Thanks for the comment! I finally linked my review of the 60’s at the end of the 46’s review, in spite of completing it just a couple days later. Whoops.
Here’s a link to my full review of the 60’s in case you want to see it. Short version? They’re worse, in my opinion.
Aside from sharing the same surprisingly okay ANC technology and quality ear pads for the low price, the 46 and 60 are completely different headphones, with completely different designs and parts.
The biggest flaw of the 60’s is that they don’t sound very good at all, compared to the 46’s or compared to any other headphones really. They’re a borderline disaster in the sound department, with a weirdly muffled/bad midrange and high end. It’s one of the worst sound signatures I’ve personally heard in a long time. I go into this more in my review.
The 46’s are bass heavy but still manage to sound okay. The 60’s don’t manage much of anything aurally.
There are some other differences.
The 46’s are built much better than the 60’s. The 46 has a strong metal frame, whereas the 60’s feel like they’re going to fall apart. The 46’s case is a little bit larger, but I also think it feels more robust. Some folks will prefer the QC35-inspired design of the 60’s, but I think they stick out a little bit too much from the head to correctly copy the Bose model.
In short, the 46’s are a very good deal for the price, and the 60’s are sadly less than what you’re paying for. In the 50 dollar range, sure, I know it’s hard to get a wireless noise-cancelling headphone. But it’s easy to get headphones that sound and feel much better, like the Porta Pro, Aurvana Live, and Audio-Technica M20X. Even the Skullcandy Riff is a much better-sounding headphone than the 60's
The 60’s still technically function, their ANC is decent, and I know their low price and high feature set are tempting. But I haven’t put mine back on since listening to them for review. I didn’t like how they sounded at all.
