[Sonic Defender]

Rtings measured the PX as having more bass than the Beats Studio3, a more veiled treble, and the same boxy mids with an even more massive low-mid bump. Other than the stronger bass tuning and more spacious sound, I’m surprised so many people here went from the Studio3 to the PX. It’s a surprisingly similar FR. Though B&W probably did it better.

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/bowers-wilkins/px

I have to say take that with a grain of salt. While I do fully believe that objective data is important, sometimes it does seem to fail to really capture the holistic, integrated effect of a sound signature. Ultimately some people will really love the PX, others won't. I notice that rtings scored the Denon AHGC20 as slightly higher than the PX. I owned the Denon for a very short time and I can't imagine anybody listening to the PX and AHGC20 and coming away feeling the Denon was even close to the sound quality of the PX. I realize that the ratings take other factors into account. The review also incorrectly states that the PX does not support Aptx HD which it most certainly does. When I used it with my LG G6 it clearly indicated that the PX was connected using the Aptx HD codec enabled.

 

[MICHAELSD]

I have to say take that with a grain of salt. While I do fully believe that objective data is important, sometimes it does seem to fail to really capture the holistic, integrated effect of a sound signature. Ultimately some people will really love the PX, others won't. I notice that rtings scored the Denon AHGC20 as slightly higher than the PX. I owned the Denon for a very short time and I can't imagine anybody listening to the PX and AHGC20 and coming away feeling the Denon was even close to the sound quality of the PX. I realize that the ratings take other factors into account. The review also incorrectly states that the PX does not support Aptx HD which it most certainly does. When I used it with my LG G6 it clearly indicated that the PX was connected using the Aptx HD codec enabled.

I agree that FR doesn’t tell the whole story as the driver/housing can make a huge difference and impart its own special qualities not measured by FR alone. Objectivity does play a major role in the audiophile community regardless.

 

[Sonic Defender]

I agree that FR doesn’t tell the whole story as the driver/housing can make a huge difference and impart its own special qualities not measured by FR alone. Objectivity does play a major role in the audiophile community regardless.

For sure, both objective and subjective exploration of gear is equally valid with pros and cons to the approach. Ideally as I'm sure you know, keeping a balanced perspective on both approaches is important and contributes to fully engaging with a sound signature. Cheers.

 

[Maukey]

I stopped paying attention to "professional" reviewers a long time ago when it comes to determining what headphones to get. I still read to get an idea on features of new cans, but that's where it stops for me. I test headphones (Best Buy and Amazon have a very generous return policy) and go with what sounds best to my ears. According to sites like Rtings, Innerfidelity, and a few YouTube reviewers, the Bose QC35 II are currently the best sounding wireless headphones because they measure the best. Well let me tell you, I owned the QC35 II, and while I love their comfort and ANC, I preferred the sound of the Beats Studio 3, Sony H.ear On 2, B&W PX, and Crossfade II Wireless. According to Rtings, the Studio 3, PX, and Crossfade II sound mediocre compared to the QC35 II. That's just not what my ears hear when listening to all 4. Don't get me wrong, the QC35 II don't sound bad, they just don't sound top of the class to me like some of these sites suggest.

 

[MICHAELSD]

I stopped paying attention to "professional" reviewers a long time ago when it comes to determining what headphones to get. I still read to get an idea on features of new cans, but that's where it stops for me. I test headphones (Best Buy and Amazon have a very generous return policy) and go with what sounds best to my ears. According to sites like Rtings, Innerfidelity, and a few YouTube reviewers, the Bose QC35 II are currently the best sounding wireless headphones because they measure the best. Well let me tell you, I owned the QC35 II, and while I love their comfort and ANC, I preferred the sound of the Beats Studio 3, Sony H.ear On 2, B&W PX, and Crossfade II Wireless. According to Rtings, the Studio 3, PX, and Crossfade II sound mediocre compared to the QC35 II. That's just not what my ears hear when listening to all 4. Don't get me wrong, the QC35 II don't sound bad, they just don't sound top of the class to me like some of these sites suggest.

More or less what Rtings is measuring is the neutrality of a headphone (how evenly each frequency is measured), which is why headphones that have any type of excessive FR bumps like the Crossfade II or the Studio3 won’t measure as well as a headphone like the QC35 which has a neutral response on paper.

This is why I’m a proponent of taking some measurements (I particularly find their imaging measurement to be useful as I’ve experienced it correlating directly to a headphone’s imaging performance) and using a site like Rtings to compare to an extent to make sure a headphone isn’t undeniably mediocre then trying headphones first-hand. For example, the Sennheiser Momentum 2.0 Wireless doesn’t measure well but due to what I’d attribute to high-quality drivers their tuning is perfect for a wireless ANC headphone and brings out the best in the sub-bass and vocals.

