Sony 1000X The Collexion vs. Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2: Both wow, but one is comfier


A comparison photo between the Sony 1000X The Collexion and Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2 headphones

ZDNET

Follow ZDNET: Add us as a preferred source on Google.


Sony’s 1000X The Collexion headphones take what Sony has learned in the consumer headphone space over the past decade and pack those lessons into a high-end, luxury-focused body. The Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2 headphones are luxurious, too — and arguably more so — but they also have the benefit of Bowers & Wilkins’ hi-fi pedigree.

Also: I flew 2,700 miles with Apple, Sony, and Sennheiser headphones – this pair had the best audio

Both pairs sit in the top tier of consumer headphones, so the $150 gap between them is meaningful but relatively small in context. At this level, you’re really choosing a philosophy. Sony is the rational, everyday pick, while Bowers & Wilkins is the one you buy for pure listening pleasure and a bit of prestige. Here’s how to decide which philosophy is yours.

Specifications

Sony 1000X The Collexion Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2
Wired connectivity 3.5mm jack USB-C; 3.5mm jack
Codec support SBC; AAC; LDAC; LC3 SBC; AAC; aptX Classic, Adaptive, Lossless, HD
Weight 320g 310g
Foldable? No No
Spatial audio Sony 360 Reality Audio Upmix Firmware update TBD
Audio modes ANC, Ambient Sound Mode, Adaptive Sound Control ANC, Ambient Sound Mode, Adaptive ANC
Battery life 24 hours 30 hours
Price $460 $799

You should buy the Sony 1000X The Collexion if…

Sony 1000X The Collexion in Platinum

Jada Jones/ZDNET

1. You want better noise cancellation

Sony has been at the top of the ANC race for years, and 1000X The Collexion continues that streak. Low-frequency noise reduction is excellent, as engine drone, traffic rumble, and train noise all but disappear, and the mid-band performance handles office chatter well, too. If you’re a frequent flyer or a daily commuter, Sony’s noise cancellation makes a big difference in how you travel.

The transparency mode is also a step up from earlier generations, with adjustable levels and a natural-sounding pass-through that doesn’t make the outside world sound like a walkie-talkie. While 1000X The Collexion’s ANC is very good, it’s not quite as good as Sony’s WH-1000XM6 headphones, which have a tighter clamp and seal.

Review: Sony 1000X The Collexion

The Px8 S2’s ANC is fine, and for a lot of people, it’ll be perfectly adequate. But it noticeably trails Sony, letting in more low-frequency rumble and general chatter. If ANC is a primary reason you’re buying headphones at this price, the Sony is the safer pick by a clear margin.

2. You want smart features

The gap in smart features between the two is wide. 1000X The Collexion inherits much of what Sony has built over multiple generations of the 1000X headphones: adaptive sound control that changes ANC profiles based on what you’re doing, Speak-to-Chat that pauses or lowers your music when you start talking, Quick Attention for momentary pass-through, and multipoint pairing.

The Sony Sound Connect app is stable and mature, and it includes a solid EQ that lets you shape the sound profile as much or as little as you want. Bowers & Wilkins’ app, by comparison, is minimalist. You get decent EQ and controls, and that’s about it; there’s no equivalent to Sony’s adaptive or behavioral modes.

Also: Sony WH-1000XM6 vs Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2: How I’d justify spending $300 more for headphones

That said, there’s an argument that Sony’s list of features is overkill. If you’d rather have simple controls and pure hardware performance without layers of DSP between you and your music, Sony’s feature density might feel more like clutter than convenience. Still, for travelers and multitaskers, it’s genuinely useful.

3. You want a more comfortable fit

Sony’s 1000X The Collexion isn’t light, but the roomy earcups make it forgiving right out of the box, especially if you have larger ears or wear glasses. The stainless steel framework and full synthetic leather finish feel more “flagship” than previous WH-1000X models, and the overall aesthetic is sleeker and more modern than the Px8 S2’s analog hi-fi look. Which one you prefer visually is a matter of taste, but in terms of pure fit, the Sony has the edge across more head shapes.

There are caveats. 1000X The Collexion’s 320g weight is noticeable during long sessions. The Px8 S2 is only 10 grams lighter, so it also isn’t feather-light, but it’s worth knowing going in. And Sony’s synthetic leather, while soft initially, may age differently than the genuine materials on the Px8 S2.

You should buy the Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2 if…

Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2 Warm Stone

Jada Jones/ZDNET

1. You want the most detailed audio response

The Px8 S2’s 40mm angled drivers are tuned for texture, timbre, and midrange detail. Vocals and acoustic instruments stand out with a realism that Sony can’t quite match, and the bass is authoritative but tight — controlled rather than boosted. It’s a hi-fi-like sound, especially with high-quality sources. Sony’s 1000X The Collexion still sounds excellent, and most people would be happy with it. However, its 30mm drivers can come across as slightly more digital and processed next to the Px8 S2. The result is very polished but lacks analog warmth.

Review: Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2

The trade-off is flexibility. The Px8 S2 offers far less EQ adjustment than the 1000X The Collexion, so if you want to customize your sound heavily — say, pushing the bass toward a more consumer-friendly profile — you’ll find the Bowers & Wilkins companion app limiting. The Px8 S2 is tuned by people with strong opinions about how it should sound, and it mostly expects you to agree.

