Sennheiser CX-300-II review - 5 stars...???

[the record spot]

Just bought a pair of these on the strength of the review. To give some background I had been using some Sony earphones which had cost £8 and were good, very good in fact, but they didn't fit my left ear too well.

My wife had a pair of in-ear phones which were supplied with a Samsung mobile she had which she didn't use for the phone. They were superb, the drawback being the cable which was far too short and meant the only way I could easily use the iPod nano I have was to put it in top pocket of my outdoor coat which I wear in to work. After that, it's pretty difficult to use, given it's barely 8 or 9 inches long!

So, I got some of these Sennies from John Lewis - good write-up, excellent in fact. Sounds good, clear treble, nice mids and a good bass. My kind of thing. Plugged them in, popped the phones in my ear - nice and snug, good so far.

Hit play.

Oh dear.

5 star review, "Against? - Nothing of note", good write up and the rest all went flying out the window. Harsh to start off with, I gave them a bit of run-in time. After half an hour they lost their sharpness, and I adjusted their position in my ears to ensure they were sitting right, but the end result is an set of phones that has no business taking the kind of review given, and definitely not a 5 star gong.

What on earth happened here?

The treble is painful - no apology for the hyperbole. Way to high, far too bright - cymbals and strings just sound harsh. There's a "tizz" and a bad dose of sibilance and the music is ruined. At times, it's okay, but I just need to switch back to the Samsungs to know how the music should sound, or even my Sony phones.

Money wasted. It's annoying if I make the mistake myself, but when I look to the magazine to provide a reliable review - especially for products like this where you can't try before you buy for obvious reasons. Very disappointed with this; out of pocket and highly unimpressed.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Firstly, i'm sorry you're disapppointed with the Sennheisers, which both we and many others think are an excellent-value first upgrade from the bundled iPod headphones.

Secondly, are you sure they are genuine models? There have been a LOT of fake Sennheisers on the market recently - even Sennheiser stresses that fact on their website - and i'd hate to think you were making judgements on a duff pair. [EDIT - Sorry, just saw you bought from John Lewis; they'll be genuine]

Finally, if you have got a genuine pair and still aren't happy, maybe your expectations were too high for a budget pair like the CX300s? We've tested them against many pairs at the same price (and above/ below) and sincerely believe them to be the best you can buy for this money. However, spend some more and you can - of course- buy far superior performance.

Re the Samsung bundled mobile ones; yes, they are above-average (I have a Samsung phone with a great pair of buds) - though like anything in the mobile-phone world, their cost is offset by the tariff/network costs over the lifetime of their accompanying handset. Would be interesting to see how much they would cost if sold as a standalone product where all the costs had to be covered.

 

[the record spot]

Thanks for the reply Clare and GJ, much appreciated. Two points spring to mind. I already owned two pairs of headphones which caned the Sennheisers and which cost significantly less. Sound quality from the other two is excellent and for £30 they need to deliver something at the price to beat them.

The second point is - assuming these are the genuine article and having Sennheiser packaging and bought from John Lewis I would expect this to be so - they are voicing these buds for a public that seems to have forgotten what good sound is all about. Sharp and ear piercing treble is not clarity and the performance suffers accordingly.

I'll take them back - or might even send to Sennheiser directly (my contract is with the retailer I know, but have doubts that a salesperson would know the difference in an AV floor that sells everything from iPod protection covers right up to plasma screens and most things in between) for their opinion.

EDIT: Clare - yes, the Samsung handset my wife has is the S7300 - never paid the in-ear buds much attention till I thought I'd give them a go one day. Wow! Very decent - good in-ear fit, lovely sound - do a compare against the Sennies; only one winner there I think!

 

[SHAXOS]

Ha ha! I was seriously considering writing a very similar thread after purchacing my Sennheisers about 2 weeks ago but couldnt be bothered. I brought them as a replacement for some goldring gx200 which i thought were excellent, but very easy to break. The Sennheisers were truly awful. The treble is painful on them and they sound horrid.I have to turn on the treble reducer on my equaliser to even listen to them. I brought them of the back of the what hi fi review and was sorley dissapointed. Thing is with headphones you really cant try before you buy and sometimes you get stung. Oh well!

 

[Wightknight]

Sorry to hear of your disappointment in the CX300s. I have had two pairs and both benefitted hugely from being properly run in.

I recommend you persevere with them a bit longer and you should find the sound improves considerably.

 

[the record spot]

Must admit, I scorned the idea of run-in to start off with, but accept that they probably do need some time to warm-up like any other speaker. However, their diminutive size means we're not talking hundreds of hours and we're probably talking less than a couple of hours at most.

As it is, I think they've reached their optimum temperature (as it were) and I'm not expecting anything different now. As it stands, my refund came through from an Ebay purchase along with the sale of an interconnect, so I'm not down in cash flow terms.

