What’s In The Box?

Look and Feel

The Audeze Maxwell weighs 450 grams and features a suspension headband to distribute the weight. The ear pads are soft with moderate clamping pressure, offering a snug fit. The button layout is intuitive, with precise and responsive controls. The detachable microphone and wireless functionality add to its modern appeal, despite its somewhat heavy and convoluted design.

In contrast, the Beyerdynamic MMX 300 Pro boasts high build quality with aluminum yokes and velour ear cushions. The clamping style might feel tight for some, but it ensures comfort during long gaming sessions. However, its wired design, non-detachable mic, and bulky cable system make it a bit more cumbersome compared to the Maxwell.

Design, Battery, Bluetooth, and Specs

The Maxwell impresses with an 80-hour battery life and quick charge capabilities. It connects seamlessly via a USB-C dongle or Bluetooth. The transparency mode and detachable boom mic deliver excellent clarity, and the 90mm planar driver ensures powerful and clean low-end reproduction. It supports high-resolution audio formats like LDAC, providing strong passive isolation even without active noise cancellation (ANC).

The MMX 300 Pro features the 45mm STELLAR.45 driver for studio-quality sound. It performs best on a PC due to the volume limitations of the 3.5mm connector. The cardioid condenser microphone provides clear chat audio, ideal for communication during gameplay.

Soundstage & Imaging

The Maxwell excels with its 3D Audio compatibility, offering an expansive and detailed soundstage that enhances the gaming experience by allowing precise pinpointing of sounds. This feature is particularly useful in competitive shooters.

The MMX 300 Pro delivers a realistic soundstage with a natural stereo field, suitable for both competitive and atmospheric gaming experiences. Its more natural soundstaging makes it versatile for both music and gaming.

Sound Impressions

The Maxwell features a V-shaped tuning, emphasizing the bass and treble while slightly recessing the mids. This results in thunderous sub-bass, crisp sound effects, and detailed imaging. I was deeply impressed with its ability to parse out layers of sound during busy moments in games. But while this tuning is excellent for gaming, it can feel unnatural for certain music genres.

The MMX 300 Pro offers a balanced bass response with a theatrical tone, enhancing the gaming experience with smooth and textured low frequencies. The midrange is clear and neutral, providing ample space for sound effects. The highs are subdued by Beyerdynamic’s standards, but overall, they add a tactile feel that provides traditional detail in a way that the Maxwell can’t.

Final Thoughts

Both the Audeze Maxwell and Beyerdynamic MMX 300 Pro offer excellent but different features. For gamers prioritizing 3D sound immersion and wireless convenience, the Maxwell is the better choice. However, the MMX 300 Pro is more versatile, performing well for both gaming and music. Ultimately, it’s great to see audio companies providing a range of gaming solutions to suit different preferences.

The Audeze Maxwell and Beyerdynamic MMX 300 Pro are available at Audio46. 

The post Beyerdynamic MMX 300 Pro vs Audeze Maxwell Comparison Review appeared first on Major HiFi.

What You Get

Look & Feel

The Pulse Elite takes on the aesthetic of the PS5, while the Maxwell has a chunkier, heavy-duty build. With the Maxwell, you get a sturdier design, with high-grade materials that appear more durable compared to the Elite. Both headphones give off a cool look, and I particularly like how they implement their boom mics. Wearing the Pulse Elite gives off a lighter feel compared to the Maxwell, but I prefer the isolation Audeze’s headphones give you. The Elite is comfortable, but sometimes the fit can feel a bit loose. I have one bit of gripe with the Maxwell though, and it’s the headband. The three-hole design is not one that I favor, especially compared to the Elite’s headband, which adjusts automatically.

Design

Sony’s Pulse Elite headphones adapt Audeze’s planar design principle, but information on the driver’s exact size is not made specific. However, we do know that the Maxwell has a 90mm driver, which is pretty sizable. I’ve heard some complaints about the Maxwell’s loudness quality, but after some firmware updates it’s gotten better. This is not a problem for the headphones when used over PlayStation, as they both output the same amount of volume. EQ controls can also be used through the PlayStation, but Audeze also has its own app called Audeze HQ.

Microphone Quality

This is one of the few areas where one headphone is outright better than the other and it would be hard to say otherwise. The Pulse Elite’s mic quality is very disappointing compared to the Maxwell. When I was testing the Pulse Elite for my review, I noted that my voice came across as boxy when chatting with my friends over Discord on the PlayStation. The Maxwell doesn’t have this issue, and while the voice quality still isn’t perfect, it’s way more clear than the Elite.

Bluetooth & Battery Life

There is a clear winner for battery life and that’s the Maxwell. It offers 80 hours of playtime compared to the Pulse Elite’s 30 hours. Both are appropriate for their price points though, and I never had a problem with the charge time of either of them. In terms of their wireless connection, both headphones are on a similar level. They both offer dongles that give you low-latency wireless connections that you can use with Bluetooth simultaneously.

