Bose QuietComfort 35 II Review (Noise Cancelling Headphone)

[nxnje]

It seems BOSE's reputation of a mainstream brand is affecting opinions here. Fact is I find both the QC35 and the QC25, which I have, are excellent but with some recessed highs when I compare it directly to my modified DT150 headphones. This may of course affect detail. As a travel headphone it beats the DT150 with its effective noise cancelling.

Nothing against bose.
You're saying our opinion are affected by Bose being a mainstream brand, but the review itself is biased by the Harman Target (just like many other reviews out there), and although being biased by personal tastes is practically "normal" as NO ONE can be unbiased while speaking about audio, there is always the need to point out wether if the reviewer considers Harman target as the better curve when compared to bright responses.
I have had the QC35 II and got to try the III and they're not different from a pair of closed cans around 100€ (I also preferred the Takstar Pro 82 which cost 3 times less and way below 100$ and sounds better to me).

I'm speaking about pure sound quality, which is not worth the price, as I could get better sounding headphones for a lower price.
I have also tried some other products from bose (ex. QC20) and I like them, so I'm not actually biased.

 

[Jimbob54]

Im loving all the Bose lovers coming out of the closet

@amirm , regarding cans like these that have factors not present on passives, can I just clarify a couple of things :

1. Were all tests done wired , not with BT (I assume wired, maybe missed the sentence that clarified)? If not BT, could you test that too, maybe even just by ear compared to wired if you cant run your signals in via BT?

2. Noise cancelling- these are the stereotypical "flight" phones. I assume your powered test is with NC disabled? Again , if so, could you measure it wired, active and NC enabled to see what impact that has ?

 

[Feelas]

It'd be lovely if these came with some deeper pads, then probably the spatiality wouldn't be so closed in & narrowly-close, but they're fine here anyways.

QC35 III don't have any kind of microdetail and detailing is average. Plus, bass is slow and fat, far from being a "quality" bass.
I still cannot understand why I see you recommending this and the 10$' Sony while bashing the 990 Pro.
It's understandable timbre is the thing that really makes the final decision between buying or skipping a product, but the 990 Pro make a golden shower with the QC35 II if you're on the market for a bright pair of headphones.

what is microdetailing and what is slow bass? these are just audiophile buzzwords with no real explanations. These react perfectly to EQ and can be bass-tweaked to taste easily, simply because they don't have THD problems. FYI bright headphones are not any kind of "better". And anyways, having no THD problems you're easily into the EQ territory w/o any real problems. Lack of microdetail and slow and fat bass is merely an opinion, unfounded one at best, you can have it, though.

I think exactly the same.
I still can't understand why recommend an headphone which its only silver lining is the frequency response and nothing else (because Bose has an utterly bad detail retrieval, boomy bass with no control at all and even the distortion is not that good from an objective point of view, I've tested far better headphones at less than 40$ like Superlux) when Beyerdynamic has the only "fault" of being not an harman-like headphone.

THD is way better than on Beyers and you just need to get this through the system. Yet you can have your opinion, it's not objective anyways, though.

 

[Biblob]

@amirm do you also have the NC700 to compare it to?

 

[AudioSceptic]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Bose QuietComfort 35 II noise cancelling headphone. It was kindly purchased new by a member and drop shipped to me. It costs US $299 on Amazon including Prime shipping. It has an incredible 44,000 reviews on Amazon averaging 4.5 stars! Are the masses right? We are going to find out.

The 35 II doesn't feel fancy, nor cheap:
View attachment 113878

The cups are on the smaller side but fit my ears fine:
View attachment 113879

They are on the softer side and seal well which means they wear warm. Fine right now in winter but I suspect they may get too hot in summer.

I briefly tested the noise cancelling function using my Audio Precision fan noise as stimulus. Just wearing the 35 II was enough to kill 90% of the noise. Turning it on removed the last bit but really, it was fine without it. Noise sources with lower frequency content will likely show off the effect more.

