[Listening test] Sony WH-CH720N Bluetooth Headphones

How much Bluetooth tech and musicality can you get for about $100 USD?

Product name: Sony WH-CH720N Bluetooth Headphones
Manufacturer: Sony US - United States
Cost: reviewer purchase from a Sony Authorized Reseller for $99; (Currency conversion) - (YMMV)
Reviewer: M.L. Gneier - TNT-Audio USA
Reviewed: March, 2025

I've been doing a lot of soul-searching these days both as a music lover and a reviewer. What were once little more than forays into digital such as ripping all of my LPs to FLAC and uploading them to PC Cloud are now more serious considerations in my listening future. The vagaries of passive loudspeakers are becoming less and less interesting all the time and I suspect my days of keeping a variety of amplifiers on hand to accommodate whatever speakers may cross my path is nearing its end. It's not that I am unaware of the magical combinations of amplifier and speaker that are still be out there. But, I have come to the point where the appeal of that search is waning.

And, I am listening to more music as a result and caring a little lesson about the music's delivery mechanism. Why is this? Because everything digital is getting better all the time.

Before I jumped into the review, I decided to ask ChatGPT to research Bluetooth evolution and the resulting discussion has proved illuminating on every subject but Bluetooth. As an aside, these lowly Sony headphones use Bluetooth 5.2. I would advise steering your own buying choices toward 5.2 as well:

MLG: Hi Chat - What are the audio implications of the evolution from Bluetooth 4.0 to Bluetooth 6?

ChatGPT: The evolution from Bluetooth 4.0 to Bluetooth 6 has brought significant improvements, particularly in audio performance, latency, and power efficiency. Are you thinking about upgrading to a new Bluetooth audio device?

MLG: No, Mr. GPT. I am writing an audio review about digital as opposed to analog. I have been a reviewer for the last twenty years and am making a continual shift toward an all-digital system and the elimination of passive loudspeakers and conventional analog amplification.

ChatGPT: Got it! That’s a fascinating transition, especially considering how digital signal processing and active speaker design have evolved. Are you focusing on specific technologies like DSP-based correction, Class D amplification, or networked audio (e.g., AES67, Dante, or Ravenna)? Also, how do you feel about the sonic trade-offs (if any) in moving away from traditional analog setups?

MLG: In order to be aware of sonic tradeoffs you need a long experiential memory. In other words, you had to have heard the best analog from past firsthand. There are fewer of us around everyday who have. So, for a younger listener the tradeoffs are irrelevant since they have no effective point of reference. Digital is king.

ChatGPT: That’s a sharp observation. Without that firsthand experience, there’s no real baseline for comparison—only what’s available now. Digital has advanced to a point where it isn’t just a convenience but the new reference, especially with high-resolution formats, advanced DSP, and active speaker systems tuned to perfection.
Are you exploring fully digital ecosystems with networked audio, or is your focus more on high-performance DACs and digital active speaker designs?

MLG: Just DAC plus active speakers and headphones. Do you know what is meant by the Carriage Trade?

ChatGPT: Yes, the Carriage Trade refers to an elite or wealthy clientele, originally used to describe high-end customers of exclusive shops, tailors, and services in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The term comes from the days when wealthy patrons arrived in horse-drawn carriages, signaling their social status.
Are you using it in the context of high-end audio buyers—those who appreciate (and can afford) top-tier gear?

MLG: Yes. In audio it also refers to a market that is small based upon the actual number of adherents and consumers. Very few people today use carriages but the necessity of carriage builders has not completely vanished. So too there are still a handful of listeners for whom analog and passive loudspeakers are preferred. But, fewer all the time, absent those who care less about music and more about nostalgia.

ChatGPT: That’s a compelling analogy. The carriage builders of high-end analog audio persist, but mostly for a clientele that values the craft and history as much as the sound itself. Meanwhile, digital continues refining itself to the point where its advantages—precision, flexibility, and convenience—become undeniable.
Do you think there’s a point where even the remaining analog purists will concede, or will there always be a small artisan market catering to them?

MLG: Because of the ubiquity of basic amplification elements such as integrated circuits, discrete amplifiers and vacuum tubes an outright concession would seem very unlikely.