Shame though: bought a bunch of other kit from the mag's review alone and they were bang on (Kenwood DP7090 CDP, Marantz amps, Marantz CD52 CDP, various Mission speakers over the years). Luckily it was only £30 and not £300...

 

[manicm]

I have the Mk1 300s and I don't find them harsh - they're fantastic and beat the Shure 110s I bought later.

I think you're mistaking their harshness for accuracy - I think it depends in what format you're ripping your music to - I've had 4 iPods and they have consistently sounded a bit harsh with MP3s - for lossy I've always ripped to AAC.

 

[the record spot]

Seriously, no disrespect here, but I know what harshness sounds like and I know what accuracy sounds like. I've been listening to audio for over 30 years now and I know what good sound is. I seek out good recordings and when they get trashed on playback and the only thing changing are the earphones on the iPod or the laptop, then accuracy is not the problem, nor is my perception of it.

It's a poor product, though I will grant you I doubt most people would know good sound if it walked into their living room. I think people think excess brightness and harsh treble make for good sound, but that isn't the case.

 

[Clare Newsome]

Another thought springs to mind - are you seating them well into your ear, with the right-size bud for the best-fit? Some headphones only deliver their full range when they're snugly fit - otherwise they lose a lot of low-end action.

And by the way, having tested hundreds of pairs of headphones over the years - among thousands of other products - our reviewers know what 'good sound' is, too

 

[chebby]

Clare Newsome:And by the way, having tested hundreds of pairs of headphones over the years - among thousands of other products - our reviewers know what 'good sound' is, too

They are pretty reliable, and - given enough experience of reading the reviews for equipment I know well from personal experience - useful information can be gleaned.

There are certain 'negatives' from the WHF review team that I know are reliable indicators that I might like something they mark down for what I consider a virtue. (And vica versa.)

It is a bit like learning a code. It is the same with other magazines/reviewers. They all have their own particular 'house' tastes in music and hifi.

(Actually I would enjoy a 'meet the review team' profile article telling us what music they are into and what their own systems are and their musical training/industry experience etc.)

 

[stephennic]

Hi,

I found the new cx-300-II better than the originals - more balanced tonally and more detailed. They certaintly need burn in, the first couple hours they were harsh and sounded hollow. After about 20-30 hours I found the sound smoothed and the mids filled out and now sound nice. They need to be put well into the ear otherwise they sound like they lack bass and tinny. I certianly enjoy them now.

Hope that helps.

Cheers

Steve.

 

[SHAXOS]

manicm:
I think you're mistaking their harshness for accuracy

Accuracy should only hurt like this in a boxing ring. Seriously though i have owned a LOT of in ears in the past including top the the range shure SE530 so i know what accuracy sounds like. These Sennheisers are simply aweful. Really would not recommend them. You can get goldring GX100 for a tenner that wipe the floor with these. GX200 cost me 20 from superfi again wipe the floor job. Only problem with them is their tissue box construction that keep breaking in the gym!

 

[John Duncan]

I haven't heard the MkIIs but I'd be surprised if they're that different from the MkIs I've had two pairs of, and would buy again when they break. I'd echo Clare's comment that fit is crucial, but other than that I'm very surprised at the enmity towards them here...

 

[manicm]

With all due respect on my part as well, with 4 iPods and various earphones, MP3s always sounded a bit harsh with the Pods - for lossy AAC consistently sounded better - on any earphones - that's the context I stated accuracy in.

 

[cse]

I agree with Shaxos. They really are that awful. Infact, I seroiusly doubt the ability of people who like them to be true audiofiles. I bought them as an upgrade for those supplied with the ipod nano, but found them to be far worse and ended up binning them. I bought them from play.com, but am annoyed at being duped.

 

[John Duncan]

cse:I seriously doubt the ability of people who like them to be true audiofiles

That's me told.

 

[plastic penguin]

the record spot:Must admit, I scorned the idea of run-in to start off with, but accept that they probably do need some time to warm-up like any other speaker. However, their diminutive size means we're not talking hundreds of hours and we're probably talking less than a couple of hours at most. As it is, I think they've reached their optimum temperature (as it were) and I'm not expecting anything different now. As it stands, my refund came through from an Ebay purchase along with the sale of an interconnect, so I'm not down in cash flow terms. Shame though: bought a bunch of other kit from the mag's review alone and they were bang on (Kenwood DP7090 CDP, Marantz amps, Marantz CD52 CDP, various Mission speakers over the years). Luckily it was only £30 and not £300...

I had a similar experience with my SR60s. I was not impressed on an initial listen: they lacked bass agility, reluctant to delve that deep, but after a couple of weeks of use it all made sense.

I left my Grados on all day just playing throught the amp at pretty high volumes. I think the cobwebs need to be blown out....