Note: The measurements you are about to see are preformed using standardized GRAS 45CA headphone measurement fixture. Headphone measurements require more interpretation than speaker tests and have more of a requirement for subjective testing as a result. In addition, comparison of measurements between different people performing it using different configurations requires fair bit of skill. So don't look for matching results. Focus on high level picture. Listening tests are performed using RME ADI-2 DAC and its headphone output.

Bose QuietComfort 35 II Measurements
Let's start with frequency response of 35 II and comparison to our preference target to figure out tonality of the headphone, with the unit bot on and off:

View attachment 113880

I first ran it with it powered off and was surprised how bad the response was. Equally so, I was impressed once I turned it on and it not only flattened the variations in bass and mid-range but also pulled up the bass response to below 20 Hz! Here is the powered on response again:

View attachment 113881

That is pretty good tracking of our target response! It is essentially perfect to 1 kHz. Here is the relative variations:
View attachment 113882

Good news extends to very low distortion at decent levels:
View attachment 113883

Considering how much bass we already have -- so we don't have to boost it -- that is excellent level of distortion in that region.

Here it is in absolute level:
View attachment 113884

Again, remember that this is to be compared to post EQ for other headphones that are weak in bass.

Clean, not fuzzy group delay shows that we have one radiator doing its job, not a bunch of other resonances mixing in:
View attachment 113885

The entire curve is lifted up from 0 degree indicating a constant delay of about quarter of a millisecond.

Impedance radically changes when the unit is on or off:
View attachment 113886

Paradoxically, even though we are using the internal amplifier when the unit is on, it is not the most efficient headphone to drive:

View attachment 113887

Bose QuietComfort 35 II Listening Tests and Equalization
I was instantly at ease with the tonality of the 35 II. The clean and appropriate bass response was a delight. Spatial qualities were a bit light and higher frequencies a tad dull so I put in a bit of salt and pepper on it:

View attachment 113888

Once there, toe tapping started and I could listen endlessly to my test tracks. So much so that I did not want to take them off to take the pictures for the review!

As an aside, here is the EQ that I applied to AKG K371 headphone:

So darn close! Indeed the Bose could also use that broad light boost in pink filter I had in K371. I wonder if Bose measured the response of the K371 and used that as the target for 35 II. Anyone know which came first?

Conclusions
Amazing what happens when you follow the science and tune a headphone to proper target curve. You get a happy Amir who loves the 35 II with just a bit of EQ. What else is there to say?

The Bose QuietComfort 35 II gets my high recommendation if used with recommended EQ. Without it, it is still recommended but just not as highly.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

My impression of Bose is that they are driven more by marketing than by engineering, so I'm surprised by how good these are. I see that they are under £200 in the UK which seems good value.

 

[Jimmy]

I agree that these are good headphones and one of the top picks in the ANC category, the sound with internal DSP is balanced, but it still lacks in soundstage and treble accuracy/clarity. Personally in the sound quality department (totally subjective) and leaving ANC aside, I prefer the Shure Aonic 50.

However, what I find that can be confusing for many people is that something like the Fidelio X2HR, which are much better sounding and cheaper headphones don't get a recommendation but these do. Anyway, reviewing headphones is very tricky, so this is just an observation, not a critic, I still find these reviews very informative and interesting.

 

[nxnje]

It'd be lovely if these came with some deeper pads, then probably the spatiality wouldn't be so closed in & narrowly-close, but they're fine here anyways.


what is microdetailing and what is slow bass? these are just audiophile buzzwords with no real explanations. These react perfectly to EQ and can be bass-tweaked to taste easily, simply because they don't have THD problems. FYI bright headphones are not any kind of "better". And anyways, having no THD problems you're easily into the EQ territory w/o any real problems. Lack of microdetail and slow and fat bass is merely an opinion, unfounded one at best, you can have it, though.


THD is way better than on Beyers and you just need to get this through the system. Yet you can have your opinion, it's not objective anyways, though.

