Philips TAT3469 VS QCY T13X Pro

The Philips TAT3469 and QCY T13X Pro both feature true wireless designs, but they differ in their ear fit. The Philips TAT3469 uses an open-ear fit, meaning it doesn't sit directly inside the ear canal, offering a more open sound experience. In contrast, the QCY T13X Pro uses an in-ear fit, providing a more snug seal within the ear, which could enhance sound isolation.

Both products are wireless and not neckband earbuds, and neither includes wingtips. Additionally, neither product features RGB lighting, UV light, or a display, keeping the designs simple and straightforward.

Both models come with stereo speakers, providing standard stereo audio output. However, the QCY T13X Pro does not have any additional features like UV light or a display, which are similarly absent on the Philips TAT3469.

The Philips TAT3469 and QCY T13X Pro both lack active noise cancellation (ANC), but there is a difference in passive noise reduction. The QCY T13X Pro offers passive noise reduction, while the Philips TAT3469 does not provide this feature, which may result in a more exposed sound environment on the Philips model.

In terms of frequency response, the Philips TAT3469 has a slightly lower lowest frequency of 22 Hz compared to the QCY T13X Pro's 20 Hz. Both models have the same highest frequency of 20,000 Hz, meaning their upper range is identical.

Neither product supports spatial audio, Dolby Atmos, or Dirac Virtuo, and neither uses a neodymium magnet for their speakers, ensuring that both devices are similar in these advanced sound technologies.

The Philips TAT3469 and QCY T13X Pro offer similar battery life for their earbuds, with the Philips model providing 7.5 hours of playtime and the QCY model offering slightly more at 8 hours. However, the charging case of the Philips TAT3469 lasts much longer, providing 30.5 hours of additional playtime, while the QCY T13X Pro's case offers 22 hours of extra charge.

Both products require 1.5 hours to fully charge, and neither supports wireless charging. Both also feature rechargeable batteries and include a battery level indicator to help track power status, making them similar in terms of battery management features.

Both models lack a solar power battery, so they depend entirely on standard charging methods for power replenishment.

Both the Philips TAT3469 and QCY T13X Pro feature USB Type-C ports for charging, ensuring modern compatibility with many devices. Neither product supports fast pairing or Bluetooth pairing using NFC, so users will need to rely on traditional Bluetooth connection methods.

The Philips TAT3469 uses Bluetooth 5.4, while the QCY T13X Pro uses Bluetooth 5.3. The difference in Bluetooth versions is minimal, but the Philips model has the advantage in terms of Bluetooth version.

In terms of audio codec support, the Philips TAT3469 includes AAC, while the QCY T13X Pro does not. Both products lack support for advanced codecs such as LDAC, LDHC, aptX, and others, and neither supports Bluetooth LE Audio or Auracast.

Both the Philips TAT3469 and QCY T13X Pro share the same set of features, offering identical functionalities. Neither product includes an ambient sound mode, in/on-ear detection, or a device find feature. Both models support fast charging, have a mute function, and can be used as a headset.

Both products also feature voice prompts, include a travel bag, and have a control panel placed on the device itself. Neither model includes an in-line control panel, a temperature sensor, or a built-in camera remote control function.

In summary, the Philips TAT3469 and QCY T13X Pro are nearly identical in terms of features, with no significant differences between them in this group.

Both the Philips TAT3469 and QCY T13X Pro are equipped with a noise-canceling microphone. This feature helps reduce background noise during calls or recordings, ensuring clearer voice capture for the user.

There are no differences between the two products in terms of microphone quality; both include the same noise-canceling microphone feature.

Overall, the microphone performance is identical across these two models in this regard.