Soundstage

I thought it would be fitting to directly compare the PlayStation version of the Maxwell to the Pulse Elite for obvious reasons and to see how they handle Tempest 3D audio with the PS5. Testing was also done on PC, but only the XBOX version allows you to use Dolby Atmos. Listening to the Maxwell in Dolby Atmos wields better results in terms of spatial performance. Still, since we’re comparing it with the Pulse Elite, it’s fairer to judge the soundstage based on how it functions with the PlayStation.

Even with these parameters set, the Maxwell still impresses me more with its soundstage than the Pulse Elite. While Sony’s headphone showcases better pure stereo dynamics than most of its other efforts, the Maxwell still outclasses it. No matter how it acts in 3D, you can still tell which headphone has the better soundstage based on stereo accuracy and depth. The Maxwell shows a better identity with specific effects and music through the left and right channels, enwrapping your head in an immersive sonic environment before you even activate spatial audio. The Pulse Elite should get some credit though for exercising breathability in the soundstage. It allows for sounds to also feel more localized in a specific place, but the Maxwell is more elegant with its imaging overall.

Listening to sounds whirl around you like wind or flames over the Maxwell has more movement behind it than the Pulse Elite. However, switching to 3D makes them more similar in terms of spaciousness. The Maxwell still retains its superior accuracy and width over the Pulse Elite, but the Pulse Elite has more of a hovering effect. In this case, the 3D audio might be more fun with the Pulse Elite as sounds are propelled into a more forward headspace. The Maxwell still has the better height and depth though, featuring a better scale to singular sound elements than the Pulse Elite.

Low End

I respect the level of balance that the Pulse Elite exhibits with its lows like the bass has restraint to it. This might not be what you’re looking for in a pair of gaming headphones, but it can make a difference in terms of clearer sound fidelity. Thankfully, you can boost the bass to your liking with the PlayStation’s EQ, which adds more presence and texture to the bass frequencies. With the Maxwell, the bass features greater impact and rumble throughout its sound signature. It slams down with a quick, thunderous vibration of tone. Surprisingly, the bass never gets out of control with this response. The Maxwell presents a sub-bass that makes all the difference, giving a pointed buzz to bass-heavy sound effects and instruments.

Mids

Both headphones exhibit a V-shaped sound profile. This is common for a lot of gaming headphones, but that doesn’t stop the Maxwell and Pulse Elite from showcasing better properties. This is thanks to their planar drivers, which make the mids come across a bit more transparently, but the Maxwell ends up with better balance than the Elite. You can hear a dip in energy when dialogue occurs over both headphones, but neither push sounds toward the background. I think the Pulse Elite just comes across as a hollower timbre overall compared to the Maxwell. When it’s time for both headphones to show excitement in the upper-mids, the Maxwell feels a lot more detailed. The Pulse Elite has some good energy to it here, but the resolution isn’t as clear.

Highs

While the Maxwell outdoes a lot of what the Pulse Elite can do in terms of fidelity, the highs appear surprisingly more lifelike. The Maxwell has solid crispness in its treble, but the timbre is more veiled than the Pulse Elite. It appears less believable than the Pulse Elite, which is more expressive in comparison. There’s more brightness to it, but the response rings out more and takes on a clearer shape than the Maxwell. It can be a bit peaky and forward, but I prefer its coloration over the colder high frequencies that the Maxwell presents.

Summary

Sony’s future gaming headsets have the opportunity to take more of what the Maxwell does right, but for now, both headphones still have their pros and cons. The Maxwell sounds like a great headphone in general, while it’s hard to find much use for the Pulse Elite outside of gaming on your PS5. The Elite does surprise me though, with its expressive highs, easy adjustability, and generous price point.

The Audeze Maxwell is available at Audio46, and the Sony PlayStation Pulse Elite is available from Sony here.

The post Sony PlayStation Pulse Elite Vs Audeze Maxwell Comparison Review appeared first on Major HiFi.

What You Get

Look & Feel

By far, the biggest change that the Unveiled made from the original is its grille-less design and magnetic veil. This has more advantages to its sound properties than it does to aesthetics or comfort. It also makes the Unveield a much more high-maintenance headphone than the original with its driver all but exposed. The original Susvara has a much more common open-back design that you can easily identify as part of HiFiMAN’s catalog. It’s also slightly larger than the Unveiled and feels it has a much stiffer frame. Both Susvaras are expertly crafted though, with a level of build quality that exemplifies the height of HiFiMAN’s design. If you’re worried about weight, the Unveiled is slightly lighter than the original, but both are still lightweight and comfortable with hardly any force that needs to be applied to obtain the best seal.

Design

With the original Susvara, HiFiMAN established their Stealth Magnet technology that’s been a part of most of their headphones since. These magnets are known for allowing acoustic waves to pass through them without generating interference. What the Unvield adds to this design is maximizing the space between those magnets within the diaphragm to increase precision and spatial properties. What will make the most difference though is what it takes to drive these headphones. The original Susvara is notoriously hard to drive, requiring a powerful amp to get to a comfortable level. With the Unveiled, a good amp is still recommended, but I find it a bit more versatile than the original. Usually, I wouldn’t use products like the Chord Mojo 2 or the Fiio K19 with the Susvara, but they power the Unveiled very efficiently.

