
Preamble:
Brainwavz Audio, who belong to the GPGSHK, are an internationally quite well-known company that manufactures in-ears, full-sized headphones and audio accessories (mainly holders and ear pads). All of the models have in common that they are in the affordable price range and that the company doesn’t carry any expensive products – even the higher-priced Brainwavz headphones are still in the very low three-digit Euro/Dollar range.
Quite some time has passed since there was a Brainwavz in-ear that cost more than $/€100. Back then it was the positively received B2, a dual-BA in-ear, that I however never got into my ears – when I wanted to buy it few years ago as an inexpensive backup in-ear as alternative to some of my more expensive multi-BA in-ears, the production had already stopped and there were no remainders anymore.
Now Brainwavz is giving it another shot and leaves the two-digit price range to enter the very low three-digit range. No, this review is not about a possible successor of the B2 (, however one new dual-BA as well as two single-BA in-ears have recently been presented in London and a reincarnation of the B2 is also supposed to be in the makes,) but concentrates on an in-ear that features a single dynamic driver per side and is called “M100” (
http://www.brainwavzaudio.com/products/brainwavz-m100-hifi-earphones).
The competition of dynamic driver in-ears in this price range is still quite steep and there are not only a few models that offer quite some sound quality for the asked price. Will the M100 be able to offer something unique to stand out and be something special?
Before I head over to my actual review, I want to take the time to personally say “thank you” to Brainwavz Audio’s Pandora who reached out to me and invited me to the review of the M100. I then received a free sample of it in exchange for my honest thoughts and a review.
Technical Specifications:
Price: $89.50
Drivers: dynamic, 8 mm
Impedance: 32 Ohms
Frequency Range: 12 Hz – 22 kHz
Remote & Microphone: 3 buttons (compatible with iOS and most Android devices)
Delivery Content:
My review sample didn’t arrive with a cardboard or plastic box, however with all accessories that are: the in-ears, a Velcro cable tie, a Brainwavz carrying case with the typical black and red colour scheme, a shirt clip, one pair of medium Comply Foam tips, two pairs of small silicone tips, two pairs of medium silicone tips and lastly two pairs of large silicone tips.

Looks, Feels, Build Quality:
The in-ears look quite simple and also somewhat elegant, however their design is not extraordinary or easily recognisable. They simply don’t stand out of the crowd and look just regular and easily forgettable.
The bodies are made of metal and black, with small Brainwavz logos and commendably large side-markers with a good colour contrast to find the correct side more easily.

The cable reminds me of Brainwavz’ M3 and some of SoundMAGIC’s models (it is twisted and then rubber-coated), however it is more flexible and less springy than those although it is not the most flexible cable I know either. Nonetheless, it appears extremely sturdy to me.
There is really good strain relief on all transitions except for directly above the y-split that also features a chin-slider that however doesn’t move easily. On the right hand side is a three-button remote control with a built-in microphone.

