Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Technology
Reload this Page >

Bose QC35 Released: Wireless and USB Rechargeable

Bose QC35 Released: Wireless and USB Rechargeable

Old Sep 15, 2016, 8:02 am
  #106  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: London
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by PTravel
They don't have the same sound profile of the QC25s when used in wireless mode. Here's a rather simple explanation why:

http://www.cnet.com/news/can-aptx-gi...ver-bluetooth/

The bottom line is this: Bose QC35s are SBC, not aptX. Though the phones themselves may have the same sound profile as the non-Bluetooth QC25, when used wireless, you're listening to significantly degraded audio. If you listen to music from your phone (which is a general purpose device and doesn't deliver HD audio), listening over Bluetooth will degrade the audio but you probably won't notice. On the other, if, like me, you use an HD player (I have a Fiio X5ii), you most certainly will notice the difference between Bluetooth and wired.

Bose phones are only so-so with respect to sound quality, but industry-leading noise cancellation is a worthwhile trade-off (and no other active noise-cancellation phones have better audio quality). However, Bose's implementation of Bluetooth only transforms them from so-so phones to wireless considerably-less-than-so-so phones. This may not matter to many people, but I think everyone should know exactly what it is that they're buying.

We absolutely agree. I am not arguing against the fact that the sound is worse over Bluetooth than over wire in general.

But in practise there are no distinguishable differences in the sound with the QC25 and QC35 and this is pretty much the consensus amongst all reviewers and I also share the same personal experiences.

On the phone you are likely listening to lossless formats and even if using a cable the sound you can get is nowhere near what you can get when plugged into a receiver or an amplifier or a DAC.

Even an SBC Bluetooth audio can transmit 384kb/s of stereo audio which would be more than your typical encoded MP3.

But if you are the sort of person that will carry a DAC with them to listen to music or use an HD player you are probably not the target market for these cans and I can safely assume that 99.999% of the population doesn't carry one with them either.

If you are an audiophile you won't be satisfied with either the QC25 or QC35 and you can find cheaper (and more expensive) headphones with better sound. You get the QCs for their best in class ANC, comfort and their decent enough sound.

I am not an audiophile but I enjoy good quality sound so I own quite a few pairs of headphones at various prices and have a relatively high end audio setup at home. There is no limit to what someone can spend on audio gear.

Again if you plan to carry an HD player, DAC or be plugged in at home listening to lossless formats then don't get the QC35 or the QC25 for that matter.

But I suspect you are an exception in that that's why you carry an HD player with you to start with although I appreciate that you do want the best in class ANC that the Bose offer.

In your case you would probably use the QC35 plugged in for the better audio anyway but me on the other hand I would prefer not having that wire even with the worse sound (which would not be actually distinguishable with how 99.99% of people actually use these headphones) and would not be noticed even by most audiophiles using lossless formats and HD audio equipment on blind tests - but that's another topic and a whole another discussion all together.

Last edited by gfunkdave; Sep 15, 2016 at 11:44 am Reason: removed personal exchange
michalis is offline  
Old Sep 15, 2016, 11:42 am
  #107  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: ORD
Posts: 14,200
Children, let's all remember to play nice please. If you feel like someone may have slighted you, just ignore it. That way, I don't have to become Mr. Mean Gfunk.

I'm going to clear up some of the personal remarks in this thread now.
gfunkdave is offline  
Old Sep 15, 2016, 12:15 pm
  #108  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by michalis
But in practise there are no distinguishable differences in the sound with the QC25 and QC35 and this is pretty much the consensus amongst all reviewers and I also share the same personal experiences.
Well, all I can say is, I don't agree. I can definitely hear the difference between SBC and non-compressed. Again, it may depend on your audio source. I use an HD source and listen either to FLAC, which is non-lossy, ripped from CDs or my own music which is 24-bit 96 KHz.

On the phone you are likely listening to lossless formats and even if using a cable the sound you can get is nowhere near what you can get when plugged into a receiver or an amplifier or a DAC.
On the phone you're likely listening to MP3, which is lossy. That, however, is my point: if you're listening on a phone, you don't have an HD audio source -- even at high-bit-rate MP3, you're still only hearing 16-bit, 44.1 KHz. Still, SBC is going to degrade the sound even more, because it's compressed twice, once to create the MP3 and once to transmit it to the bluetooth headphones.