You're telling me the things I'm saying are not objective and then your write "bright headphones are not any kind of better", like if bright is always a bad thing.

In any case, microdetail and slow bass aren't just audiophile gimmick, I'm not an audiophile and I consider that word as an offense: I'm not the type of guy who focus his entire attention on gear as I like music more than gear, not an audiophile by any means (proven by the fact I'm a basshead while audiophiles usually think about getting neutral stuff and considering other things bad).
Considering that I have tried both the II and III, I can say they are poor in terms of detail retrieval and the bass is slow and fat, yes, lower midrange is completely affected by a very long decay that is quite annoying, and I say this being a basshead so I usually like fat bass (but it has to be a quality one, and this is not the case).

I know people here always have to agree on what reviewers say, but I'll tell you a secret: you can also have your own opinion, and this is mine after trying both the II and the III, and I'm not the only one in the world that thinks the QC35 are just an "average sounding" product.
They are not BAD in terms of overall quality (I used to like them in terms of battery, bluetooth, ANC, plus they're super comfortable) but in terms of pure SOUND, they barely stand up to 100$ headphones.
The WH1000-XM3 are way more refined and technically better (not as comfortable as the QC35 though and with a worse ANC, but still better in terms of sound).
You say about EQ, yes, I can EQ them, but these (IMHO) should only be considered for travelling or mobility, if you need ANC, otherwise a pair of K371 + Fiio BTR5 performs way better, apart from applying EQ or not.

I wanna precise again that I am speaking about AUDIO QUALITY and not about the whole package you get with the QC35 III, I know what you get and no need other explanation about the product target or market, my consideration are just related to sound, which is, in my opinion, under expectations for what you pay.

 

[Robbo99999]

Having read the review, I'm quite surprised it did as well as it did in the listening tests, given the jagged response north of 3kHz. The bass extension is impressive though, but I'm not sold on the levels of distortion, I don't like the levels of distortion (across the board) seen in this headphone - significantly higher than the distortion in say the NAD HP50: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/nad-viso-hp50-review-headphone.19121/

So I am surprised by the performance in the listening tests. Given what I'm seeing in the various measurements, I don't think this headphone would be on any of my shortlists.

 

[Feelas]

Considering that I have tried both the II and III, I can say they are poor in terms of detail retrieval and the bass is slow and fat, yes, lower midrange is completely affected by a very long decay that is quite annoying, and I say this being a basshead so I usually like fat bass (but it has to be a quality one, and this is not the case).

Show us the long decay, then, either on impulse respose or on waterfalls.

Please see https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/measurements/bose/qc35-ii/ these CSDs, which don't really show any lingering bass response (one measured in active mode is around -60dB) so I'm really keen on telling you that you don't hear that; albeit it's just a FR mismatch, not any "long decay". Nothing adds up here, and you cannot actually explain what microdetailing would mean. And anyways, preference for anything (being a basshead or not) doesn't mean that one cannot subscribe to using puzzling buzzwords to merely explain phenomena they don't understand. Sorry!

 

[Vini darko]

Amir listening to headphones probably

 

[Vini darko]

Show us the long decay, then, either on impulse respose or on waterfalls.

Please see https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/measurements/bose/qc35-ii/ these CSDs, which don't really show any lingering bass response (one measured in active mode is around -60dB) so I'm really keen on telling you that you don't hear that; albeit it's just a FR mismatch, not any "long decay". Nothing adds up here, and you cannot actually explain what microdetailing would mean. And anyways, preference for anything (being a basshead or not) doesn't mean that one cannot subscribe to using puzzling buzzwords to merely explain phenomena they don't understand. Sorry!

