[winslord]

The difference between Beats’ latest offerings and V-MODA’s latest is that Beats tunes its headphones as wireless-first while V-MODA is wired-first. Beats sounds markedly better in wireless mode and not nearly as good with a wire (they’re really not made for wired mode as they cannot benefit from lossless files and it seems like the amp/DAC really brings out the best of what the drivers are capable of). While I haven’t tried CF2W yet, I can surmise from this thread that it sounds markedly better with a wire and not nearly as good in wireless mode. V-MODA is going to have to decide in the future which mode its customers are most interested in prioritizing, although I think it is possible to make both modes equally as good in their class. Personally I still believe it’s possible for wireless to sound better than wired unamped with the same files.

That being said I did love the M-100 and am still watching V-MODA closely. If I can check CF2W out for myself, perhaps at a Best Buy or Microsoft Store, I’ll give it a listen.

In 2018 I’m a wireless-first person, when funnily enough I had zero interest in Bluetooth audio when I bought my M-100 a few years ago.

No, I don’t agree about the Beats vs V-MODA thing. For one, Beats Studio Wireless (2nd generation) sounded worse in Bluetooth compared to the original CFW. Now, with the Beats Studio3 Wireless, it still sounds worse than the CF2W (let alone the Codex). I do think, however, that the Studio3 Wireless might be better than the original CFW.

CF2W is available in Magnolia and I think you should listen to it.

 

[AnakChan]

I've deleted a bunch of posts and this is precisely why we don't talk of ABX (and expectation bias) outside of the Sound Science forums. If you guys wanna continue about ABX and expectation bias, go there instead.

 

[329161]

One thing about VModa is that they haven't introduced any products that take advantage of their partnership with Roland. The only thing I could remember was a special edition m100 with the Roland logo on the shield. It's been quite a few years since the partnership was announced too.

 

[Maukey]

So I just received my Matte Black Crossfade 2 Codex. I've been demoing them for about 48 hours now. My initial impression was not that good when in Wireless mode. Like some others have mentioned, I wasn't noticing much of a difference from what I remembered of my Rose Gold original Crossfade 2. Maybe a slight clarity increase. Well this morning I wake up turn on my MacBook, and start listening again. After about 30 mins I decided to check what Bluetooth codec my Mac was using. AptX smh. I completely forgot that the Mac defaults to AptX. I had yet to try these with my iPhone X. Yeah I know, the whole point of the Codex version and AAC. After connecting to my phone I immediately noticed a difference! I'm not going to exaggerate and say it's night and day, but it definitely has a clarity and detail advantage when using the iPhone vs. using the Mac. So yeah, I'm basically saying to my ears I prefer the sound of AAC via iPhone vs the sound of AptX via the Mac. I could barely stand to use the original Crossfade 2 wirelessly with an iPhone. This is no longer the case. It still sounds a little better wired, but the gap is much smaller now in my opinion. I could use these wirelessly and not feel like something's missing. For me, in wireless AAC mode, the Crossfade II Codex sound better than the Bose QC35 II and Sony 1000XM2. It's right up there with my other favorite Wireless headphones, the Sony H.ear On 2, Beats Studio 3 Wireless, and Sennheiser HD1. I'm hard pressed to pick a winner. These are just my early impressions. I'm currently going back and forth between my Crossfade II Codex, Beats Studio 3, and Bose QC35 II. One of these 3 will be leaving my collection. If I was basing this decision purely on sound, the QC35 would be gone no question. But their Comfort is just heavenly. I actually use my QC35 II more than any other headphone I own for that reason. I can wear them all day and forget they're on my head. This is perfect when I'm binge watching Netflix shows from my iPad.

 

[MICHAELSD]

So I just received my Matte Black Crossfade 2 Codex. I've been demoing them for about 48 hours now. My initial impression was not that good when in Wireless mode. Like some others have mentioned, I wasn't noticing much of a difference from what I remembered of my Rose Gold original Crossfade 2. Maybe a slight clarity increase. Well this morning I wake up turn on my MacBook, and start listening again. After about 30 mins I decided to check what Bluetooth codec my Mac was using. AptX smh. I completely forgot that the Mac defaults to AptX. I had yet to try these with my iPhone X. Yeah I know, the whole point of the Codex version and AAC. After connecting to my phone I immediately noticed a difference! I'm not going to exaggerate and say it's night and day, but it definitely has a clarity and detail advantage when using the iPhone vs. using the Mac. So yeah, I'm basically saying to my ears I prefer the sound of AAC via iPhone vs the sound of AptX via the Mac. I could barely stand to use the original Crossfade 2 wirelessly with an iPhone. This is no longer the case. It still sounds a little better wired, but the gap is much smaller now in my opinion. I could use these wirelessly and not feel like something's missing. For me, in wireless AAC mode, the Crossfade II Codex sound better than the Bose QC35 II and Sony 1000XM2. It's right up there with my other favorite Wireless headphones, the Sony H.ear On 2, Beats Studio 3 Wireless, and Sennheiser HD1. I'm hard pressed to pick a winner. These are just my early impressions. I'm currently going back and forth between my Crossfade II Codex, Beats Studio 3, and Bose QC35 II. One of these 3 will be leaving my collection. If I was basing this decision purely on sound, the QC35 would be gone no question. But their Comfort is just heavenly. I actually use my QC35 II more than any other headphone I own for that reason. I can wear them all day and forget they're on my head. This is perfect when I'm binge watching Netflix shows from my iPad.

