Hi Kitechaser,
I too can't recognize at all my experience of the CL2 in B9Scrambler s nicely written review.
What puzzles me a lot with this review is that he states that he couldn't hear any difference between the wired and the bluetooth modes.
Well, when I tested a CL2 with hardly any burn-in at my dealer and likewise after I bought my own CL2 without any burn-in at all, there was already unfortunately a huge difference between the wired mode (even from my Samsung Note 9, which has a weak amp -- I for convenience often use the CL2 out of my phone at work) and the bluetooth mode. In comparison the bluetooth headband unfortunately sounds to me muffled, with much less clarity, detail, dynamics, is much less engaging (which is a pity) than already out of my phone.
That B9Scrambler could not hear did this shows to me that there was something wrong (damaged CL2? wrong setup ??).
BTW what I really love a lot about CL2 is the tiny form factor (I find that most TOTL with their many BAs are too big; the KSE1500 is small but you can't swap the cable - - a dead end would a cable be broken).
Enjoy your music with the CL2 and thank you you all for your posts here,
bidn
The "review" if we can call it that, is more than half baked. I didn't want to be rude to the man, but yes, if he couldn't tell the difference between the wired and wireless sound quality, he probably shouldn't have been in the position to write the review.
No source was mentioned, and from his impressions I doubt he even had that 21 hours with it he claimed he did.
I personally feel, that you should not be writing a review about a piece of equipment unless you have had a minimum of 200 hours to get to know it properly, let alone 20.
I think stuff like this is a disservice to this community at large.
I can understand different tastes in sound signature, but when basic facts in your review are at odds with what everyone else is experiencing, maybe it should be an occasion for more than a quick pause.
This is unfair. His impressions are his, no matter how great we think the CL2 are. I do not think his review is factually incorrect
It is up to the
reader to determine whether the review is worth taking to heart given the other information available.
I also don't at all agree with the assessmentabout Bluetooth. I have tested the CL2 from a Note 9 as well and I think it sounds better from the Bluetooth neckband. It's not as detailed, but it's a better source pairing. I think the neckband adds some welcome warmth, and the Note 9 sound pretty anemic driving the CL2s compared to the neckband.
While I agree these sound better with time, I do not think it is reasonable for a product to need 200 hours before it sounds good. Realistically speaking, I'd bet most people don't even spend 200 hours listening to a product in a month, and the vast majority of buyers aren't going to manually burn in their headphones. That's something only us Head-fi crazies do =]
If such burn in is really a requirement, then RHA should be doing so itself. I guess that's kind of what you're saying about the review tour.
A lot of head-fiers have niche ideas and processes about products, but it's important to remember that there are many more buyers who don't post on forums. RHA caters to audiophiles, but it also has a higher mainstream presence than many other companies we talk about here on head-fi.
And I mean, I write for a publication with a broad tech audience, some of whom like to buy expensive gear. In my reviews, should I expect them all to burn in their headphones for 200 hours before writing about them? I think not.
Different strokes. I say all this as someone who honestly thinks the CL2 are among the best headphones he's heard outside of Sennheiser's HE-1.
