‘Good’ audio? Reviewing the Sennheiser HD 350BT

 First, let’s talk about ‘good’ audio generally.

The quest for ‘good’ audio is insatiable. That is probably because it is impossible to conclusively define ‘good’ audio. The judgement of sound quality is very subjective. Not only amongst people, but the judgment varies even for an individual depending on a multitude of factors. I have seen my taste in audio quality change with age, the genre I primarily listen to, and the environment where I listen to music. I went from appreciating thumping bass, to realising the brightness of treble, eventually surrendering to the mid frequencies, and finally finding a spot to settle for the neutral sound. I actually appreciate the neutral and balanced profile now. 

So what is neutral sound? 

Like defining ‘good’ audio, trying to describe ‘neutral’ sound is difficult due to our subjective understanding of sound. But there is a way out. It is best to write what neutral sound is not! In doing so, there are two popular misconceptions that I will try to address. 

First, neutral sound is not a static concept; but an array of variable sound profiles with blurred boundaries around the edges. As we move further away from those disputed boundaries, the sound profiles are clearly not neutral. 

Second, neutral sound is not devoid of good bass and treble. By ‘good’ here, I refer to quality and not quantity. Neutral sound carries bass and treble but not in copious amounts. Without bass or treble, it will be impossible to produce and record sounds that we call music.

Perhaps the best way to explain this is to draw an analogy with food: assuming bass to be the fat and treble being sugar. Good neutral sound (or, food) will carry adequate and good quality fat and sugar where required and never overdoing it. Now, how much fat is too much fat? Likewise, how much sugar is too much? When do we require it and when do we not? There is some consensus around it in certain preparations. But for most people, this is debatable. In fact, everything is up for debate. Also, like bass and treble, fat and sugar preferences change with age and environment. However, allow me to emphasise the point of a balanced and good meal. It has diversity of sugar and spices in creative doses spread across the entire meal to create a unique experience. In a balanced and good meal, you are never left cringing due to overpowering fat, sugar or salt. (But then, there was fast/junk food).

This is not an exhaustive analogy. It is not fool proof. It is arguable that the core definition of ‘balanced food’ (in terms of taste) is more subjective and allows for wider diversity of fat and sugar quantities than quantities of bass and treble in ‘neutral sound’. Self proclaimed audiophiles will prefer far stricter ideas of ‘neutral sound’. Be that as it may, I’d rather resist such controlled definitions that defy the logic of how human senses work.

Given these divergences, every reviewer of audio products out there should first state their stance on ‘good’ audio before proclaiming that the product sounds ‘good’. There are umpteen number of best buy lists of audio products (headphones, speakers, DAC, you name it) that note “good audio/sound” as one of the “pros”; balanced against “cons” such as ‘does not support Bluetooth 5.0’, or ‘bulky design’. 

My preference notes on good audio: clear mids, treble not very bright, bass is very much needed but ought to be controlled. I feel fine when mid-bass is slightly compromised but I cannot let go the low-bass beyond a point. The mids must be just enough to add body to the sound and not emphasise anything. Soundstage is critical for me. Muddied instruments are annoying and I prefer the instruments to be separated. To my ears, ability to hear different instruments distinctly adds luxury to the sound. On a related note, I get put off by unnatural vocals. I consider myself demanding when it comes to audio. I say this because I demand that the sound be dramatic, but not so by boosting bass or treble. At the same time, I also get put off by sound profiles that are fatiguing beyond an hour. I should actually represent this over a graph!

Reviewing Sennheiser 350BT

How do they sound? 

This should be the first thing to discuss in any review about an audio device. Not the build quality, not whether the padding is memory foam or rexene, nor if the device can help you crack eggs and fry an omelette on your tv stand. It’s not that elements other than sound quality are not important (please don’t tell me you won’t like earphones that could make omelettes too). But the most important bit about buying headphones out to be the sound. No amount of comfort, memory paddings, and fancy codecs/bluetooth versions can cover-up for a bad audio quality. I have pushed this logic so much that I will only write about the audio quality here. 