I agree for most people, it won't make a difference. Those who like bluetooth speakers, use their phones for DACs and get their music from iTunes probably won't care. However, my original point still stands: The QC35s over bluetooth do not have the same audio profile as the QC25s.

Even an SBC Bluetooth audio can transmit 384kb/s of stereo audio which would be more than your typical encoded MP3.
SBC is lossy. FLAC compresses, but it is not lossy.

But if you are the sort of person that will carry a DAC with them to listen to music or use an HD player you are probably not the target market for these cans and I can safely assume that 99.999% of the population doesn't carry one with them either.
I'd say your percentage is on the high side, given the extensive market for HD players. However, again, the point isn't whether the QC35s over bluetooth are "good enough for most people," but whether they have the same audio profile as the QC25s. They don't, and for some people the difference is quite pronounced. There isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to portable IFE on planes. QC35s may be a solution for some, but they're most definitely not a solution for all and, for many people, bluetooth is a drawback, not a feature.

If you are an audiophile you won't be satisfied with either the QC25 or QC35 and you can find cheaper (and more expensive) headphones with better sound. You get the QCs for their best in class ANC, comfort and their decent enough sound.
That's exactly what I said in my post. However, you don't have to be an audiophile to hear the difference and to prefer better sound quality. My Fiio X5ii DAP is only $300. It offers the advantage of up to 400 gigabytes of solid-state storage (it uses microSD cards), which means I can carry my entire music collection, in FLAC, with me. It's small and offers true HD audio (and can handle almost every audio codec). Having a good HD audio source doesn't have to set you back thousands (though it can) and once you've tried it, you won't want to return to the limited capabilities of a cellphone or tablet. I'm in my 60s and my hearing isn't anything like it once was, but the difference between the Fiio and my iPod Classic is, to put it charitably, dramatic.

But I suspect you are an exception in that that's why you carry an HD player with you to start with although I appreciate that you do want the best in class ANC that the Bose offer.
I'm not sure I'm that much of an exception. As I said, the market for HD DAPs is quite extensive. I also don't pay much attention to what people are using when they fly, but I do notice that the majority are wearing Bose QCs (presumably for the noise-cancelling) or high-end non-NC phones. I see comparatively fewer low-end phones, either NC or non-NC. On the other hand, I see a lot of cheapie IEMs, with the crappy Apple OEM IEMs predominating. I also tend to see a clear demographic divide based on age -- younger people seem to favor lower quality IEMs and Beats headphones (ugh). Middle-aged seem more selective about the sound quality.

In your case you would probably use the QC35 plugged in for the better audio anyway
I have QC25s and would not consider the QC35 -- as I indicated, bluetooth, for me, is a drawback, not a feature. When the 35s came out, I researched them to see whether they were SBC or aptX and immediately rejected them when I learned they were the former. Most of the professional reviewers I read questioned Bose's decision to do this which, I suspect, has more to do with the cost of licensing aptX than any concern for quality. Then again, Bose is known for two things: excellent NC and smart marketing, but never for audio quality.

but me on the other hand I would prefer not having that wire even with the worse sound (which would not be actually distinguishable with how 99.99% of people actually use these headphones)
Again, I think your figure is too high but, again, the question isn't whether the QC35 is "good enough" but whether its audio characteristics with bluetooth are the same as the QC25 -- they're not.

and would not be noticed even by most audiophiles using lossless formats and HD audio equipment on blind tests - but that's another topic and a whole another discussion all together.
Good thing, too, because I don't agree at all.
PTravel is offline  
Old Sep 15, 2016, 1:06 pm
  #109  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: ORD
Posts: 14,200
PTravel, your discussion above makes me wish I had an easy way to listen to lossless audio and also hadn't ripped my entire CD collection to MP4.
gfunkdave is offline  
Old Sep 15, 2016, 6:51 pm
  #110  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay Area
Programs: DL SM, UA MP.
Posts: 12,729
Most people don't care about lossless.

They certainly didn't care about all the higher quantization audio formats which attempted to displace the CD.

