V-Moda Crossfade II Wireless Initial Impressions (CF IIW vs M-100)

[stuck limo]

 

Got these today from Best Buy. I got the only pair the store had, and they weren't even on the floor yet. They had to go dig through the back for them.

Note: I am comparing these both using the wired functionality. I am not that interested in wireless, though I'm sure I'll get to it a little later.

 

Generally I use the M100 to listen to: trip-hop/lo-fi hip-hop/electronic/instrumental jazz (sometimes). I will also be mentioning my ATH-m40x in the review and I use that to listen to more rock/indie/acoustic/orchestra/scores/vocals/etc. The M100s just don't do rock well, IMO.

first impressions of CF II Wireless vs M100:

 

For those of you with the XL pads for the M100, The XL pads are actually bigger than these stock pads on the CF II. These are a smidge smaller, both in height and depth. The XL pads are more comfortable to my ears. They're a bit more "springy" than the new pads, which are more memory foam-ish. YMMV

 

The M100 headband material has more of a leather feel, whereas the CF II has more of a plastic feel. That may help the disintegration factor that the M100s experience.

 

A (minor) gripe I have with these is that the cable jack is on the right hand side, whereas I'm used to having it on the left hand side with the M100. Not a huge deal, but it's there for nitpicking.

 

The CF II are heavier and clamp more than the M100s. Most likely due to the wireless electronics and the slightly smaller pads.

 

Soundstage: almost identical to the M100s to my ears.

 

Bass: reduced vs the M100. They went for quality over quantity. It's got a punch, but it's greatly reduced and it's almost polite sounding. They are nowhere near as overwhelming or attention grabbing. Whereas the M100 had a "big" bass that was sometimes a little fuzzy or out of control (still great sounding for what I used them for), these are nice and tight.

 

Mids: Improved on the new ones. Vocals are pushed out compared to M100, less buried, less drowned. More details come through. The M100 is almost muffled compared to these.

 

Tonality: The M100s are darker, but not by a ton. Maybe the new ones are 2-3 (maybe 4, max, tops) shades brighter. They allow some more details to shine. Vocals sound really nice, more natural. The difference is 100% noticeable but honestly it won't stun you. But definitely brighter, but not drastically. It can get a little (too?) bright on on brighter recorded music, so that may be an issue for some of you. I noticed it on some jazz and electronic stuff today.It seeems to sound better generally on rock.

 

Treble: very nice, smooth. I'm not really hearing the harsh/painful or bright treble that some others have mentioned. The XS honestly sound a little more treble-ish to me, with a bit more sparkle to it. Some of the complaints may have to do with the brightened tonality I mentioned earlier. Or maybe they just have brighter equipment in the first place. Who knows.

 

Smoothness: The M100s have always sounded harsh-ish and gritty-ish to me. They always had a really hard edged, visceral, exciting sound to them. Slightly artificial, as someone else mentioned. These are laid back, muuuuuch smoother. No sign of harshness anywhere. If you're looking for a "fun" headphone, these are NOT the ones you're looking for. These are MUCH more in line with something like the ATH-m40x, which goes for a more "audiophile" or neutral/accurate representation.

 

Overall: this is a really really good sounding headphone. If you're in the market for a V-Moda build/portability with audiophile sound, this is it. It also has the added flexibility of wireless (but not aptX or AAC). For my purposes though, I don't feel they're worth the $355 (including tax) asking price. I feel like the M100 is a more fun headphone (when I want that) for cheaper, and it sounds better with electronic and jazz. The CF II seem to work well with rock and more orchestrated music. Honestly, I can get the equivalent performance the CF II has out of my ATH-m40x that cost me $80. The CF II vs ATH-m40x aren't that different and I honestly think the m40x have a slightly, more versatile tonality to them with a cleaner sound.

 

I think the M100s may be slightly easier to listen to as well, just because of the darker tonality. It's not that the M100s are better or worse, just different. I'd describe the new CF II as a diagonal upgrade. A very good diagonal upgrade, but not necessarily better or worse in any case.

[dalethorn]

I have a white one and rose gold one (with aptX) coming tomorrow.  I'll be most curious about differences between the 2 Bluetooths.