Soundstage

Where these headphones intersect the most is in their soundstage and imaging. It’s extremely hard to compare their intricacies when both headphones are the best of their kind here. No other headphones can so effortlessly reproduce the exact positioning and graceful pan movement of each sound. The Susvara’s can communicate an incredible amount of stereo realism and breathability with every instrument and effect played through them. I can’t discern any significant differences between these two headphones and how they go about presenting their phenomenal soundstage and spatial imaging presentation. If anything, the Unveiled might have less height than the original due to its smoother treble which lessens the airiness that the original has. However, you can expect similar depth and layering with both Susvaras.

Low End

The bass frequencies have the most immediate clash in tone, bringing forth the most discernable difference between the two Susvaras. I would consider both headphones neutral in their timbre across almost the entirety of their frequency spectrums, but the Unveiled has more of a consistent warmth. There was a more apparent bloom of sub-bass and mid-bass texture that coated the frequency response, while still presenting its bass with the same amount of finesse as the original. Both headphones dive deep, but the foundation of the bass is slightly elevated with the Unveiled. Sometimes the specific amp combo you use with the original can offer you a similar response, but it feels more like a consistent tone with the Unveiled. This might not fit with the realism that the original Susvara is known for, but both headphones offer full bass clarity with neutral tuning.

Mids

It’s hard to find many elements of the midrange that one does better than the other. Both Susvaras showcase incredible transparency, with detailed instruments that feel like they’re put directly under a microscope. Again, they feature a strong neutral tuning, but the sound elements always have a clear body to them. I think the Unveild appears a bit lusher than the original, enunciating notes with a bit more strike to them. This could be seen as taking away some subtlety and articulation, but I feel like it enhances the experience for me. It offers a different flavor of tone compared to the original, which can be seen as lacking edge, especially with vocals.

Highs

Both Susvara’s are smooth and sparkly in their highs. They present easy-to-digest tones that never overly brighten the sound signature, but still keep its exquisite detail. I feel like the Unveiled might feature the most smoothness, as the original can still enter airy territory. The Unveiled brings the highs down to a more surface foundation while still featuring tons of depth. With the original, the highs have more of a crisp sheen to them that never exert any peaks. I can’t say which one I prefer, as glistening details exist with both Susvaras.

Summary

Comparing two of the most prestigious headphones in the audiophile market can be a daunting task, but the similarities and differences between the Susvaras became pretty clear to me. I always appreciated the original Susvara for its unbelievable realism and natural detail, but the Unveield feels a bit more expressive to me. The bass and mids give me something more to bite on than just standard neutrality and with the headphones being easier to drive, the sound signature has more of a consistency to it. That is what I can see people spending more on, as their current system might already be able to run it. This makes the original Susvara more of a potential investment that will match the price of the new one anyway.

The HiFiMAN Susvara and Susvara Unveiled are available at Audio46.

The post HiFiMAN Susvara Vs Susvara Unveiled Comparison Review appeared first on Major HiFi.

What You Get

Look & Feel

The Alba and Kato have spectacular designs that are based on their price points. They’re very different designs that both surpass what’s typical in that range. With that Kato, you have a few different color variations, like its glossy chrome, blue, and matte. The Alba only has its white color, but it’s still an eye-popping look that has the same sleekness that you’d expect from Meze. In terms of fit, both the Alba and Kato are very comfortable. You have a smaller housing with the Alba, and it sits in your ear a bit easier, but the Kato is also very ergonomic.

Design

These are both single-driver IEMs that are similarly sized, with the Kato featuring the most advanced configuration. The Kato utilizes a DLC diaphragm that has high rigidity and dampening. Both IEMs are very easy to drive, but the Alba is the only option that includes its own DAC/Amp dongle. This is a UBC-C dongle that is quite good and comes packaged with the Alba.

Soundstage

When it comes to Moondrop and Meze, you know you’re getting a good soundstage. Both IEMs offer superb depth for their respective prices. They offer a similar amount of width and scale to their sound signatures, with a full scope of sound to immerse yourself in. While they’re both winners here, they still have slightly different spatial characteristics. For instance, the Kato has an airier presentation to its imaging, while the Alba is more focused on precision and accuracy. They both accomplish non-linearity in their imaging, but the Alba appears like a truer stereo field than the Kato. If you’re looking for something more holographic, the Kato will feature more expanded layers, but the Alba feels more realistic.

Low End

Both IEMs have a tight bass response with good control. The Alba is a bit more concise in its low-end detail retrieval, resulting in a quicker response that feels like there’s more velocity behind the frequencies. The Kato is much smoother in comparison, terminating with a more apparent texture that fills out the tone. Like the soundstage though, the Alba and Kato have more similarities than not. They both feel similarly accurate in their response, both showcasing exceptional low-end clarity for the price.