Convenience of wireless will gradually swing the marketshare towards wireless.
wco81 is offline  
Old Sep 15, 2016, 7:30 pm
  #111  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Newport Beach, California, USA
Posts: 36,062
Originally Posted by gfunkdave
PTravel, your discussion above makes me wish I had an easy way to listen to lossless audio and also hadn't ripped my entire CD collection to MP4.
By ripping to lossless FLAC, I can always "recreate" my collection if I need to. There's a free program called EAC (Exact Audio Copy) that does an excellent job, and it's fast.

Originally Posted by wco81
Most people don't care about lossless.
There are two kinds of people who don't care about lossless: those who haven't heard a comparison, and those who truly don't care about the quality of the audio they listen to. A lot of it depends on the kind of music you listen to. If your primary taste is hip hop, then lossy, low-bit rate MP3s played in Beats will do just fine. If, on the other hand, you prefer jazz and classical, then audio quality becomes considerably more important.

They certainly didn't care about all the higher quantization audio formats which attempted to displace the CD.
Just as Blue-ray isn't displacing DVD. That doesn't mean it isn't markedly better.

Convenience of wireless will gradually swing the marketshare towards wireless.
I have no idea why you think this is a binary situation. There has always been a market for high-quality audio, and there always will be. When I was growing up you could buy a one-piece "hi-fi" record player, or spend 10 or 20 times as much on components with direct-drive turntable and elliptical diamond-stylus cartridge. There were cartridges that cost more than most complete systems. And the difference was clearly audible.

If you're happy with the sound of SBC bluetooth, that's fine. Just don't expect everyone to share your particular tastes.
PTravel is offline  
Old Sep 15, 2016, 10:04 pm
  #112  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bay Area
Programs: DL SM, UA MP.
Posts: 12,729
I'm just talking about how the market will develop.

People have been choosing convenience and "good enough" for the past couple of decades over pure quality.

Especially having to get specialized players and software to rip lossless or using those 24-bit audio formats.

The market at large simply won't bother.

What percent do you think go through the trouble of dealing with lossless? 5%? Even that may be generous.

Now maybe if solid state storage becomes dirt cheap, people will re-encode their music to fill devices with 10 or 20 times the storage.

Or maybe not, a lot of them no longer have optical drives in their computers.
wco81 is offline  
Old Sep 18, 2016, 12:50 pm
  #113  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 53
Question

I'm really agonizing over getting the QC35s ... I need help.

Here's my set up:

* I don't mind bulk: right now I'm using the PSB M4U2s which have fantastic sound, have batteries, can run passive, amp'd, or ANC. They have a cord, but it detaches from the headphones and I have zero problems with the wires. I use these daily and for flights, but the headband is close to breaking and it's time for something else. (I love them and would get another set if it weren't for the plastic headband - it's a design flaw)

* I also have a set of Bose Soundlinks: on-ear, BT, no ANC which I use for calls, general BT functionality, etc and I think they sound pretty good - not close to my PSBs but good enough.

Option #1: go to Home Depot, fashion a metal band for the PSBs, tape it on, and keep on using them, buy the new Tom Bihn Hero's Journey. Price ~$400

Option #2: Buy the PSBs again, but buy a SquareTrade warranty - that'll cover me for 3 years - total price is about what the Bose QC35s cost, $350

Option #3: Buy the QC35s, enjoy the better ANC and BT especially for flights, consolidate my flight headphones into one much smaller set, buy a square trade warranty. total price is about $400

HELP!
GrussGott is offline  
Old Sep 23, 2016, 6:55 pm
  #114  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 53
Returned the QC35s

I just returned my Bose QC35s because the sound is so distant to my ear and the BT range is crappy.

Even when the QC35s are loud, it's still "distant loud" like a concert a mile away getting louder. Back-to-Back with my PSB M4U 2s it's no comparison. Granted the PSBs do the noise cancelling only about 70-80% of what the QC35s do, and they also replace the sound with a low, albeit pleasant hiss, whereas the Bose make it totally silent.

The QC35s also don't get that loud: on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being uncomfortably loud, I'd say the QC35s are a 3, the Bose on-ear soundlinks a 4, and the PSBs a 5 - they get VERY loud. Not so with the QC35s. Just sitting in my living room I had them one notch from full volume but, again, the sound quality is like loud distant noise.

I'm no audiophile and don't really know what "bright" and "muddy" mean, so I'm saying "distant". If I immediately switch to the bluetooth Bose OE Soundlinks the difference is huge and the PSBs kick that up higher. The last two sound like you're there, whereas the QC35s sound like it's-over-there.

