Samsung Galaxy Buds+

Jake

Member
Feb 24, 2020
3
0
20
I guess What Hi-Fi just prefers Sony's sound to Samsung's regardless of the actual sound quality, in light of some other professional reviews:

.


 
Last edited:

Jake

Member
Feb 24, 2020
3
0
20
Can someone tell me how good the bass is like on a scale of 1-10
It is quite good, 10 for TWS and 7 compared with Audeze's iSine10 or AKG N5005; Samsung's 'Sound by AKG' means it is matched to Harman Target (In-ear).
 

alt7

Member
Mar 3, 2020
1
0
20
I guess What Hi-Fi just prefers Sony's sound to Samsung's regardless of the actual sound quality, in light of some other professional reviews:

.


Well... According to the frequency response charts posted on the top two articles you cited, the Sonys have objectively higher capabilities overall. They can achieve higher volume on very low pitches (biologically harder to hear), higher volume on very high pitches (also biologically harder to hear), and have a wider range of audible frequencies (as evidenced by the cliff on the high frequency end dropping off further along the line with the Sonys). The frequency response charts of the Sonys are also even closer to the Harman Target (which is somewhat of a subjective standard but I figure you're interested since you brought it up). The isolation charts also show the Sonys crushing virtually all of the frequencies better than the Galaxy Buds+. These are all parameters that are more difficult to achieve and require higher quality tech. Now that's not to say that the Buds+ are bad, but in talking about "actual sound quality", these are basically the facts.
 
Last edited:

Jake

Member
Feb 24, 2020
3
0
20
Well... According to the frequency response charts posted on the top two articles you cited, the Sonys have objectively higher capabilities overall. They can achieve higher volume on very low pitches (biologically harder to hear), higher volume on very high pitches (also biologically harder to hear), and have a wider range of audible frequencies (as evidenced by the cliff on the high frequency end dropping off further along the line with the Sonys). The frequency response charts of the Sonys are also even closer to the Harman Target (which is somewhat of a subjective standard but I figure you're interested since you brought it up). The isolation charts also show the Sonys crushing virtually all of the frequencies better than the Galaxy Buds+. These are all parameters that are more difficult to achieve and require higher quality tech. Now that's not to say that the Buds+ are bad, but in talking about "actual sound quality", these are basically the facts.
1. "They can achieve higher volume on very low pitches (biologically harder to hear), higher volume on very high pitches (also biologically harder to hear)"
-> I don't think so; the bottom line of the frequency response should be the 'tonal balance' throughout the frequencies. The volume levels that people hear more depend on the sensitivity.
I guess that's why SoundGuy also gave even higher scores to Galaxy Buds+ than Sony's.

<Galaxy Buds+>
SOUND QUALITY/BASS/MIDRANGE/HIGHS
9.7/9.4/9.8/9.8

<Sony WF-1000XM3>
SOUND QUALITY/BASS/MIDRANGE/HIGHS
9.5/9.4/9.6/9.5

("Frequency response isn’t just about whether there’s too much bass, mid, or treble coming out of a system. It can also more subtly affect the tone and balance of instruments within a track, potentially coloring and even ruining our listening experience. A perfectly flat, ideal response isn’t possible with every component, but today’s higher-end technology can certainly come close enough that a human could never tell. ", https://www.soundguys.com/frequency-response-explained-16507/)


2. "The frequency response charts of the Sonys are also even closer to the Harman Target"
-> It's not true. In order to look at this stuff more precisely, let's find the following comparisons from Rtings.com:

https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#1791/3992/917 (Compensated)
https://www.rtings.com/headphones/1-4/graph#1791/4011/917 (Raw FR)

As you can see above, Sony WF-1000XM3 sound much warmer than the target in the bass range as well as a little darker in the treble.

3. "The isolation charts also show the Sonys crushing virtually all of the frequencies better than the Galaxy Buds+"
-> Yes they do with ANC and I also think they deserve to get one more star in this day and age.

To sum up, Galaxy Buds+ should have got 4 stars because Sony's got 5 stars and Airpods Pro got 4 stars thank to their ANC feature.
 
Last edited:

Lengvas

Member
Mar 18, 2020
1
1
20
I have them. Bought almost a week ago. And I can say it's just meh. The voice call is great. But I feel like sound quality is tops just 6 max. Bass is like 2 at best. The battery life is also amazing, but I don't think I would have bought them if I had a test drive for sound quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baldclub

baldclub

Member
Apr 29, 2020
1
0
20
I tried these Samsung Galaxy buds plus, a very good package except for sound which was also nothing special in my opinion. I can't figure out how people talk about good bass with these, I read a ton of reviews before I picked them up but seriously disappointed. Just because of the sound.
I returned them and upgraded my Bose Soundsport to the Free version. These clunkers are comfortable and sound pretty good for truly wireless Bluetooth earbuds.
 

MACIOMACIO

Member
Dec 3, 2020
1
0
20
1. "They can achieve higher volume on very low pitches (biologically harder to hear), higher volume on very high pitches (also biologically harder to hear)"
-> I don't think so; the bottom line of the frequency response should be the 'tonal balance' throughout the frequencies. The volume levels that people hear more depend on the sensitivity.
I guess that's why SoundGuy also gave even higher scores to Galaxy Buds+ than Sony's.

<Galaxy Buds+>
SOUND QUALITY/BASS/MIDRANGE/HIGHS
9.7/9.4/9.8/9.8

<Sony WF-1000XM3>
SOUND QUALITY/BASS/MIDRANGE/HIGHS
9.5/9.4/9.6/9.5
....

To sum up, Galaxy Buds+ should have got 4 stars because Sony's got 5 stars and Airpods Pro got 4 stars thank to their ANC feature.
I'm from Italy, excuse me for my poor english...

I love whathifi reviews and always read their reviews before buying audio electronics...

So I've bought the "Sony WF-1000XM3" according to whathifi scores
My son have bought the "galaxy buds plus" according his personal scores

Now I'm sure that WhatHi-Fi scores for the "galaxy buds plus" are to upgrade,
I think the SOUND is 4 and not 3... may be 4+ is better...
I think whatHifi have understated the SOUND score of Galaxy Buds Plus. May be for personal tastes and not with objective judgment...
Is not a problem, always in our life we tend to use personal tastes over all, and It is human and good for most case...
But, may be ,it isn't good in a "reference site" like WhatHifi is...

MM
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts