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.
