This is one time where the science disagrees with my emotional hate of all things BOSE. I can not accept that BOSE did something right.
Emotions 1 : Science 0
Emotions 1 : Science 0
Honestly? This can just shows what DSP can do even with a "meh" design.This is one time where the science disagrees with my emotional hate of all things BOSE. I can not accept that BOSE did something right.
Emotions 1 : Science 0
Exactly. That's the name of Bose's game -- inexpensive parts, solid development.Honestly? This can just shows what DSP can do even with a "meh" design.
Look at the response of the system when ANC/DSP is offline. The headless panther would probably fall of a cliff if that were all.
It works really well. For classical music too. But you need to be aware of 2 things:
a) you need to measure the SPL level during calibration.
b) you need to be aware of the actual digital loudness of the piece and (if you are OCD about it) normalize that via replay gain.
Personally, I calibrated it that a file that hits 0dBFS gives me ~90dB peaks pre EQ. Since most modern music hits 0dBFS anyway it works well enough for me. That way I only get "too little" bass if the piece is quieter but I never get too much bass when I turn it down.
I don't think anyone would consider the simple opinion of "the Harman target does not sound good to me" disrespectful in any way.
Fact is: I don't like the Harman target either. Treble is fine but bass is far too much for me. It's okay, my ears FR is not your ears FR, so differences in preferences are to be expected.
Tried some cheapos like the soundcore life q20 and weren't so bad for the price.Exactly. That's the name of Bose's game -- inexpensive parts, solid development.
Given what they have managed to do here with DSP, I have even more hope that other manufacturers are already replicating their success at lower price points (my bet remains on Anker).
lolThis is one time where the science disagrees with my emotional hate of all things BOSE. I can not accept that BOSE did something right.
Emotions 1 : Science 0
But DSP is not easy, and I think this is where Bose's deep pockets pay off. I can imagine that the level of research and tinkering required to create a DSP profile for any given headphone is unbelievably difficult, especially to the degree we're seeing with this headphone. But once the tools, software and processes are in place - competitive advantage Bose. Apple and Sony are right there with this approach.Exactly. That's the name of Bose's game -- inexpensive parts, solid development.
Given what they have managed to do here with DSP, I have even more hope that other manufacturers are already replicating their success at lower price points (my bet remains on Anker).
You may end up being disappointed when you "upgrade" to real audiophile headphones costing 10x more - comfort is actually the unsung hero of a headphone's desirability.I've had my QC 35 II's for about a year. As far as SQ, I've always liked them. Are they audiophile? I have no idea what that even means, really. After reading this review, I still like them. No more and no less. I'm not a head-fi guy per se, I use them for work (conferencing), out in the garage, lawn, and yeah, some music.
Edit: They're comfortable too, even at long periods with my reading glasses on.
I will say that I find the Bose app wonky and sometimes fiddly, but other than that they're pretty solid. A good value? No idea. Hopefully more reviews by @amirm will shed light on great value BT NC cans.
You may end up being disappointed when you "upgrade" to real audiophile headphones costing 10x more - comfort is actually the unsung hero of a headphone's desirability.
It is based on the part of science that is most useful to make some product look better than others and make people obsessed about minuscule snr percentage points that a bat couldn't even hear. It was kinda scientific with amplifiers and dacs, but it just looks so ridiculous for headphones and speakers and frankly there are a lot of people pointing this out (and being attacked to not respect the holy magical harman curve)I believe what you keep missing here is that this is a science based forum where quantifiable data is highly valued over personal opinion. There are plenty of forums where personal opinions rule, but this isn’t one of them. That has nothing to do with you in particular, it’s the culture of this community. That works for some, perhaps not so much for others.
......still, many people think EQing is everything and I will never understand why aren't they trying with their own ears).
Actually, you aren't being accurate about what you have stated. You clearly made statements that weren't just your opinion, but were stating that Amir's opinion and evaluation of the product must surely be wrong because it differs from your opinion. You can't then come back and cry you are innocent and only wanted to state your own personal opinion. It's not what you did. For example:In fact, since the beginning of my replies on this post, I have been specifying that was my own personal opinion, so reading that I'm nobody to express my opinion doesn't make me feel comfortable in sharing my own one in threads like this (moreover if I'm looked at like an inferior human).
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.
It is based on the part of science that is most useful to make some product look better than others and make people obsessed about minuscule snr percentage points that a bat couldn't even hear. It was kinda scientific with amplifiers and dacs, but it just looks so ridiculous for headphones and speakers and frankly there are a lot of people pointing this out (and being attacked to not respect the holy magical harman curve)
I think the speaker's FR curve is easy enough to adjust to taste (Dirac, Audyssey, Room Perfect, etc.) , but the single data point that is consistently correlated to speaker sound quality is off axis controlled directivity. I can understand a speaker builder's personal approach to creating the Klipsch sound, but good off axis FR is simply sound engineering that will always contribute to improved sound quality.It is based on the part of science that is most useful to make some product look better than others and make people obsessed about minuscule snr percentage points that a bat couldn't even hear. It was kinda scientific with amplifiers and dacs, but it just looks so ridiculous for headphones and speakers and frankly there are a lot of people pointing this out (and being attacked to not respect the holy magical harman curve)
You may end up being disappointed when you "upgrade" to real audiophile headphones costing 10x more - comfort is actually the unsung hero of a headphone's desirability.