[DoomForce]

Hi guys,

I am guessing this topic has been beaten to death, but I can tell that the headphone technology with bluetooth is getting better and better with every iteration.

So my question is -- how does a headphone like Sony 1000xm2 compare to something like a Sennheiser HD800 or similar closed can? Are we getting close with Bluetooth technology and batteries or are cabled units still miles ahead?

 

[Dreamnine]

Cabled will still be ahead but the gap is narrowing.

I used to listen to just wired earphones/headphones (Senn IE8, Dunu Titan 1,Sennheiser Momentums various others) and didn't think twice about Bluetooth. As long as the drivers on the 'phones I used were of high quality then so would the music, I thought.

Today, all my headphones and earphones are BT. I still have my Dunu's but seldom listen. I'm 51 and can't tell the difference between a well encoded track using wired or BT aptX HD. Not to mention the convenience of having no wires at all between the source device and headphones. Add things like Noise Cancelling, the ability to control the 'phones EQ and other settings via an app and it's no wonder that Bluetooth ear/headphones outsell their wired counterparts.

The only inconvenience for me is that BT sets need to be charged, but so do many other items these days.

 

[rpger9756]

I have a broad array of headphones and here's my take:

BT is pretty spot on for daily listening. A well-designed set of cans sounds really great via Bluetooth with every-day listening material coming out of a device (phone, laptop, cd player, etc.) None of my BT stuff has ever touched my desktop amp or my DSD source material because...well...it's just not what they're for. BT is a compressed stream, even aptX. I've sent DSD source to my 2.4ghz cans using the DSD-to-PCM function in foobar2000 and the windows audio layer because they transmit uncompressed wireless signal. I just wouldn't transmit uncompressed or near-analog over my Bluetooth sets because it defeats the purpose. It's great for Pandora and Spotify and even Tidal, though. Both my headphones have analog plugs if I ever wanted to drive them via my amp...but why? The point I'm making is that if you're doing "Listening," where you're trying to really dig into a piece, Bluetooth of ANY kind sort of defeats the purpose. If you're just passive or semi-actively listening, then the tech is absolutely there. Bluetooth can be revealing and resolving to the point of transparency. But, by nature, it will be cutting out the most subtle of detail in the top and bottom range where the compression kicks in. If your ears aren't "there yet," or you plan on using the analog to really "dig deep," then yes, you really can get a set of BT cans that can "do it all" and don't compromise audiophile values.

 

[Cruelhand Luke]

I recently received a set of pre-production bluetooth headphones to test out and I am really pleasantly surprised by the quality of the experience. The connectivity has gotten really good since the last time I had a BT headset (5 years ago) they are incredibly convenient and useful.
The sound quality is nearly on par with my favorite portable over ear set (a modded set of Sony 7506 ...they have a removable cable mod, various bass mods and a pad upgrade)
BT headphones, for portable use, not necessarily at home, "critical listening", have come a long, long way and have the capability to be really good.

 

[DoomForce]

I see your points. I've been feeling similarly. Most often I reach out for my bluetooth cans, because of the convenience, the ease of use. At the same time, I have very expensive headphones sitting in a drawer because it's just.. not worth taking them out, too much hassle to set them up, let alone reducing their life span while doing 'not critical listening (listening to music while doing other stuff, where most headphones become just the same and comfort becomes king).