Always look forward to your impressions, man. Feel that you’re unbiased and tell it how it is. That’s the virtue of AAC: it opens up the possibility of a genuinely wireless future. We can get into pseudo science that says the difference above 256kbps AAC is indiscernible, but there’s a reason Apple uses 256kbps AAC for iTunes and 264kbps for its Bluetooth transmission.

AAC is a great Bluetooth codec since it doesn’t need to be reencoded (which in my mind even gives it some ground against LDAC since there are no files natively encoded in that format), and if a headphone with Bluetooth AAC sounds any better with a wire with AAC files then the bottleneck is the headphone’s own DAC/amp.

 

[Maukey]

Always look forward to your impressions, man. Feel that you’re unbiased and tell it how it is. That’s the virtue of AAC: it opens up the possibility of a genuinely wireless future. We can get into pseudo science that says the difference above 256kbps AAC is indiscernible, but there’s a reason Apple uses 256kbps AAC for iTunes and 264kbps for its Bluetooth transmission.

AAC is a great Bluetooth codec since it doesn’t need to be reencoded (which in my mind even gives it some ground against LDAC since there are no files natively encoded in that format), and if a headphone with Bluetooth AAC sounds any better with a wire with AAC files then the bottleneck is the headphone’s own DAC/amp.

Appreciate that man. I've always tried to explain what my ears hear. I don't go off of measurements or any of that jazz. Not going to call any names, but I've seen YouTube reviewers praise a headphone over another in their initial review/comparison, but then when a site like Rtings comes out with a measurement that contradicts their initial finding, they switch and now say that the other headphone is better smh. Rtings says that the Bose QC35 II is a better headphone sound wise than the Beats Studio 3 and Crossfade II Wireless, but that's not what my ears hear. I know they're measuring to neutral/balanced, but that doesn't always mean better to my ears. Many hate the Studio 3, but sound wise as a wireless headphone, it's up there with the best and I've heard them all extensively. I'm going to really spend time demoing the Studio 3 Wireless as an all day headphone over the next couple of days and see if I can wear it comfortably all day. It's actually a comfortable headphone and I honestly prefer to keep the Crossfade II Codex and the Studio 3. The only thing holding me back is the QC35 II's all day comfort. I wear headphones a majority of the time I'm working during the day and the Bose is perfect for that. The Crossfade II and Studio 3 are the better sounding of the 3 and actually complement each other well. The Crossfade II's being detailed, with a very natural midrange, and a thick, silky smooth sub bass response. The Studio 3s are energetic, with a slightly hotter treble, and a mid bass push that makes Beats/drums really stand out. Just so fun to listen to. A very in your face sound.

 

[MICHAELSD]

Appreciate that man. I've always tried to explain what my ears hear. I don't go off of measurements or any of that jazz. Not going to call any names, but I've seen YouTube reviewers praise a headphone over another in their initial review/comparison, but then when a site like Rtings comes out with a measurement that contradicts their initial finding, they switch and now say that the other headphone is better smh. Rtings says that the Bose QC35 II is a better headphone sound wise than the Beats Studio 3 and Crossfade II Wireless, but that's not what my ears hear. I know they're measuring to neutral/balanced, but that doesn't always mean better to my ears. Many hate the Studio 3, but sound wise as a wireless headphone, it's up there with the best and I've heard them all extensively. I'm going to really spend time demoing the Studio 3 Wireless as an all day headphone over the next couple of days and see if I can wear it comfortably all day. It's actually a comfortable headphone and I honestly prefer to keep the Crossfade II Codex and the Studio 3. The only thing holding me back is the QC35 II's all day comfort. I wear headphones a majority of the time I'm working during the day and the Bose is perfect for that. The Crossfade II and Studio 3 are the better sounding of the 3 and actually complement each other well. The Crossfade II's being detailed, with a very natural midrange, and a thick, silky smooth sub bass response. The Studio 3s are energetic, with a slightly hotter treble, and a mid bass push that makes Beats/drums really stand out. Just so fun to listen to. A very in your face sound.

Yup, Rtings is useful for a lot of their measurements beyond Frequency Response but neutral doesn’t always mean the most enjoyable sound. QC35II is surprisingly neutral but not nearly as detailed as a proper audiophile headphone.

The difference in FR between the CF2W and the Studio3 seems to indicate to me that the CF2W has a more natural response with a better-balanced bass and mid-range. But the Beats do have their own unique sound. It’s like listening to everything with Beats Studio EQ, which is Beats’ goal on the Studio line anyway since they go a little overboard with the tuning. I’ll admit as you may know that I hated the Studio3 when I first tried it, but they did make some minor improvements that made a big difference. On paper, I think I’d prefer V-MODA’s more natural FR with elevated bass, flat mids, and veiled treble but there is also something unique about the sound the Studio3 imparts on recordings even if it can muddy up the mids.