Mids

While both the Alba and Kato feature great midrange details that surpass what most IEMs can do, they’re the most different from each other in terms of timbre. I was more surprised by just how rich the Kato is in the mids compared to the Alba, but that’s barely a knock against the latter. The Alba is very casual with its midrange tuning, and it allows for some dips in energy sometimes. However, this is never distracting, and the Alba is still able to provide roominess and specificity to the sound elements. The Kato is a bit livelier in comparison, mixing in more texture and musicality to its midrange response.

Highs

The Alba has the most feeling in its highs, providing a striking glisten in its upper region. With the Kato, you get some great crispness in the treble, but the way they appear in the mix is much softer than the Alba. You might get some better height on the Kato, but it’s a much airier presentation where the frequencies dissipate much quicker.

Summary

The Kato and Alba are both at the top of their class and have tons of value for what they are. They have the best designs for their price and feature different tunings that share tons of benefits. I don’t think one is truly better than the other, but your decision will depend on personal tastes. For instance, I prefer the precise soundstage and detailed bass and highs of the Alba, but the Kato is more crisp in its midrange and treble. Honestly, because these are relatively inexpensive IEMs, why not have both?

The Meze Alba and Moondrop Kato are available at Audio46.

The post Meze Alba Vs Moondrop Kato Comparison Review appeared first on Major HiFi.

What You Get

Look & Feel

What makes these headphones so alike on the outside is their wooden ear cup designs. These headphones use different kinds of wood, with the LTD combining maple, walnut, and mahogany, and the D9200 using Japanese bamboo. Both headphones use their wood housings to shape their respective tunings. The D9200 is slightly larger than the LTD, and it uses better materials for its frame. However, both headphones are very eye-catching and beautifully crafted. The LTD does have a slightly better seal compared to the D9200, but both fit comfortably for long listening hours.

Design

With its slightly bigger size, the D9200 uses a slightly bigger driver compared to the LTD. They’re both dynamic drivers, but the D9200 uses a special FreeEdge driver that uses Neodymium magnets. It features less of an impedance compared to the LTD, but you should be able to drive both headphones with the same amp.

Soundstage

Both headphones are pretty sensational when it comes to the soundstage and spatial imaging. These closed-back headphones bring open sensibilities to their closed designs, offering similarly spaced-out width and depth. While the LTD appears more purely stereo, the D9200 has a bit more airiness to its presentation, feeling more holographic as a result. However, they both have non-linear tendencies that keep the instruments and effects in specific positions through the left and right channels. To put it simply, the D9200 feels more spherical, while the LTD is a bit more like a wide oval. I can’t really say one is better than the other when they’re both delightfully spacious and immersive.

Low End

There’s a ton of intricacies in the bass of these headphones that give them tons of personality. If you’re looking for the most aggressive bass, the LTD will be more your style. It dominates most of the sound signature by pushing the low frequencies forward without creating much bleed which is impressive. The D9200 is similarly thick, but the tone is more dynamic. It has more delicate, smooth vibrations that are layered and engaging. These tones are thick, like the LTD, but the frequencies are stacked more articulately, adding a bit more shape and weight. The LTD is what you would want to listen to if you’re going for a profile with a more direct slam.

Mids

The LTD and D9200 are almost direct opposites here. This time, there’s dominance in the midrange with the D9200, while the LTD is the most relaxed and dynamic. It’s hard for me not to prefer the D9200 here though. The timbre is much richer than on the LTD, giving a greater presence to instruments and vocals. They’re both similarly grounded responses, but the D9200 is given a lot more life in comparison, with energetic performances that are consistently crystal clear.

Highs

While never too harsh, the D9200 is definitely the peakiest of the two. The LTD has the smoothest treble in comparison, with more favorable details that make it easier to listen to for most listeners. I tend to prefer a bit of brightness and sizzle from my headphones, and the D9200 fits the bill more than the LTD in that regard. The highs seem much more refined and crisp than the LTD, and it gives the frequencies more character. If you enjoy more height and tail in your high frequencies, you might prefer the D9200 over the LTD.

Summary

The D9200 and LTD share a wooden closed-back design, but they’re two very different headphones otherwise. Sonically, the LTD and D9200 have similar soundstages but are on opposite ends of the sound spectrum in terms of the bass, mids, and highs. This is what will drive your decision on which one you’ll prefer. These headphones being the same price should make that a bit easier for you, especially when they’re both exceptionally crafted.

The Audio-Technica ATH-WB LTD and Denon AH-D9200 are available at Audio46.

The post Audio-Technica ATH-WB LTD Vs Denon AH-D9200 Comparison Review appeared first on Major HiFi.

What You Get

Look & Feel

With these headphones, you’re getting what you paid for in terms of build quality. The LTD is going to be the most eye-catching of the two, with its combination of solid flame maple, walnut, and mahogany wood for its ear cups. It’s a much more elegant design than the E3, which appear more mechanical, but still well crafted. The E3 has bigger ear cups than LTD, and the pads encompass more of your head. It’s also lighter than the LTD, but I believe they’re equally as comfortable.

