The Brianwavz S5 are made really nicely with good materials throughout - they’re made of metal, but are not heavy, tips are secure, but not too difficult to change, the cable doesn’t seem in any way vulnerable to damage, and the plug is of good quality too. I like the look of the design very much too. The range of tips supplied should mean everyone has an option that fits.
 
They fit very comfortably, the edges are not sharp - the edges of some iems touch my ears and irritate, there’s no such issue with these. The angled flat cables are designed to go over the ears and stay there well with no discomfort - they feel quite secure in my ears. The anti-tangle function of flat cables works. Noise isolation is better than average - they’re good iems for wearing out. Cable noise is no worse than average, better than many, but is significantly lessened with a cable clip which is not included. Brainwavz could consider including one.
 
These iems are easy to drive, and don’t need an amp. I can enjoy them through an iPod, it drives them fine, but they sound better through my iBasso DX90 (everything does), perhaps because of the better DAC more so than the more powerful amp.
 
I settled on using the supplied Comply tips, they fit best for me of those supplied, maximise isolation, and for my ears they provide the flattest sound (most equal volume level across a frequency sweep).
 
I used these tools to ascertain the flatness of the volume level across frequencies:
 
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html
 
http://www.audionotch.com/app/tune/
 
I found that with my ears and Comply tips these iems are really very flat to the extremes of my hearing (my hearing drops off at 15,500kHz, and extends down to around 20Hz). There is a very mild and un-spikey rise at around 3-4kHz, which is a little more pronounced with tips other than Comply, and which sounds fine, it’s common to numerous good iems. Speakers that are regarded as providing a ‘natural’ sound often drop off in bass more than the S5s do, and so there is a question over whether the bass is a little too much to be considered subjectively flat. It doesn’t trouble me - it doesn’t get in the way of listening to acoustic music, I’m not troubled by the level of bass when listening to orchestral music, for instance. I can enjoy bassy music with them without feeling that I’m missing anything, and they do respond well to increasing or decreasing bass with equalisation.
 
Listening to acoustic music they present the tonality of instruments and voices in a very nice, naturalistic way. They can sound full and lush. I don’t find I’m focussed on details in listening to these, and perhaps the S5s are not the most detail oriented iems, but that is not to say that there is an impression that anything is missing - detail oriented iems often provide that detail by emphasising certain frequencies rather than actually reproducing more information - but it may be that there is less detail presented than the best, I’d say in bass texture for instance, perhaps I’ve heard better elsewhere, although I can happily listen to the textured bass of an organ recital without feeling that I’m being robbed of detail, so it’s not a big problem if at all.
 
The S5s present a reasonable soundstage, I’m not self conscious of the sound seeming in my head, but it doesn’t generally provide a startling illusion of space. Instruments seem located quite nicely, with some layering. Chesky’s binaural sound show sounds great, so they can do the job nicely. They don’t present sound at any distance if it’s not in the recording. Music that is quite forward sounds quite forward, and exciting at that.
 
The price of the S5s at about $100 is great. If I wanted a good all rounder iem at a reasonable price I don’t think I could recommend a better choice. Sure there are iems within the price of these that do specific things better - bigger soundstage, or more detail for instance, but all seem to have downsides too - for instance being hard to drive, poor isolation or comfort, mediocre construction and so on. And whilst there are others that do some things better, everything is done well enough by the S5s that I don’t feel at all that I’m missing out when listening to them. 
 
I think that Brainwavz are onto a serious winner with these, and I hope they do really well with them.