There is definitely room for a manufacturer to sculpt and tune a headphone’s sound to create a signature that sounds more enjoyable than neutral for most musical genres. In my own journey for neutrality, I’m starting to question whether the manufacturers that impart their own qualities on the sound is preferable to a stone cold, potentially boring flat sound.

 

[Maukey]

More or less what Rtings is measuring is the neutrality of a headphone (how evenly each frequency is measured), which is why headphones that have any type of excessive FR bumps like the Crossfade II or the Studio3 won’t measure as well as a headphone like the QC35 which has a neutral response on paper.

This is why I’m a proponent of taking some measurements (I particularly find their imaging measurement to be useful as I’ve experienced it correlating directly to a headphone’s imaging performance) and using a site like Rtings to compare to an extent to make sure a headphone isn’t undeniably mediocre then trying headphones first-hand. For example, the Sennheiser Momentum 2.0 Wireless doesn’t measure well but due to what I’d attribute to high-quality drivers their tuning is perfect for a wireless ANC headphone and brings out the best in the sub-bass and vocals.

There is definitely room for a manufacturer to sculpt and tune a headphone’s sound to create a signature that sounds more enjoyable than neutral for most musical genres. In my own journey for neutrality, I’m starting to question whether the manufacturers that impart their own qualities on the sound is preferable to a stone cold, potentially boring flat sound.

I've actually been curious about trying the Sennheiser HD1 Wireless. A while back I owned the Momentum 2.0 Wired version, and for a while it was my favorite headphone. It had those magical mids as I call them that Sennheiser is known for. What's your take on the HD1 Wireless? How does it compare in sound quality to the Wired version? How does it compare to say the Studio 3s (you already know I'm a fan of these LOL), QC35 II, 1000XM2, etc.?

 

[MICHAELSD]

I've actually been curious about trying the Sennheiser HD1 Wireless. A while back I owned the Momentum 2.0 Wired version, and for a while it was my favorite headphone. It had those magical mids as I call them that Sennheiser is known for. What's your take on the HD1 Wireless? How does it compare in sound quality to the Wired version? How does it compare to say the Studio 3s (you already know I'm a fan of these LOL), QC35 II, 1000XM2, etc.?

Honestly the Momentum 2.0 Wireless is the best ANC headphone for audiophiles. It has surprisingly strong sub-bass and a glorious bump in the upper mids that really brings the detail out of vocals along with a veiled but still full treble. (Perhaps even more veiled than the other ANC headphones but still present and fuller than the 1000XM2.) It has the most open sound and the largest soundstage of the other ANC headphones.

While I haven’t heard the purely wired Momentum 2.0, I do find that when using a 3.5mm cable the M2 Wireless becomes more neutral and loses what’s special about the sound signature which is the sub-bass that literally vibrates the ear slightly and the clarity in the upper mids that brings out the nuances of instruments and vocals. They really did tune the sound differently for Bluetooth ANC and did a remarkable job creating a new sound signature with the high quality M2 drivers, arguably even better for portable use than the wired version’s signature.

As for a comparison to the Studio3, the Studio3 has a more vibrant sound with stronger mid-bass and fundamentals but the Momentum 2.0 has strong sub-bass and totally non-muddy mids since low-mid is unemphasized. It’s like those two headphones fill in for the shortcomings of each other, with the sub-bass and absolute vocal clarity missing on the Studio3 front-and-center on the M2 while the Studio3 trades the M2’s unemphasized mid-bass and veiled treble for a more vibrant sound. For use as an ANC headphone, Studio3 would be better for an active lifestyle since a more energetic sound works well for being out but for picking out details in the music the Momentum 2.0 offers a surprisingly clean Bluetooth performance. The biggest oversight on the Momentum 2.0 is the lack of the AAC codec, which is why I would probably personally take the Studio3 but it’s very close. They even have the same 22-hour battery life with ANC enabled. * You can also listen to music via USB on the Momentum 2.0 so you can get higher quality sound and the same active Bluetooth tuning. Wired, M2 is a better headphone than the Studio3 with a wired connection.

 

[Maukey]

Honestly the Momentum 2.0 Wireless is the best ANC headphone for audiophiles. It has surprisingly strong sub-bass and a glorious bump in the upper mids that really brings the detail out of vocals along with a veiled but still full treble. (Perhaps even more veiled than the other ANC headphones but still present and fuller than the 1000XM2.) It has the most open sound and the largest soundstage of the other ANC headphones.

