats has is the W1 chip and AAC support. Sennheiser knocked it out of the park with the tech in the HD1 besides codec support. aptX to me isn’t that great, and AAC over Bluetooth when implemented correctly can sound better than using a wire to listen to AAC files. Beats Studio3 + Apple Music which uses AAC should be a winning combo.

I bet you couldn't tell the difference in a Bluetooth blind listening test. Also, how could AAC over Bluetooth sound better than wired? Where is the evidence? I think people go overboard in placing importance on codecs for Bluetooth. If the source files are of sufficiently high quality (ie at least hi bit rate lossy), then differences between codecs are inaudible.