The way to do that ( without a expensive audio laboratory) is with time stamps in specific music. And explain what's missing or wonky.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Coming from an anti-Bose person. I had 3 years ago, the opportunity to compare the Bose QC-35N reviewed here, against the Sony 1000-XM2 ... I chose the Sony.
This was to me an example of how strong our biases and prejudices can be. On basic comparisons I found the Bose sounding much , much better but, but, but, I was/am a Bose hater an a real audiophile with experience, by then 40+ years of being an audiophile, thus .... , ... of course knowing what sound good, I wouldn't be caught with a Bose anything ... BUT ... The Bose sounded better to my ears but the Sony had received some great ratings and reviews and it wasn't Bose...

I still have the Sony, I knew way before this review that I should have gotten the Bose. Lesson learned. Biases are extraordinary difficult to overcome ... they are insidious, pernicious and deleterious.

 

[Soniclife]

From the Bose article in the wikipedia: “[...] Amar came to the conclusion that the audio system measurement techniques of the time (such as measuring distortion and frequency response) were not effective ways to evaluate the goal of natural sound reproduction. Amar argued that the best measure of audio quality is the listener's perception.”

Somebody changed their mind...

Not really, if they did their research into preference properly you would expect them to arrive at a similar place to Harman, looking at this review they look to have done that.

 

[Soniclife]

Hi

Coming from an anti-Bose person. I had 3 years ago the opportunity to compare the Bose QC-35N reviewed here, against the Sony 1000-XM2 ... I chose the Sony.
This was to me an example of how strong our biases and prejudices can be. On basic comparisons I found the Bose sounding much , much better but, but, but, I was/am a Bose hater an a real audiophile with some experience, by then 40 years plus of being an audiophile thus, of course knowing what sound good, I wouldn't be caught with a Bose anything ... BUT ... The Bose sounded better to my ears but the Sony had received some great ratings and reviews and it wasn't Bose...

I still have the Sony, I knew way before this review that I should have gotten the Bose. Lesson learned. Biases are extraordinary difficult to overcome ... they are insidious, pernicious and deleterious.

Most of us in this hobby have done similar somewhere down the line, those that don't think they have probably yet to realise it.

I want to see some Beats tested next, see just how accurate their bass heavy garbage reputation is.

 

[xarkkon]

Amir, i like that you've changed the approach towards reviewing bluetooth headphones entirely. From conducting tests mainly in passive and highlighting the limitations of the internal amp on battery during the Sony XM4 review, you've gone down to the meats and bones of what makes a bluetooth headset great for this Bose review.

Given the change in approach, would you consider relooking at the data for the Sony XM4 again and how that compares to the QC35?

 

[nxnje]

Show us the long decay, then, either on impulse respose or on waterfalls.

Please see https://diyaudioheaven.wordpress.com/headphones/measurements/bose/qc35-ii/ these CSDs, which don't really show any lingering bass response (one measured in active mode is around -60dB) so I'm really keen on telling you that you don't hear that; albeit it's just a FR mismatch, not any "long decay". Nothing adds up here, and you cannot actually explain what microdetailing would mean. And anyways, preference for anything (being a basshead or not) doesn't mean that one cannot subscribe to using puzzling buzzwords to merely explain phenomena they don't understand. Sorry!

You cannot be serious.
Guess you're the one that speaks about details while looking at FR graphs.
I don't really like sharing opinions with people that only use FR graph to describe things (FR graphs speak about the signature but cannot give you any info about how well a transducer will reproduce at certain frequencies).
It's like saying "hey my mouse che reach 16k CPI", yes, but how does the sensor behave at 16k CPI?
Let's throw this under the "different point of views" umbrella, it's not gonna be interesting for both of us

PS: I have had beats products as well (from solo to studio, until mixr and Pro). Just one of them sounded acceptable (maybe solo 2 if i'm not wrong) and just one of them was perfect for his purpose (DJ live performance) because of its great passive isolation (Beats Pro).
Yes, beats products sound as good as a trash can rolling down the stairs.