Design

The E3 and LTD have two different driver principles, with the E3 having planar driver, and the LTD having a 45mm dynamic driver. For the E3 an AMTS(Acoustic Metamaterial Tuning System) that helps regulate diffusion which the even higher-end Stealth also uses. The only thing special about the design of the LTD is its DLC diaphragm and high-performance magnetic circuit that interacts with the physical wooden housing to create special sound characteristics. In terms of what’s easier to drive, the LTD is less power hungry than the E3. I would still recommend some form of DAC/Amp for both headphones though.

Soundstage

The E3 made it a point to be indecipherable from an open-back headphone in terms of soundstage. While the LTD brings a close matchup, it can’t really beat the open headspace of the E3. With the LTD, you get a nice wide presentation, and everything will feel like it has a large scale to it, however, the E3 has a sphere-like display that is incredibly immersive. I can see some preferring the more standard stereo quality of the LTD to the more floaty elements of the E3 though, but the E3 is still more impressive in its separation and overall depth.

Low End

These are very different responses, mostly thanks to the E3’s dual-mode design. The LTD has a much more dominant and forward low end compared to the E3, but the E3 is more balanced. There’s more of a dynamic response from the bass, compared to the LTD’s darker aggression and boomy timbre. Bass-heads might strongly prefer the LTD for this quality, as its impact is much more substantial than the E3’s overall. If you prefer you bass frequencies with more revealing qualities, you might have a better time with the E3.

Mids

It’s easy to find the E3 more immediately satisfying in the midrange compared to the LTD.  The timbre is more lush, and it features more of a discernable shape compared to the LTD. Notes have a clearer attack and musical precision, however, there’s a natural quality to the LTD that you might find more enjoyable. Sometimes the region can be a lot more hollow in comparison, but a more relaxed and grounded tone might be more your style. If you’re looking for pure detail and liveliness though, the E3 will be your preferred sound profile.

Highs

In terms of what’s easier to digest, the LTD has a smoother treble compared to the E3. The LTD is a lot more relaxed than the E3, but the E3 features more detail and realism. There’s a crisper edge to the E3 that I prefer over the LTD, but the LTD still offers height and overall less pressure than the E3.

Summary

The E3 and LTD don’t share a ton of similarities in its sound and build, but they both offer something for certain types of listeners. For instance, I favor the E3 for its soundstage and midrange fidelity, but the LTD has my kind of bass. The treble is also more forgiving than the E3, which will definitely win over listeners that are sensitive to that region. If you find the E3’s highs more detailed though, it seems to be worth the extra money to invest in.

The Audio-Technica ATH-WB LTD and Dan Clark Audio E3 are available at Audio46.

The post Audio-Technica ATH-WB LTD Vs Dan Clark Audio E3 Comparison Review appeared first on Major HiFi.

What You Get

Look & Feel

It’s very hard to beat B&W when it comes to aesthetics. The PX7 S2e just looks so classy sitting next to any pair of headphones, let alone the M4U. You get a lot more striking color variations on the S2e, with the forest green and ocean blue being two of my favorites. The M4U only has black and brown, but for them, it’s less about the aesthetic and more about the gyro-action ear pads. This is one of the only advantages the M4U has over the S2e in terms of design. You can achieve a good seal with more flexibility, but the S2e isn’t any less comfortable in comparison.

Design & Functionality

You’ll find both headphones use 40mm dynamic drivers, but they use different diaphragms and components. The PX7 S2e has a bio-cellulose diaphragm, while the M4U has an ABS + Polycarbonate housing. Neither set of headphones gets particularly loud, but the M4U gives you a bit more headroom to play with than the S2e. Both of these headphones feature noise-canceling, with the S2e being slightly stronger than the M4U. They also both have companion apps, but they’re very different from each other. The S2e is much more simplistic, while the M4U has “RoomFeel,” and a personalized EQ that requires a hearing test. In terms of functionality, the only feature I prefer on the S2e is the wear sensor that automatically activates play/pause when you take the headphones off and put them back on.

Bluetooth & Battery Life

Neither the M4U nor S2e features anything too out of the ordinary in terms of Bluetooth capabilities. They both offer different kinds of aptX CODECs and have fast connections. You won’t see anything crazy in terms of battery life either, with the S2e giving you only five more hours of playtime than the M4U.

Soundstage

Both of these headphones showcase similar abilities in their soundstage and imaging. Neither headphone will give you the greatest width, but their stereo fields are completely intact. Everything will sound like it’s happening inside your head, but both headphones do a good job of articulating space and localization. Comparing the two results in more similarities than differences, but I feel separation is better on the PX7 S2e. There’s more blank space for the sound to play with, however, the M4U might have better depth with its more decipherable layers. The PX7 S2e feels more like the complete stereo image, but the M4U goes a bit further with its non-linearity, adding a bit more dimension to the sound.

Low End

Their respective EQ settings strongly impact the bass section of these headphones. With their natural tuning, you won’t find them lacking impact. They both have a thick tone that feels meaty and satisfying. There is a great texture to both of their sound signatures, with the PX7 S2e featuring the most bloom. The M4U appears more direct in comparison, but they both have balance and accuracy too. You might not get as much of a significant lift from the M4U without EQ or the personal sound test, which is a characteristic that comes naturally to the PX7 S2e.