ChatGPT: That makes sense. As long as those fundamental components remain available, there will always be a niche market for analog gear, even if it’s increasingly boutique. The romanticism of tubes, Class A circuits, and passive speakers ensures some level of continuity—though more as a craft than a technological frontier.
Do you think the future of high-end digital will still leave room for subjective tuning (like custom DAC filters, DSP profiles, or tailored harmonic distortion), or will it trend purely toward objective transparency?

MLG: Oh yes, for sure. Think of audio tuning as it were ice cream flavors. You need more than chocolate and vanilla. The diversity of perspectives, both on the part of listeners and design engineers, assures tuning diversity at least in the near future. Objective transparency in audio is an illusion. The continuum from creation to listening is too long and bumpy. Plus, no one really wants complete transparency. Listeners would neither recognize or enjoy it if they ever heard it.

ChatGPT: That’s a well-grounded perspective. Even the most "transparent" systems are ultimately shaped by choices—microphone placement, mastering EQ, room acoustics, and playback gear all leave their fingerprints. And at the end of the day, people don’t just want accuracy; they want something that feels right to them.
Are there particular DACs or active speaker designs you find strike the best balance between fidelity and engaging musicality?

MLG: Really, no. The most modest DACs of today (such as those in a tiny Apple Lightning dongle) are ridiculously good. Yes, I can heard their limitations. But, no, I don't care about them. They are, for the most part, good enough. Reviewing has gotten a bit dull because of this but music is more important to me than ever.

ChatGPT: That’s a refreshing take—when the gear becomes "good enough," the focus shifts back to the music itself. In a way, that’s the ultimate success of digital: reducing the barriers between the listener and the music.
Since reviewing has lost some of its spark, have you considered shifting your writing toward more music-focused content, or do you still find value in covering the finer nuances of modern digital playback?

MLG (but not to ChatGPT): No, the idea of covering finer nuances of modern digital playback mades me dread writing about audio. Why? Because those nuances simply aren't interesting to me. Of late (and maybe for always) TNT's focus seems to be on value oriented gear and I will join and applaud that focus for the rest of my reviewing days.

And, that brings me to the headphones I'm reviewing here. The Sony WH-CH720N (catchy name, no?) is significantly down market from their flagship, WH-1000XM5, but, they doubtlessly share some tech DNA.

What really got me excited (a little anyway) about the WH-CH720N (Geez, I love how that rolls off the tongue!) was the fact that the are very light. They are well over 100 grams lighter than my reference Bluetooth headphones, the venerable and somewhat polarizing Skullcandy Crusher Evo. I've had the Crushers for nearly four years and they've been a pleasure to own and listen to but they don't employ ANC. I have used my Sony Sony WF-1000XM4 (here our listening test) when I need isolation but they get a bit uncomfortable during long listening sessions.

Enter the WH-CH720N, in sexy blue, no less. They are very comfy and extremely light weight. If you associate light weight to a lack of durability, I can't help you. The Sonys seem well made and I am sure they would have lasted me for years, had I kept them.

The ANC is excellent though not quite to the level of the WF-1000XM4. But, did I mention how comfortable they are? So, what let them down? It wasn't the bass, that's for sure. Down low the WH-CH720N quick, nimble and extended. I was surprised to find that it was the midrange that let things down. The WH-CH720N tended to mask subtlety in the music's center. Who knows if this was brought on by design constraints about the headphone's voicing or is some effect of the ANC. The cause really doesn't matter since there's nothing that can be done about it.

But, if you're after pleasant, and there's nothing wrong with pleasant, there's a lot to like about the Sony WHCH720N. My guess is that it's only a matter of time before a pair of Bluetooth headphones costing about what the WH-CH720N cost will approach the sound of today's flagship, WH-1000XM5. I can't wait. But until then, I have to judge the Sony WH-CH720N not quite good enough.

Did you enjoy this article? You can support our free, advertising-free magazine with a small Paypal donation using the button below. Thank you!

DISCLAIMER. TNT-Audio is a 100% independent magazine that neither accepts advertising from companies nor requires readers to register or pay for subscriptions. If you wish, you can support our independent reviews via a PayPal donation. After publication of reviews, the authors do not retain samples other than on long-term loan for further evaluation or comparison with later-received gear. Hence, all contents are written free of any “editorial” or “advertising” influence, and all reviews in this publication, positive or negative, reflect the independent opinions of their respective authors. TNT-Audio will publish all manufacturer responses, subject to the reviewer's right to reply in turn.