Hi

Coming from an anti-Bose person. I had 3 years ago the opportunity to compare the Bose QC-35N reviewed here, against the Sony 1000-XM2 ... I chose the Sony.
This was to me an example of how strong our biases and prejudices can be. On basic comparisons I found the Bose sounding much , much better but, but, but, I was/am a Bose hater an a real audiophile with some experience, by then 40 years plus of being an audiophile thus, of course knowing what sound good, I wouldn't be caught with a Bose anything ... BUT ... The Bose sounded better to my ears but the Sony had received some great ratings and reviews and it wasn't Bose...

I still have the Sony, I knew way before this review that I should have gotten the Bose. Lesson learned. Biases are extraordinary difficult to overcome ... they are insidious, pernicious and deleterious.

I had no Bias before trying the QC35 (both II and III), plus I like other BOSE products.

One thing I don't understand on this forum is why people mark others as biased just because they don't like something.
Everyone is biased, in a way or another, and everyone has its own opinion.

Being an anti-something with no reason is stupid, being critical against a product is perfectly understandable and that's what I'm trying to say.

 

[Feelas]

You cannot be serious.
Guess you're the one that speaks about details while looking at FR graphs.
I don't really like sharing opinions with people that only use FR graph to describe things (FR graphs speak about the signature but cannot give you any info about how well a transducer will reproduce at certain frequencies).

FYI CSD is in line with what I hear on my QC35 II. Care to argue opinion vs opinion or to use objective CSD graphs (which show no lingering bass resonances) to talk about the objective performance of headphones?

 

[nxnje]

FYI CSD is in line with what I hear on my QC35 II. Care to argue opinion vs opinion or to use objective CSD graphs (which show no lingering bass resonances) to talk about the objective performance of headphones?

I am speaking about my personal opinion with the headphone.
I look at graph EVERY TIME, but I also have my own impressions.
Every ear is different.
That graph can mean everything and nothing, considering you can read in the upper region "sharp" or similar terms while someone could tell that is just bright and maybe liking it.
We're speaking about pure sound and you keep referring to graphs is if we were speaking about amplifiers' measurement.
I'll repeat for the second time: it's not gonna be interesting both for me and you, different point of view.
To me, QC35 III's bass sounded fat and pretty slow, and this ends for me as it is MY OPINION, and forums are online to share opinions, not only to express comments on graphs that can mean 1000 things or neither 1.

I am the first guy who always look at graphs, and that's why I have checked before picking up both the QC35 II and III, and was disappointed. Is that a crime?

 

[Jimbob54]

Having read the review, I'm quite surprised it did as well as it did in the listening tests, given the jagged response north of 3kHz. The bass extension is impressive though, but I'm not sold on the levels of distortion, I don't like the levels of distortion (across the board) seen in this headphone - significantly higher than the distortion in say the NAD HP50: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/nad-viso-hp50-review-headphone.19121/

So I am surprised by the performance in the listening tests. Given what I'm seeing in the various measurements, I don't think this headphone would be on any of my shortlists.

Audibility of distortion? Note, no bass boost applied in amir's eq either so less of an issue than those cans that need higher eq levels. Also, isn't the NAD something of a low water mark for distortion (high water mark maybe?)?

As for the 3k onwards wonkiness, how many people do you think would discern that without seeing any measurements?

 

[FrantzM]

My impression of Bose is that they are driven more by marketing than by engineering, so I'm surprised by how good these are. I see that they are under £200 in the UK which seems good value.

The purpose of a for-profit organization is, to make a profit. Bose uses engineering, psychoacoustic and marketing to drive profit. They sell and sell a lot: for many people not versed or interested in the arcana of audiophilia, they sound good and pleasant enough: Such results come from Marketing and Engineering. They are also a force in the professional realm. Their PA systems are no slouch and used in many great-sounding installations.

A mistake that we of the audiophile persuasion tend to make but Bose uses Engineering and marketing. If Harman had 1/10th of Bose Marketing chops, they would entirely dominate the audio field. They have the Engineering and products for that. However good luck trying to find such in the jungle of brands, the labyrinth of distributions and their piss-poor , abject and often downright inane marketing.