While I haven’t heard the purely wired Momentum 2.0, I do find that when using a 3.5mm cable the M2 Wireless becomes more neutral and loses what’s special about the sound signature which is the sub-bass that literally vibrates the ear slightly and the clarity in the upper mids that brings out the nuances of instruments and vocals. They really did tune the sound differently for Bluetooth ANC and did a remarkable job creating a new sound signature with the high quality M2 drivers, arguably even better for portable use than the wired version’s signature.

As for a comparison to the Studio3, the Studio3 has a more vibrant sound with stronger mid-bass and fundamentals but the Momentum 2.0 has strong sub-bass and totally non-muddy mids since low-mid is unemphasized. It’s like those two headphones fill in for the shortcomings of each other, with the sub-bass and absolute vocal clarity missing on the Studio3 front-and-center on the M2 while the Studio3 trades the M2’s unemphasized mid-bass and veiled treble for a more vibrant sound. For use as an ANC headphone, Studio3 would be better for an active lifestyle since a more energetic sound works well for being out but for picking out details in the music the Momentum 2.0 offers a surprisingly clean Bluetooth performance. The biggest oversight on the Momentum 2.0 is the lack of the AAC codec, which is why I would probably personally take the Studio3 but it’s very close. They even have the same 22-hour battery life with ANC enabled. * You can also listen to music via USB on the Momentum 2.0 so you can get higher quality sound and the same active Bluetooth tuning. Wired, M2 is a better headphone than the Studio3 with a wired connection.

I may order it on Amazon tonight and give it a demo. Have you heard the Crossfade II? If so, how does it compare?

 

[MICHAELSD]

I may order it on Amazon tonight and give it a demo. Have you heard the Crossfade II? If so, how does it compare?

I haven’t but I found the mids and the bass definition to be better than the M-100.

 

[Maukey]

I haven’t but I found the mids and the bass definition to be better than the M-100.

My HD1s are arriving today! Can’t wait to get my hands on them. What difference do you notice in sound quality when using AptX vs SBC/iPhone?

I’m narrowing down my headphone collection. Actually have my B&W PX listed for sale on EBay. After going back and forth between my Crossfade II, Hear On 2 ( Repurchased), and Studio 3, I realized that the B&W PX is just to dark/veiled for my taste. I think I heard in the sound what reviews say I should hear since they’re raved about. Actually when I first listened to them I thought they were horrible. I took the advice of many here and let them burn in. They did open up a little but ultimately still isn’t for me. The soundstage is the only thing I really like about them.

 

[TheWalrus]

It's funny how different we experience headphones. Some think they are veiled and dark while others think the opposite. Some think the mids are muddy and some think they are very very detailed

But after the whole "Yanny or Laurel" thing,
I'm not surprised anymore.



I am amazed at how different we as paople can percieve the same sound. Of course it’s the same with headphones. It’s a very individual and subjective thing.

 

[MICHAELSD]

My HD1s are arriving today! Can’t wait to get my hands on them. What difference do you notice in sound quality when using AptX vs SBC/iPhone?

I’m narrowing down my headphone collection. Actually have my B&W PX listed for sale on EBay. After going back and forth between my Crossfade II, Hear On 2 ( Repurchased), and Studio 3, I realized that the B&W PX is just to dark/veiled for my taste. I think I heard in the sound what reviews say I should hear since they’re raved about. Actually when I first listened to them I thought they were horrible. I took the advice of many here and let them burn in. They did open up a little but ultimately still isn’t for me. The soundstage is the only thing I really like about them.

aptX has more clarity in the treble which you may prefer, but I find SBC to be less fatiguing and not necessarily inferior in quality. One lesser-known tip is that you can listen to the HD1 via USB so you can get the same great signature with higher quality.

 

[viperxp]

Went from the wonderful PX to Bose. Sound-vise - the PX surely beat the Bose's, but can't say the same about comfort, with those Bose's you hardly know you have them on.
Angry at BW engineers, seems that they chose design over functionality, if those ear cups would have been 5 mm wider and 5 mm deeper - they would be the greatest, but well ...

 

[dannydj]

Any owners of the PX's and the Sony 1000 mk2 or someone who has used both ? Interested how the sonys compare when using LDAC vs the PX using apt X HD. Also a comparison of both in wired mode. Thanks

 

[WDitters]

Any owners of the PX's and the Sony 1000 mk2 or someone who has used both ? Interested how the sonys compare when using LDAC vs the PX using apt X HD. Also a comparison of both in wired mode. Thanks

Yep.. I have both.. And while the Sony 1000mk2 does offer better ANC, I keep reverting back to the PX. Even in LDAC the Sony do not match the PX musically..