In the end, compared to the PSBs, the QC35s are just ok and that's strange because I have the Bose on-ear soundlinks which are also Bluetooth and they sound almost as good as the PSBs ... I was hoping the QC35s would be that next step killer stage but ... nope, they sound worse than their on-ear brother. I don't like paying $350 and having that feeling of "ehhh they're oookkkk ... is that right? let me try my other headphones to see ...."

I tried the ANC back to back with my PSBs and Bose Soundlinks: airplane, city noise, vacuum ... yes the ANC was better, but the sound was just blah, not even close to the PSBs which had more of the background noise but sounded WAY WAY better. The Soundlinks weren't far off the PSBs, just let in more background as they don't have ANR and aren't over ear.

Also the Bluetooth range sucks, especially compared to the Bose OE Soundlinks. With the QC35s I'd walk 20 feet away and get clipping whereas with the Bose OE Soundlinks I could walk 2-3x farther, not even close in comparison.

I'm going to try the Sony MDR-1000Xs when they're out in a few weeks and if they don't do the trick I might move to the B&W P7s.

I think I've figured out that I'd rather have louder great sound that noise cancelling, I think. Not a match for me.
GrussGott is offline  
Old Sep 24, 2016, 1:18 am
  #115  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: HEL
Programs: lots of shiny metal cards
Posts: 14,083
Originally Posted by GrussGott
...
Hard call.

I have both the M4U2 and the QC15 (not the QC35) - the M4U2 runs circles around the QC15 where sound quality is concerned, especially with the amp on.

OTOH the ANC on the QC15 is much better and from what I hear the QC35 has even better ANC. The case of the Bose is also smaller, it might also be a factor.

Probably it comes down to your preference for better SQ or better ANC.
WilcoRoger is offline  
Old Sep 24, 2016, 9:54 pm
  #116  
KCZ
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: MHT/BOS
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by GrussGott
I just returned my Bose QC35s because the sound is so distant to my ear and the BT range is crappy.

Even when the QC35s are loud, it's still "distant loud" like a concert a mile away getting louder. Back-to-Back with my PSB M4U 2s it's no comparison. Granted the PSBs do the noise cancelling only about 70-80% of what the QC35s do, and they also replace the sound with a low, albeit pleasant hiss, whereas the Bose make it totally silent.

The QC35s also don't get that loud: on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being uncomfortably loud, I'd say the QC35s are a 3, the Bose on-ear soundlinks a 4, and the PSBs a 5 - they get VERY loud. Not so with the QC35s. Just sitting in my living room I had them one notch from full volume but, again, the sound quality is like loud distant noise.

I'm no audiophile and don't really know what "bright" and "muddy" mean, so I'm saying "distant". If I immediately switch to the bluetooth Bose OE Soundlinks the difference is huge and the PSBs kick that up higher. The last two sound like you're there, whereas the QC35s sound like it's-over-there.

In the end, compared to the PSBs, the QC35s are just ok and that's strange because I have the Bose on-ear soundlinks which are also Bluetooth and they sound almost as good as the PSBs ... I was hoping the QC35s would be that next step killer stage but ... nope, they sound worse than their on-ear brother. I don't like paying $350 and having that feeling of "ehhh they're oookkkk ... is that right? let me try my other headphones to see ...."

I tried the ANC back to back with my PSBs and Bose Soundlinks: airplane, city noise, vacuum ... yes the ANC was better, but the sound was just blah, not even close to the PSBs which had more of the background noise but sounded WAY WAY better. The Soundlinks weren't far off the PSBs, just let in more background as they don't have ANR and aren't over ear.

Also the Bluetooth range sucks, especially compared to the Bose OE Soundlinks. With the QC35s I'd walk 20 feet away and get clipping whereas with the Bose OE Soundlinks I could walk 2-3x farther, not even close in comparison.

I'm going to try the Sony MDR-1000Xs when they're out in a few weeks and if they don't do the trick I might move to the B&W P7s.