The new iteration of the Brainwavz R3 is an intriguing earphone. They’re large earphones, each side containing two dynamic drivers in big pill shaped aluminium housings. They currently retail for about $115, or £80. They look like fit would be an issue in terms of the size of the housing, but in this respect they’re not a problem at all, they fit my ears but also my wife’s small ears. They are however a shallow fit earphone, and with limited play in terms of depth if insertion, which means the may be more difficult than most earphones to find the right tips for. They fit my wife with provided tips, but I had to go through quite a lot of my own tips before finding a double flange tip which provides a good seal for me, none of the provided tips fitted me except for . Choice is also limited in that you’ll want the widest bore tips you can get to work in order to complement and emphasise the spacious sound that they can produce. But once a fit was found, they’re effortlessly comfortable. Much more so than they appear. This iteration of the R3 differs from the first version in the design of the cable. This version has about three inches of memory cable to go over the ears, which then connect to a more regular rubber coated cable, which seems robust and works well enough, I wasn’t thinking about the cable much, so plainly this is an improvement on the earlier cable that led to consternation among some. The connectors seem tough, it seems like the cables will last. There’s not a great deal of noise transmitted through the cable, but adding a cable clip (not provided), makes the cable completely silent. The only minor niggle about the cable is that the connector between the memory cable and normal cable can touch my ears if I angle the earphones at 45 degrees rather than straight up, it’s not a problem for me, but if your ear shape dictated a different angle, it could be a minor issue. Isolation is moderate to good, there’s a limit to the isolation of any shallow insertion earphone, and considering this they’re good.
 
The R3s are moderately sensitive, and easy to drive, they sound quite nice out of an iPod, and can be driven loudly enough, although they certainly do sound better from my iBasso DX90 - they are forgiving of less than great equipment, but allow better equipment along the chain to sound better. 
 
What is really interesting though about these earphones is not the idiosyncratic design, but the sound they make. These are really very seductive sounding earphones. The sound can generally by considered very spacious and smooth. It’s been said before, and it’s true, that they have a kind of smoothness which is reminiscent of the orthodynamic sound. This alone is really loveable. tremendously loveable, albeit quite difficult to define in a precise way.
 
Using this tool: http://www.audionotch.com/app/tune/, and this tool: http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html, I was able to get a good sense of the frequency response. They’re generally quite flat - and this is borne out in that acoustic instruments and voices sound quite natural. Volume does gently roll off at top and bottom. A lot of people will find this very appealing, there is no semblance of treble harshness, and the bass is not intrusive. If you need big bass then these won’t be for you, but I’d be hard pressed to say that these aren’t good general purpose earphones, almost everything sounds very good, and nothing sounds bad. A few recordings of classical music give no great emphasis to treble in the mastering, and the slight roll off can leave them sounding a touch shy of ideal, and occasionally I realise that recordings don’t quite have a sense of energy that a more full treble and bass would provide, whilst still being enjoyable, but none the less. What is also lacking is anything remotely like an irritating spike in frequency which are so commonly heard in earphones of this price or less. The R3s don’t sound notably fast, but when I listen carefully, I’m not finding anything missing. It’s just not overemphatic in it’s presentation, this is a good thing.
 
Most earphones I would think about predominantly in terms of a lack of flaws - an earphone which lacks flaws is good. Whilst these are not really flawed earphones, they can’t really be judged in terms of a lack of flaws in that they provide something which registers as a positive - that seductive smooth quality. Part of the sound, perhaps contributing to the smooth sense, is a notably open, spacious sound, really much more open and spacious than you might expect from an earphone. The soundstage is not etched with precision - it doesn’t impose a hyperreal sense of instrument placement or layering, but placement and layering are there in a laid back way. And this sense of subtlety, of a sound that is highly seductive but not at all pushy about it, is characteristic of these earphones. These are earphones you can enjoy listening to for hours, they’re completely non fatiguing. They don’t demand your attention up front, but I’ve had so many moments when they’ve crept up on me to display incredibly beautiful moments in the music in a way that is not so common.
 
If you’re happy with nice but relatively modest treble and bass energy, if it’s OK to you that you may have to experiment with tips to get a good fit,  if you want a beautifully smooth and spacious sound which you can enjoy for ages at a time without fatigue, then these earphones may be just what you need in your life.