Mids

You’ll find more fullness in the midrange with the M4U than you will with the PX7 S2e. That’s not to say that the PX7 S2e doesn’t have anything resembling fidelity in the mids. The M4U just provides a lot more weight to the frequencies compared to the S2e, giving notes a lot more definition. With the S2e, the mids have minimal gain but still take a clear shape in the frequency response. Both headphones treat musicality with realism, doing vocal performances great justice.

Highs

If you’re not looking for a treble extension, avoid both of these headphones. Both the M4U and S2e have crisp high frequencies that have bright textures. I don’t mind this response, and both headphones treat their high-frequency content well. Everything is easy to digest, making the sparkling timbre more enjoyable to listen to. The S2e feels the smoothest of the two, while the M4U has the most energetic sizzle, but I don’t find either response very tame.

Summary

The PSB M4U MK II and the Bowers and Wilkins PX7 S2e have similar sound signatures but are ultimately two very different sets of headphones. With the M4U, you get a much more complicated headphone due to its features, and that can work for and against it. You may prefer the simpler design of the S2e, with its superior functionality, ANC, and build quality. However, when it comes to sound, what you may prefer becomes more complex. I think I prefer the depth of the M4U overall, but the S2e isn’t far behind.

The Bowers & Wilkins PX7 S2e and PSB M4U MK II are available at Audio46.

The post Bowers & Wilkins PX7 S2e Vs PSB M4U MK II Comparison Review appeared first on Major HiFi.

What You Get

Sony’s offering is straightforward, while PSB includes a few additional accessories that might appeal to frequent travelers or those needing more versatile connectivity options.

Look and Feel

The PSB M4U8 MkII opts for a traditional, bulkier design. Its appearance doesn’t follow the sleek fashion trends of recent Bluetooth headphones. Instead, it prioritizes function over form with big switches for ANC, volume, playback controls, and Bluetooth. This design might seem cumbersome, but it’s highly practical. The gyro ear cups maximize comfort and sound quality, providing a great seal without feeling overly tight, unless worn for extended periods. This ensures that even during long listening sessions, the headphones remain comfortable and deliver consistent audio performance.

In contrast, the Sony WH-1000XM5 features a modern, sleek design that appeals to contemporary tastes. Sony went for a complete design overhaul for their 1000X series headphones on the XM5. With a sleek yoke design and a comfortable headband, Sony achieves a balance of style and durability. The XM5 employs fewer, more discrete buttons for power and toggling ambient mode/noise canceling mode. What sets the XM5 apart is its touch controls on the back of the ear cups, contributing to its stylish and less bulky appearance. This design choice allows the headphones to appear more sophisticated and streamlined.

Design and Functionality

Driving the sound of the M4U8 MkII is a 40mm dynamic driver within an ABS + Polycarbonate housing. Using this driver and “RoomFeel” technology, the PSB headphones aim to mimic high-quality speakers set up in a good-sounding room. This unique approach to sound design provides a rich and immersive audio experience. The M4U8 MkII also includes ANC, which can drive itself to loud, if not excessive levels. While the ANC performance is not the strongest in its class, it gets the job done for most environments. The PSB companion app offers EQ controls and a sound personalization test, allowing users to tailor the performance to their ears.

The XM5 retains the popular design and functionality features you’re used to from the Sony ecosystem. This includes ambient sound mode, multipoint connection, and top-notch adaptive ANC. The adaptive ANC adjusts based on your environment, significantly reducing ambient noise. The touch-sensitive controls and voice activation features enhance the user experience, though they do take a little getting used to. The XM5 is driven by a new 30mm driver with a thermoplastic polyurethane and carbon fiber dome, promising better ANC and sound performance, especially in high frequencies.

Bluetooth and Battery Life

The M4U8 MkII features robust Bluetooth connectivity, compatible with codecs like AAC and aptX HD. However, the battery life somewhat undermines the solid wireless features, maxing out at 25 hours with ANC off. This performance lags behind newer models, making it less competitive in terms of battery longevity.

The XM5, on the other hand, boasts an impressive 30-hour battery life with ANC turned on. This is a standout feature, especially for users who need long-lasting performance. In terms of wireless connectivity, the XM5 uses Bluetooth 5.2 and supports AAC, SBC, and LDAC. The inclusion of LDAC is welcome as it aims to provide higher quality audio. However, the lack of aptX compatibility might be a downside for some users.

Sound Quality

Soundstage and Imaging: The M4U8 MkII shines in imaging depth, providing a closed but immersive soundstage. Each sound element possesses dimension and presence, offering an intimate yet engulfing listening experience. The “RoomFeel” technology significantly enhances spatial accuracy, making it a highlight of the M4U8 MkII.

Sony’s 360 Reality Audio enhances the soundstage for supported tracks, offering an immersive experience. However, without spatial audio, the soundstage feels narrower. That said, the imaging is precise, making it easy to pinpoint sound elements within the mix. The XM5 provides a different but equally impressive auditory experience.