Comfort and convenience are equally as important as sound though, and I’m not sure you’d be able to wear the CF2W or Studio3 for as long as the QC35II without taking a break every few hours. I’m definitely stuck on whether to try CF2W as a gym headphone when I have Mobius coming and I figure Apple’s Pod over-ear could be released as early as the fall.

 

[MICHAELSD]

Have to correct my initial impression. I had only been listening to the Crossfade II Codex on my Mac which was using AptX. That's why I wasn't hearing a difference when compared to the original Crossfade II. Once I connected the Codex version to my iPhone X, they really came alive. Much better sounding, and louder at that. The more I listen to them and they break in, the better they're sounding. I'm having a hard time distinguishing a difference between wired and wireless AAC listening. It's very close.

Had to quote Maukey from the Studio3 thread since this is what I’ve been saying about AAC this whole time! There should be no negative difference listening to AAC over Bluetooth.

 

[Maukey]

Yup, Rtings is useful for a lot of their measurements beyond Frequency Response but neutral doesn’t always mean the most enjoyable sound. QC35II is surprisingly neutral but not nearly as detailed as a proper audiophile headphone.

The difference in FR between the CF2W and the Studio3 seems to indicate to me that the CF2W has a more natural response with a better-balanced bass and mid-range. But the Beats do have their own unique sound. It’s like listening to everything with Beats Studio EQ, which is Beats’ goal on the Studio line anyway since they go a little overboard with the tuning. I’ll admit as you may know that I hated the Studio3 when I first tried it, but they did make some minor improvements that made a big difference. On paper, I think I’d prefer V-MODA’s more natural FR with elevated bass, flat mids, and veiled treble but there is also something unique about the sound the Studio3 imparts on recordings even if it can muddy up the mids.

Comfort and convenience are equally as important as sound though, and I’m not sure you’d be able to wear the CF2W or Studio3 for as long as the QC35II without taking a break every few hours. I’m definitely stuck on whether to try CF2W as a gym headphone when I have Mobius coming and I figure Apple’s Pod over-ear could be released as early as the fall.

I think you'd really like the CF2W Codex. It's amazing. If you like the HD1, you'll like this one. And you'll get the added bonus of better portability and AAC . Has about the same bass response as the HD1 to my ears, but with a slightly more detailed sound over all. They're both extremely good.

 

[scarfacegt]

I saw the introduction video in the start of this thread.And they said the sound was the same wired/or wireless.I have the black version without aptx.Have used it with cable and dragonfly black.But yesterday i tried some bluetooth with my lg tv and some movies.It was good sound.But i suspect that wired is best?

 

[329161]

AAC is a great Bluetooth codec since it doesn’t need to be reencoded

Misinformation.
Bt aac is 250 kbps. So unless all your files are aac at that rate, they will be re-encoded.

 

[Cloudtastrophe]

Agreed. about 60-70 percent better in my own listening. enough to be an entirely different headphone!

I saw the introduction video in the start of this thread.And they said the sound was the same wired/or wireless.I have the black version without aptx.Have used it with cable and dragonfly black.But yesterday i tried some bluetooth with my lg tv and some movies.It was good sound.But i suspect that wired is best?

 

[MICHAELSD]

Misinformation.
Bt aac is 250 kbps. So unless all your files are aac at that rate, they will be re-encoded.

264kbps transmitted from an iPhone.

 

[DarkPa1adin]

Val, if you are reading this, I am waiting for you to make the next Crossfade 3 Wireless "perfect" in every regard before I buy it!
also retain matte black and offer space gray.

 

[DiscoProJoe]

As i mentioned before, the differences are so negligible when it comes to actually listening to the sounds taht come out of your headphones that between aptx and aac it really doesnt matter. But if it does to you, it will cost you 100 dollars. So either way, if you hear a difference betweent he two, youre lucky. If you dont, you are also lucky.

just because the headphones can receive a higher quality signal does not mean it is capable of playing it back at that level, or even that you can hear a difference.

I bought my dad a pair of the original CFW for Christmas in 2015. When I eventually had a chance to compare the sound quality between wireless and wired mode from his iPhone (while playing Alison Krauss' "When You Say Nothing at All" from my music collection of 192-kbps MP3s), I couldn't notice any difference except...

A. I could play it somewhat louder in wired mode, and...
B. At the lowest possible volume setting in wireless mode (without muting it), and in a quiet room, I could barely hear the slightest hiss noise that didn't bother me in the least. My dad could never notice this noise, and I explained how mind-boggled I was that people on Head-Fi were making such a fuss about it.

Anyway, since these are my standards and this was my experience, then I don't see how I ever could personally notice a difference in sound quality between these wireless codecs. Heck, I have a lot of trouble telling apart 192 kbps MP3 files...from FLAC / WAV files of the same songs ripped from the original CD, nor can I appreciate the difference, anyway.

So if these are your standards, then you probably shouldn't worry about the different codecs and should just save your money.