I think I've figured out that I'd rather have louder great sound that noise cancelling, I think. Not a match for me.
I'm wondering if your QC35's were defective. I have no claims to being an audiophile either, but I'd say that mine are extremely loud and clear, in fact they're so loud that I usually have the volume turned way down to prevent my eardrums from being blown out. I can also get good BT reception through one wall and ~30-35' away. So while I get your argument of sound quality vs ANC, I don't think your headphones were functioning correctly.
KCZ is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2016, 12:13 am
  #117  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by KCZ
I'm wondering if your QC35's were defective. I have no claims to being an audiophile either, but I'd say that mine are extremely loud and clear, in fact they're so loud that I usually have the volume turned way down to prevent my eardrums from being blown out. I can also get good BT reception through one wall and ~30-35' away. So while I get your argument of sound quality vs ANC, I don't think your headphones were functioning correctly.
Could be - but I'm pretty sure they weren't: I tired them with 3 phones, 3 tablets, and 2 laptops. I'm not saying they weren't able to be kinda loud, but the sound quality was just not there. I also updated the firmware to 1.0.6

I would compare it to listening to a TV in the other room - the Bose ANC is great so if a lawn mower goes by, on the Bose you don't hear it. that's great! but the TV is still in the other room. Now you can ask the person in the other room to turn up the TV, and it'll get loud, but it's still in the other room loud. at least to me. And this is consistent with the QC15s I've tried on a few international flights.

Given my experience with the Bose OE Soundlinks, I was hoping these QC35s would be the same sound quality + ANC, but it wasn't for me. I might be one of those people who just doesn't like the Bose QCs, which is too bad because I really wanted to.

Next up will be the Sony MDR-1000x, but unfortunately for Sony, the new B&W P7 Wireless will be here Wednesday. I use my headphones everyday, but I don't really need ANC daily so if the P7s sound as great as everyone says I'll probably stick with them and then if I really need to, but an ANC set next year.
GrussGott is offline  
Old Oct 10, 2016, 3:38 pm
  #118  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Francisco/Sydney
Programs: UA 1K/MM, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Something, IHG Gold, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 8,131
Originally Posted by docbert
They also announced the QC30 which are the in-ear model, but with a lower 10 hour battery life . Estimated release date of September, RRP of $299.
Well September obviously became October, but it seems that the QC30's are now out - or at least Amazon has them available. Price is as previously stated - $299.

Claim is 10 hours per charge, with a 15 minute charge giving 1 hour of use. As expected, no cable option for audio, and micro USB for the charging.

If nothing else, it'll be interesting to see if we see some cheap QC20's in the near future, or if Bose decides to keep both models alive...
docbert is offline  
Old Oct 14, 2016, 2:37 pm
  #119  
Moderator, Amtrak & Spirit Airlines
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: EWR :rolleyes:
Programs: AC 50K, AS MVP, AA Plat Pro, DL Plat, UA Silver, IHG Spire, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 9,532
Upgraded my 6 year old QC15s a few weeks ago. They did well on the short test run from EWR to MIA and then EWR to SJU (Don't ask). Last week they got their first test on long haul. Used them for about an hour in the lounge then flew JFK-IST-SZG they were on gate to gate to IST, and used for about 2 hours on the flight to SZG. When I checked into the hotel I checked the battery out of curiosity and it reported 50%. I would say my favorite part is the ability to take calls on them. Find myself wearing them in hotel rooms while I take calls. Gave the QC15s to my mom who has always wanted a pair but doesn't travel quite enough to justify buying them. I felt kind of bad replacing them when they were still working great (I had replaced the foam and the cord once). But in the end I am glad I went ahead and did it.
Long Train Runnin is offline  
Old Oct 15, 2016, 7:34 am
  #120  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: OKC
Programs: DL DM/2.768MM, Global Entry, Titanium_Marriott, GHertz
Posts: 6,748
Charging in China/Inner Mongolia

I am trying out both the Bose QC35 and a new Bose Sportsound.

I like the Sportsound for domestic flights but will primarily depend on the QC35 on international segments like SEA-PEK this week.

The sheet that comes with the QC35 says that charging should be done by using a "USB wall charger or a computer that is powered on".

I will not have access to either a USB wall charge or pc while in China or Inner Mongolia. I have not even known that I could not use a regular electrical outlet here in the USA much less China.

Am I misreading the instructions? My trip goes for 10 days so I need to not make a mistake before getting on the PEK-SEA flight.

Last edited by Xeno; Oct 15, 2016 at 8:33 am
Xeno is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.