Low End: The M4U8 MkII offers balanced and textured bass, enhanced by sound personalization. The bass response is punchy without being exaggerated, adding warmth and depth without overwhelming other frequencies. This makes the PSB headphones appealing to audiophiles seeking quality over quantity in bass performance.

The XM5’s bass is powerful and gripping but can be boomy without EQ adjustments. However, there’s plenty of room for customization to reign it in. Compared to the M4U8 MkII, the bass is slower but louder with great impact. Bass enthusiasts might find the Sony headphones more satisfying in this regard.

Mids: The M4U8 MkII’s mids are detailed and well-defined, with clear vocals and a balanced sound. The midbass transition is smooth, allowing more space for the mids to breathe. This results in a Harman-like feel to the sound, providing an enjoyable listening experience without extensive EQ adjustments.

The XM5’s mids are clear but can be overshadowed by the bass. Male vocals sometimes lack prominence, but instruments and effects are well-balanced. The midrange is more transparent and textured than previous models, but compared to the M4U8 MkII, it doesn’t feel as sophisticated and well-tuned.

Top End: The M4U8 MkII’s highs are present with a nice sense of splash and sparkle. The treble is not overly bright but has a pleasant extension, topping off the frequency response nicely. The tuning of the M4U8 MkII is its greatest feature, offering a well-rounded sound that should be pleasing to audiophiles.

The XM5’s has improved highs compared to previous Sony iterations but aren’t as clear as the PSB’s. EQ adjustments can enhance the treble performance for a more suitable sound. While the highs on the Sony are good, they don’t quite match the refinement of the PSB headphones.

Final Thoughts

Overall, choosing between the Sony WH-1000XM5 and the PSB M4U8 MkII depends on your priorities. If you seek superior noise cancellation, long battery life, and a plethora of features, the Sony WH-1000XM5 is the better option. It offers a modern design, touch controls, and advanced adaptive ANC, making it a top choice for tech enthusiasts and frequent travelers.

However, if sound quality and personalization are your primary concerns, the PSB M4U8 MkII offers a compelling alternative. With its unique “RoomFeel” technology, balanced sound signature, and detailed mids, the M4U8 MkII is ideal for audiophiles seeking an immersive and customizable audio experience. While it might lack some of the advanced features of the Sony, its focus on delivering high-quality sound makes it a promising choice in its price range.

The PSB M4U8 MkII and Sony WH-1000XM5 are available at Audio46. 

The post PSB M4U8 MkII vs Sony WH-1000XM5 Comparison Review appeared first on Major HiFi.

What You Get

Look & Feel

The biggest difference these two IEMs have in design is the presence of the APEX modules on the U4s. You get a much plainer look on the Aspire 4 in comparison, which is also a downgrade when it comes to aesthetics. The U4s are more flashy with their aluminum shell finish and faceplate. In terms of fit, the Aspire 4 feels lighter but the seal isn’t as strong as the U4s. Both IEMs are still pretty comfortable to wear though, especially with foam tips.

Design

Both IEMs feature hybrid driver configurations comprised of dynamic and balanced armature units. The main difference between the two is the U4s’ tia driver, which relegates high frequencies. They can both be driven be any headphone output, but the Aspire doesn’t use he same cable as the U4s. It’s a proprietary cable that you can’t upgrade yet.

Soundstage

Both of these IEMs present different types of soundstages. In terms of pure stereo ability, the U4s are superior to the Aspire 4. It’s much wider and communicates more definitive movement from the left and right channels. The advantage of the Aspire 4 is its depth, stacking sound elements in a more holographic stereo environment. It displays sounds with a similar amount of dimension compared to the U4s, but the Aspire’s more enclosed space makes this more apparent. I prefer the way the U4s present their sound due to their better communication of height and height, but the Aspire has more articulate layering, with instruments appearing forward and backward around your head.

Low End

The bass is one of the best features of both of these IEMs. They have different styles of tone that complement their sound signature, especially the U4s which has more customizability with its APEX modules. The Aspire 4 doesn’t have that luxury but still comes across as smooth and detailed. You’re going to get a more accentuated mid-bass with the U4s, but the sub-bass takes more of a backseat no matter which module you have in. The Aspire 4 is more balanced and gives its bass frequencies more even gain. If you prefer warmth though, the U4s will supply that timbre, and the Aspire 4 will sound tighter in comparison.

Mids

With the Aspire 4, the mids act as a critical reference to use as monitors, but the U4s come off more naturally than them. It puts more emphasis on notes and overall appears more musical than what the Aspire has to offer. The Aspire 4, despite being mostly flat, has more noticeable dips and peaks than the U4s. This makes the dynamics of the mids a lot more wild on the Aspire 4, but there’s still roominess and detail spread out across its response. I much prefer the delicateness of the midrange with the U4s.

Highs

The Aspire 4 and U4s are very similar in how they color the high frequencies. They both feature a similar transparency and sharpness, but the U4s handle it much more elegantly. With the Aspire 4, the highs are very bright and can be a bit peaky compared to the lighter U4s. More texture and flavor are gathered from the U4s, while the Aspire 4 just seems more resonant and clicky.