2. You care about luxury design and premium materials

The Px8 S2 simply feels more expensive than Sony’s 1000X The Collexion, and it is. Aluminum components, high-quality cables, and genuine Nappa leather add up to headphones with sophisticated, jewelry-like detailing that you notice every time you pick them up.

Where the 1000X The Collexion goes for a sleek, tech-forward look, the Px8 S2 leans traditional and prestigious, more classic hi-fi than modern gadget. If materials and craftsmanship are part of what you’re paying for at this price, Bowers & Wilkins delivers in a way that Sony’s synthetic leather doesn’t.

3. You forget to charge

The Px8 S2 gets about 30 hours of battery life with ANC engaged, which comfortably outlasts the Sony’s 24 hours. That number is a somewhat surprising win for Bowers & Wilkins, since the 1000X The Collexion’s battery endurance is a step down from previous WH-1000X models — a casualty of the slimmer design.

Also: I listened to Sony, Bose, and Apple’s flagship headphones – and this pair’s ahead of the pack

The Px8 S2’s fast charging is solid, too. A 15-minute charge gets you roughly seven hours of playback, which is enough for a transatlantic flight from a coffee break’s worth of charging. Thankfully, the Sony headphones charge pretty quickly, too, as 5 minutes gets you about 1.5 hours of playback.

Writer’s choice

Both of these headphones are excellent options, with great sound overall. That said, I prefer Sony’s 1000X The Collexion headphones, but only by a little. They’re more comfortable to wear for extended periods, and I travel a lot, which makes the better ANC very helpful. Again, though, I still love the Bowers & Wilkins Px8 S2, and certainly wouldn’t steer clear of them.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


TL;DR

Meta stripped NameTag facial recognition code from its AI app one day after WIRED exposed it on 50 million phones. Meta says no decision has been made.

Meta removed nearly all traces of an unreleased facial recognition system from its smart glasses companion app on Friday, one day after WIRED reported that the software had been quietly embedded in an app installed on more than 50 million phones. The feature, which Meta internally called NameTag, was designed to convert faces captured by the company’s Ray-Ban smart glasses into unique biometric signatures and compare them against a database stored on the user’s device. WIRED also found that faces the system failed to recognise were cropped, indexed, and stored locally for future processing.

Andy Stone, Meta’s vice president of communications, told WIRED on Monday that the feature is “purely exploratory,” adding that no final decision has been made on what to do with it. That characterisation sits uneasily with the evidence WIRED documented. The version of Meta AI published the day of WIRED’s Thursday report contained several code libraries explicitly named for face recognition, a process for running the NameTag recognition pipeline, and a “Person recognised” alert the app would have shown if someone were identified.

Friday’s release stripped all of it out, along with a folder where the app would have stored the cropped images and biometric signatures of unrecognised faces. Meta did not answer WIRED’s questions about why the code was removed or whether the changes were planned before the story was published. A few fragments remain in the latest version, including an internal debug menu label and a dormant link meant to open a recognised person’s profile, pointing to parts of the system that are no longer there.

The 💜 of EU tech

The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!

The gap between Meta’s public statements and the code WIRED found is the central tension. Before the Thursday report, Stone dismissed the findings by writing that the company could not answer questions about how the system would work because “the feature does not exist.” Andrew Bosworth, Meta’s chief technology officer, called the reporting “incredibly misleading” and “absolutely dishonest.” Yet the code was functional enough to include three AI models, one to detect faces, another to crop them, and a third to encode them as biometric data, all embedded in the companion app for a product already at the centre of a mounting privacy crisis.

Meta declined to answer ten questions WIRED posed before publishing, including whether it had already created the database of face profiles NameTag uses, how long the app retains photographs and biometric data of unrecognised people, and whether that data would ever be sent back to Meta’s servers. The company also did not respond to questions about whether it was building NameTag for blind or low-vision users, or to criticism from privacy advocates who warned the system could let stalkers and abusers identify strangers in public.

NameTag first surfaced in February, when The New York Times, citing internal Meta documents, reported that the company was developing face recognition for its smart glasses and considering a launch as early as this year. One internal memo reportedly described releasing the feature during a “dynamic political environment” when privacy and civil liberties advocates would be distracted by other concerns. WIRED subsequently found that much of NameTag’s machinery had been built into the Meta AI app as early as January, months before any public acknowledgement, adding another layer to the company’s pattern of shipping first and disclosing later when it comes to its smart glasses.

Kade Crockford, director of the technology for liberty programme at the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said the removal does not undo the original decision to ship the code and pointed to it as evidence that consumer privacy needs stronger legal protection than Congress has been willing to provide. The Massachusetts House of Representatives last week unanimously passed a consumer privacy bill that, if enacted as written, would impose strong enforcement provisions including a private right of action allowing aggrieved users to sue. “State lawmakers need to do their job and step up to protect consumer privacy,” Crockford said.

Meta’s sneaky tactics in slipping the face-recognition code into its smart glasses show exactly why data privacy bills need the teeth of strong enforcement,” Crockford added. “Companies like Meta prioritise their bottom line, so lawmakers need to speak in the only language its C-suite understands.” Whether a code removal prompted by investigative reporting constitutes a victory or merely a tactical retreat depends on what Meta does next, and on whether the regulatory pressure building on both sides of the Atlantic produces enforceable consequences before the feature quietly returns under a different name.



Source link