The Sennheiser 350BT sounds good, satiable, controlled, and very subtly dramatic. 

The ‘good’ comes from the absence of excessive bass, mids or treble. They are ‘satiated’ and ‘controlled’ because at no time is the music overpowering and/or fatiguing. The drama in the music comes not from added bass or bright sparks of treble; but from a brilliant soundstage and good instrument separation. This kind of drama is subtle but enjoyable. The instrument separation is brilliant enough that if you are moving from Soundsport Wireless or Beats Powerxxx, you will get the perception of “hearing new instruments”. This drama is subtle because it doesn’t make you jump out of your chair, like dark cocoa with lots of sugar does. It is balanced – just like a little tease of sugar that doesn’t satiate you and keeps your quest alive for more of it. I might be overdoing the food analogies by now. Of course, you could see this subtlety as glass-half-empty. Subtlety is not for everyone after all; I say this without any judgement.

You may as well expect music to blow your brains with the bass and brighten your eardrums with the sparkling treble. But in that case, the subtle drama of 350 won’t release ample dopamine to please your senses. However, there is still a case to be made for this close-to-neutral sound profile. The sad part of blowing yourself with bass and treble is that it’s unsustainable. Long durations will lead to fatigue. Also, you will miss out the subtle beauty of the instruments in other ranges of the frequency (except base and treble). This reminds me of another food analogy (enough with the food analogies!) that SoundGuys drew on their website* with coffee. I’d use and push that to say this: missing out the mid range and boosting bass and treble is like adding milk and sugar to coffee. You will never be able to enjoy the idea of the bitterness. But if you don’t want to – look elsewhere.

Anyway, the aforesaid sound profile of 350 brings it nearer to being described as ‘balanced’ or ‘neutral’. Not completely, though. I am not sure but the separation of instruments and that awesome soundstage comes at a cost. It seems that the cost is paid by diluting the intensity of the sound**. As a result, the sound isn’t thick enough at times – only over a few tracks though, not all. This contributes to the 350 not blowing your brains out despite carrying adequate bass. But I’d take a thinner sound profile for a good soundstage and separation any day. Would I love to have all of it? Of course. But this hasn’t affected my ownership experience of the 350 so much. I hate to say this: given the sad market pricing of headphones today, I think the relative price point of these headphones appears to condone these trade-offs.

This trade-off or compromise does not stand out for me. It’s not a deal breaker. Most tracks have enough going on to get my attention. Also, the good mids mask the thinness in a way. I found it interesting that even though the 350 gives the impression of being closer to neutral, this sole compromise can reflect on some of the tracks that are usually rendered better over a neutral profile. The violin in an orchestral arrangement may appear thinner than usual and this is where the lack of thickness is perceptible.

The 350 is not perfect. A glaring issue is the omission of the wire. These headphones do not allow the listener to go analogue. There was an opportunity here. The technology on these headphones isn’t complicated with noise cancelling. It is also a fact that as of today, Bluetooth has serious limitations of audio quality relative to transmission over the wires. Audio over bluetooth is not as good as over the wires, still; all the fancy codecs notwithstanding. There is just nothing that tells the true sound of a High Resolution file conveyed over good old wires. It would have been perfect – of having both convenience and quality if only they added that wired input. In fact, Sennheiser has nothing around this range that offers both of these capabilities, which is sad. Sad, because this is one of the companies that take audio quality seriously and professionally. 

* “Studio Headphones: Why you don’t want them”, SoundGuys, March 2018, available at: https://www.soundguys.com/studio-headphones-why-you-dont-want-them-16663/

** This is not something you may get used to. But the assessment of this quality upon the first 10-15 mins of hearing may not be truthful. To get a good idea of whether this stands out for you, a good 40-45 mins of listening may be advisable. Anyway, if you appreciate the subtlety of sound, this won’t be a deal breaker. There is plenty of other things going on in the sound to get your attention.