 

[the record spot]

Clare: yep, the buds are well fitted in my ear, jigged around so the bass is good and deep and the midrange comes over as it should. All that taken into account, your left with two thirds of the story well told, but the higher end is dire. Play violins through this, or anything that touches the high frequency (tambourines - aaargh!) and you'll know where I'm coming from.

That said, I take your point that your guys know their stuff and have heard a lot more headphones than I have. So what went wrong here then?!

On the back of that, didn't the reviewer mention this? No mention of correct in-ear placement? No hint of brightness or burn-in, just a glowing review - and I acknowledge your time taken to reply to my points, very much appreciated.

manicm: point taken, though I listen to lossless, 192kbps, 320, etc. All sound rubbish or severely reduced quality-wise. That's using some of the best recordings I have - the reference ones I use for these purposes.

So there's burn-in left...I'll leave them to run overnight tonight and for the next few nights. There'll always be an easy compare with the superb Samsung buds....

I think this sums up the way in contemporary design at times - some kit does good bass, good midrange and crisp treble, but compared to the best older kit out there (and sometimes not even the best) new gear is often found wanting by equipment that does also good bass, good midrange and for whom detailed treble doesn't mean ear-bleeding.

 

[plastic penguin]

the record spot:Clare: yep, the buds are well fitted in my ear, jigged around so the bass is good and deep and the midrange comes over as it should. All that taken into account, your left with two thirds of the story well told, but the higher end is dire. Play violins through this, or anything that touches the high frequency (tambourines - aaargh!) and you'll know where I'm coming from. That said, I take your point that your guys know their stuff and have heard a lot more headphones than I have. So what went wrong here then?!

On the back of that, didn't the reviewer mention this? No mention of correct in-ear placement? No hint of brightness or burn-in, just a glowing review - and I acknowledge your time taken to reply to my points, very much appreciated. manicm: point taken, though I listen to lossless, 192kbps, 320, etc. All sound rubbish or severely reduced quality-wise. That's using some of the best recordings I have - the reference ones I use for these purposes. So there's burn-in left...I'll leave them to run overnight tonight and for the next few nights. There'll always be an easy compare with the superb Samsung buds.... I think this sums up the way in contemporary design at times - some kit does good bass, good midrange and crisp treble, but compared to the best older kit out there (and sometimes not even the best) new gear is often found wanting by equipment that does also good bass, good midrange and for whom detailed treble doesn't mean ear-bleeding.

Were they left on high volumes, RS? the higher the better imo - you need to get those cones loosened....

 

[the record spot]

They're at their worst on higher volumes and I don't have an ear-splitting volume setting on my nano. Most of the recordings are first gen disc releases too, so this was before the loudness wars kicked in. Turn them down to lower levels and they're okay, but I can turn the wick up on the nano with the older phones and they sound excellent at whatever level it's set at.

 

[the record spot]

Well, as the old song says..."What a difference ten hours makes....". Okay, it doesn't, but that's about the time you need to run these in for before they start to deliver. So.........

Apologies all round not least the WHFS&V reviewer whose abilities I trashed. Or their ears anyway. Reckon they know a bit about good sound after all! Q'elle clot, so, for breakfast today, I think I'll have a slice of this:-

I can now buy the Marantz UD9004 player without fear. Actually, that's rubbish, Mrs. R_S'd kill me. Make it the excellent looking Cambridge 650BD instead.

 

[ESP2009]

Well-done, that man! It takes a lot of guts and integrity to openly admit to making an error. I genuinely believed you had stumbled across a rogue pair of 'Friday afternoon' CX-300-IIs. Glad all has turned out OK. Hopefully the humble pie was fairly tasty.

 

[Clare Newsome]

the record spot:Well, as the old song says..."What a difference ten hours makes....". Okay, it doesn't, but that's about the time you need to run these in for before they start to deliver. So.........

Apologies all round not least the WHFS&V reviewer whose abilities I trashed. Or their ears anyway. Reckon they know a bit about good sound after all!

No worries. And so we don't get the same again, i've added a line into the online review to mention running-in. Remember, we don't test anything fully until it's been blasted for a few days....(though we do always have a look/listen 'out of the box' to gauge how/if things change).

 

[the record spot]

ESP2009:Well-done, that man! It takes a lot of guts and integrity to openly admit to making an error. I genuinely believed you had stumbled across a rogue pair of 'Friday afternoon' CX-300-IIs. Glad all has turned out OK. Hopefully the humble pie was fairly tasty.

My good man I think you'll find that, up to the point I found out otherwise, I was absolutely bang on!

 

[ESP2009]

Would that be about 10hrs in?

To be honest, I sincerely believe that it really does vary from one item to the next how long it takes for it to hit its stride. It may be that you just came across a particularly stubborn pair.

I will be giving my pair a good workout when I go on holiday.