All products featured are independently chosen by us. However, SoundGuys may receive a commission on orders placed through its retail links. See our ethics statement.
@zesty_lumen_95 · Owner-reported
Owned 1–2 years · Still using it: no, stopped · Posted
The actual ear tips itself can wear down, and once they do, they are absolutely tedious to try and find a replacement for that fits for the earphones, and then will actually be snug fit to the case too.
Own it? Your note joins these
Three answers, four quick reads, one sentence nobody tells you before buying · About 2 minutes · No account needed · Photo optional
At 8.5, its noise cancelling beats 90% of wireless earbuds we've measured.
Measured on 93 of the 259 we've cataloged.
A 4.8 puts its audio quality in the top half of wireless earbuds we've measured.
Measured on 61 of the 259 we've cataloged.
Would buy it again; has stopped using it.
Owned 1–2 years.
above average for wireless earbuds — based on 241 of 259 we've cataloged.
below average for wireless earbuds — based on 239 of 259 we've cataloged.
IPX4 is the most common — on 36% of the 238 wireless earbuds we've cataloged (of 259).
Active is the most common — on 60% of the 176 wireless earbuds we've cataloged (of 259).
Objective measurements from the SoundGuys test lab — overlay other models to see how this one compares.
Measured frequency response (dB relative) against the SoundGuys Headphone Preference Curve. When the measurement goes above the dashed line, that frequency is louder than our preference curve, and when it goes below: it's quieter. Use the curve for comparison purposes only, as your taste may vary.
| Frequency (Hz) | Response (dB) |
|---|---|
| 20 | 2.4 |
| 25 | 4.2 |
| 32 | 5.5 |
| 40 | 6.1 |
| 50 | 5.9 |
| 63 | 5.0 |
| 80 | 3.7 |
| 100 | 2.3 |
| 125 | 1.0 |
| 160 | -0.4 |
| 200 | -0.8 |
| 250 | -1.9 |
| 315 | -2.8 |
| 400 | -5.0 |
| 500 | -4.8 |
| 630 | -2.6 |
| 800 | -0.9 |
| 1000 | 0.0 |
| 1250 | 0.9 |
| 1600 | 2.8 |
| 2000 | 5.0 |
| 2500 | 7.0 |
| 3150 | 7.8 |
| 4000 | 7.1 |
| 5000 | 5.3 |
| 6300 | 1.9 |
| 8000 | 0.5 |
| 10000 | -9.4 |
| 12500 | -0.2 |
| 16000 | -8.0 |
| 20000 | -9.3 |
Passive isolation (dB) with ANC off — how much ambient noise the fit blocks on its own. Higher on the chart means more attenuation.
| Frequency (Hz) | Attenuation (dB) |
|---|---|
| 21 | 13.8 |
| 26 | 10.1 |
| 33 | 9.7 |
| 41 | 9.8 |
| 52 | 9.9 |
| 65 | 10.2 |
| 82 | 11.2 |
| 103 | 10.8 |
| 130 | 10.0 |
| 163 | 7.0 |
| 205 | 14.0 |
| 259 | 12.5 |
| 325 | 15.1 |
| 410 | 17.5 |
| 516 | 12.8 |
| 613 | 12.9 |
| 772 | 19.2 |
| 972 | 24.3 |
| 1220 | 25.0 |
| 1540 | 26.6 |
| 1940 | 29.3 |
| 2440 | 31.1 |
| 3070 | 29.2 |
| 3870 | 28.3 |
| 4870 | 36.2 |
| 6130 | 38.0 |
| 7720 | 39.6 |
| 9720 | 40.8 |
| 12200 | 40.5 |
| 15400 | 40.3 |
| 19400 | 24.6 |
Total attenuation (dB) with ANC on — passive isolation plus active noise cancelling. Higher on the chart means more attenuation.
| Frequency (Hz) | Total attenuation (dB) |
|---|---|
| 21 | 17.9 |
| 26 | 20.5 |
| 33 | 21.2 |
| 41 | 24.4 |
| 52 | 24.0 |
| 65 | 28.8 |
| 82 | 31.1 |
| 103 | 27.9 |
| 130 | 23.6 |
| 163 | 16.0 |
| 205 | 28.3 |
| 259 | 21.4 |
| 325 | 20.7 |
| 410 | 19.6 |
| 516 | 18.3 |
| 613 | 18.3 |
| 772 | 27.9 |
| 972 | 28.4 |
| 1220 | 27.9 |
| 1540 | 28.4 |
| 1940 | 31.0 |
| 2440 | 32.8 |
| 3070 | 30.2 |
| 3870 | 29.6 |
| 4870 | 37.5 |
| 6130 | 38.8 |
| 7720 | 43.3 |
| 9720 | 40.0 |
| 12200 | 39.0 |
| 15400 | 37.8 |
| 19400 | 23.4 |
Multi-Dimensional Audio Quality Scores (1–5), modeled from the measured response. Higher is better across timbre, distortion, and immersiveness — add other models to see where this one lands.
The verdict
The Sony WF-C710N are a great mid-range wireless earbud option. Considering they cost half as much as premium wireless earbuds, the Sony WF-C710N are a good value.
✓Liked: Unique design, ANC, Comfortable fit
✕Could be better: No aptX or LDAC, Not a very secure fit
What a reader who owns the Sony WF-C710N reports after living with it. Owner-reported, checked before publishing; ordered photo-verified first, then newest.
Owner notes are not paid for, not solicited from specific owners, and not edited by us. The commission SoundGuys may earn on this page comes from retail links, never from notes.
1 owner note
Every author writes under a generated pseudonym. A signed-in author’s email is never shown. Read more · The reader says they own it. We have not seen proof, and we say so — no label here is proof of a purchase. Read more · Owned 1–2 years · Still using it: no, stopped · Posted
Would buy againThe actual ear tips itself can wear down, and once they do, they are absolutely tedious to try and find a replacement for that fits for the earphones, and then will actually be snug fit to the case too.
Video reviews and comparisons for this product.
Commentary and deep dives from the SoundGuys editorial team.
Chase BernathBrand & Partnerships ManagerThe Sony XM4C prove we don't need a new headphone model every yearSony's newest headphones aren't new at all, and that's kind of the point.
Adam BirneyManaging EditorI didn’t love the Sony 1000X The Collexion until I tried this settingSometimes the best upgrade is already hiding in the app.
Dave CarrVideo Producer/WriterClip-on earbuds fixed my biggest issue with open-earsClip-on earbuds offer a secure fit, better sound, and zero pressure.
Brady SnyderContributorI ditched my AirPods Pro 3 for Sony's WF-1000XM6 and only lasted a weekI thought the more expensive earbuds would win. I was wrong.Dave CarrVideo Producer/Writer3 headphones I would buy instead of the AirPods Max 2These premium headphones deliver class-leading ANC, longer battery life, and more flexibility for less money.Dave CarrVideo Producer/WriterSony somehow made the name of its new headphones even worseNobody knows what it means, but it's provocative.Adam BirneyManaging EditorHow long should your earbuds last? Our battery tests have the answerEarbuds don't last long, but how much is enough?
Christian ThomasEditor-at-large
1 of 1 would buy again
1 owner
Battery in real life — better than expected
0 of 1 would buy again
1 owner
Noise cancelling in the real world — worse than expected