Summary

After this comparison, I much prefer the U4s over the Aspire 4. Even though I appreciate its depth and bass clarity, the Aspire 4 is way more limited in its sonic capabilities compared to the U4s. Its price and professional focus might be what will sell you more on them though, which is completely reasonable. However, I don’t think you can beat 64 Audio’s premium line of IEMs. From its sound to its build, these are still the ideal line of audiophile IEMs, and the Aspire 4 doesn’t exactly fit with them.

The 64 Audio Aspire 4 and U4s are available at Audio46.

The post 64 Audio Aspire 4 Vs U4s Comparison Review appeared first on Major HiFi.

What You Get

Look & Feel

Both of these headphones have all-black plastic builds that aren’t exactly eye-catching. The ULT WEAR has bigger ear cups than the Accentum Plus, so it might be more comfortable if you have bigger ears. Neither pair of headphones should be that uncomfortable though, as they have the same seal.

Design & Functionality

The drivers in the ULT WEAR are slightly bigger than the Accentum Plus, but the Accentum Plus angles its drivers to increase its soundstage properties more naturally. However, if you prefer the characteristics of spatial audio, then the ULT WEAR will offer that. The ULT WEAR also outclasses the Accentum Plus is noise-canceling, which shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s heard a pair of Sony headphones before. I also prefer how the touch gestures respond on the ULT WEAR compared to the Accentum Plus. It’s just sensitive enough to be responsive, but the Accentum takes a bit more delay in between actions. They both have their own companion apps with similar features like EQ. The biggest advantage the Accentum Plus has over the ULT WEAR in terms of design is its MEMs microphones that will give it better call clarity.

Bluetooth

Both headphones support Bluetooth 5.2 and will pair quickly. The ULT WEAR is the only one of the two that features LDAC, but the Accentum Plus gives you aptX Adaptive.

Battery Life

The Accentum Plus is the clear winner here, as it sustains a fifty-hour battery life. With the ULT WEAR, you get 30 hours, which is still respectable for the price, but the Accentum Plus far outclasses it.

Soundstage

While the ULT WEAR sports a good soundstage for what it’s worth, the Accentum Plus goes a step further. Sennheiser headphones tend to give you a wide stereo scope from left to right, and while the ULT WEAR also features this the Accetum uses its width to greater effect. Its slightly angled drivers add a lot of depth to the sonic environment it portrays. You can get a sensation similar to the ULT WEAR, but you would need to use it in 360 mode, which might not be available to you.

The way the Accemtum uses its imaging feels more natural and accurate than the ULT WEAR. It’s not significantly worse in comparison, especially when the extra bass features are switched off, but there’s much clearer space between sounds on the Accentum Plus. This gives the stereo image more depth, and it feels more engrossing to listen to overall.

Low End

If the soundstage is one of the most engrossing aspects of the Accentum Plus, then the bass is the ULT WEAR’s. The whole sound signature of the ULT WEAR is built around this, and it succeeds magnificently. You get a completely different flavor with Accentum Plus. It also drives enough bass frequencies to feel significant, but it obviously won’t reach the scale that the ULT WEAR offers. This is even without the ULT WEAR’s “ULT” bottom active. You can mess around with both of these headphones with EQ, but the ULT WEAR will always come across with this cinematic slam. If that’s not your style, then the Accentum Plus will bring more separation and clarity to its bass.

Mids

Neither the ULT WEAR nor the Accentum Plus have a particularly elegant midrange. Of course, the ULT WEAR is going to be very low-mid dominant and will be more bloated than the Accentum Plus. However, the Accentum Plus doesn’t offer anything that much more exciting in comparison. There’s more weight to certain instruments on the ULT WEAR, but neither headphone carries much detail. They’re both relatively inoffensive for what they are, just don’t expect the mids to be the focus of either of these headphones.

Highs

The Accentum Plus is much stronger in the highs than the ULT WEAR. There’s a much clearer sheen of detail there compared to the ULT WEAR. The ULT WEAR isn’t dull, but there’s a hard barrier that limits the height it can reach. You get a much more colorful spark of energy to the highs in the Accentum Plus, and it completes the sound signature more satisfyingly than the ULT WEAR does.

Summary

There are a ton of great advantages to both headphones, but it comes down to sound and ANC. The ULT WEAR wins in noise-canceling and bass, which nearly all Sony headphones have in common. I prefer the Accentum Plus for its natural soundstage and more expressive highs, but with that said I can see that not being enough to warrant the purchase over the ULT WEAR. The ULT WEAR is just a ton of fun to listen to and for wireless headphones for less than two hundred dollars that might be the deal-breaker. However, the Accentum Plus’ battery life and MEMs microphones might be more valuable to you if you plan on using your headphones for more than just listening to music.

The Sony ULT WEAR and the Sennheiser Accentum Plus are available at Audio46.

The post Sony ULT Wear Vs Sennheiser Accentum Plus Comparison Review appeared first on Major HiFi.