Comfort, Isolation:
Due to their shape, the in-ears can be inserted both normally and deeply. As it turned out later, the latter was better for the sound (at least in my case).
Comfort is good and the in-ears seal quickly in my ears.
It is possible to wear the M100 classically with the cables down but also with the cables being guided around the ears, which is my preferred method with all in-ears as it also reduces microphonics and makes the fit more secure. There is fortunately about no cable noise with this wearing style.
Isolation is better than average and is only beat by in-ears that have fully closed bodies (the M100 has got one vent per side).
Sound:
My main source devices during the weeks of listening and testing were my iBasso DX90, the Cowon Plenue M2, HiFime 9018d and last but not least my Chord Mojo plus Leckerton UHA-6S.MKII stack.
Just as advised, I have burnt the in-ears in for 150 hours using sine-, noise- and music-signals although I do not really believe in burn-in effects with headphones.
For listening, I used the included medium silicone tips for a pretty deep insertion so that the in-ears could not be seen if a person was standing face-to-face to me – I am usually in need for the largest size of ear tips for about any in-ear, however if I had used them with the M100 and normal insertion depth, you would have found me complaining about even more fogginess, bloom, un-precision and so on.
First and foremost: I have not a single problem with a bright, bassy, warm, v-shaped or mid-centric in-ear as long as the midrange remains overall not too affected and sounds more or less natural (there are many bassy, dark, warm or v-shaped in-ears that I really really like not to say even love). Then I can also like it subjectively although I always try to leave my personal preference out as much as possible and to stay objective. Unfortunately an unaffected and natural midrange is not really given with the M100. After some days and hours of exclusively listening to the Brainwavz, I also managed to adapt to its sound signature more or less in order to not dislike it completely on the subjective level, however my harsh criticism regarding its objective tuning and technical qualities didn’t really change.
Tonality:
The sound is bassy, full, warm and especially dark. Very dark to be precise, and there is not much treble to begin with. The tuning is like a downwards slope from the bass towards the treble with the quantity of a certain frequency decreasing the higher it climbs on the frequency ladder.
The sound is like everything was playing behind a very thick blanket; the lows bleed noticeably into the midrange and the treble is a good bit darker than what could even be remotely considered neutral or balanced with just a slight hint of darkness.
Taking the Etymotic ER-4S as a reference with its diffuse-field flat neutrality, the M100’s bass is a little more than 11 dB more present.
To my ears, listening to music and a sine generator, the lows’ emphasis starts anywhere around 900 Hz and then climbs up with the shape of a hump and is already quite full sounding between 200 and 300 Hz. It however continues climbing, although not by much, and reaches its climax a little below 100 Hz. To my ears, the bass doesn’t really lose presence towards the sub-bass.
It is an overall very full sound with a strong and warm root (fundamental range) that bleeds into the midrange a lot and makes vocals sound very thick and full.
Unfortunately the level continues decreasing between 1 and 2 kHz, which results in the midrange also to become dull.
The rest of the treble is noticeably in the background and very dark. To my ears it gains a little presence around 5 kHz where it is however still in the background. As for the rest of the highs, they are still audibly recessed. Cymbals sound quite muffled, too.
The good thing is that there are no sudden peaks and no sibilance at all, but the bad thing is that vocals don’t sound natural because of the lows bleeding into the lower and middle midrange by that much. I would have welcomed a warm signature, but this one appears just muffled and like the in-ears were playing through a thick blanket (associations that are circulating in my head are “being trapped in a sedan’s boot”, “old tube radio with very little treble presence and coloured mids”, “very old monitoring headphone from the time of World War II I was able to listen to in a museum” and “Koss Porta Pro with even darker and more blanket-like mids”).
This kind of sound signature really needs to suit your personal preferences that need to be a very warm and dark sound with very dark mids in order to being fully enjoyable. Yeah, it reminds me of an even darker and woollier Koss Porta Pro that I never found to be special either (not only because of its tonality).
For my preference of a more balanced sound and especially midrange (I could well live with the M100 if the vocal range war more natural and realistic), I would need to apply a heavy S-shaped EQ curve.

Resolution:
The amount of details is really not bad and it heads into a solid direction that is average for the price, however the M100 is definitely not special and gets beat by a good number of other similarly priced in-ears based on pure performance.
It is definitely not the fastest sounding in-ear and works better with slower than faster and busier recordings. While it doesn’t really sound confused or overpowered then, the lows lack some quality, details as well as tightness and sound somewhat dry/blunt. The bass is not really too slow and decays more or less reasonably fast, but it is quite soft in terms of attack and decay. Especially the lower midbass and sub-bass soften up more.
The amount of details in the midrange and treble is not too bad and about average. The safe and smooth tuning without any harshness or peaks can then even sound quite nice, nonetheless the M100 doesn’t have the best separation or refinement with busier recordings that are either faster or feature more tonal elements or musicians.
The combination of the tuning and the rather soft and mellow appearing driver is definitely not the most convincing pairing in my opinion.
I really could accept this with a $30 in-ear/headphone and likely also for one that costs $50, but around the $100 threshold, there are just so many other in-ears and headphones that do most things better than the M100 and also sound warm and/or dark, however their midrange appears natural which the M100’s does not. The pure performance, excluding the tonal tuning, is reasonable and average, but can also be found for around half of the price.
Soundstage:
To my ears, the M100 doesn’t have the widest nor the narrowest soundstage but seems rather average in terms of lateral expansion. Depth is almost as present as width and one can also imagine some layers, nonetheless there is no/only very little air or empty space around instruments and the overall presentation appears rather foggy, especially with tracks that contain more than just a few musicians.
---------
In Comparison with other In-Ears:

Side-note: I sometimes had to counter-check the technical differences by EQing the in-ears closer together which is usually not necessary. In case of the M100, it however was and was only done to bring the treble more forward and to make the midrange more natural to see whether it sounded more detailed then. It did to some degree but the technical basis didn’t change, so my following impressions regarding the resolution are mostly true for the equalized as well as pure sound of the M100 and its competitors.
Ostry KC06A:
Both are quite different and the KC06A (using the stock “treble” tips) sounds v-shaped however with less bass presence. Its midrange is a lot more realistic and tonally accurate.
The Ostry’s Bass is not the tightest either and a bit more on the softer side, nonetheless with higher speed, control and nimbleness than the Brainwavz’. I also see it somewhat ahead when it comes to midrange and treble refinement as well as details.
To my ears, the KC06A’s soundstage is somewhat wider and also a bit deeper, along with the more precisely placed and separated spatial cues.
DUNU Titan 3:
The DUNU sounds much more balanced and with the way its vent is sitting in my ears, it is also not bass-light (the harmony between my ear anatomy and the vent seems to be very good, as I am among the fewer people who find it to sound balanced and even instead of shouty, bass-light and thin which is the case if the vent is sitting too freely), however it has got considerably less bass than the M100. The DUNU’s midrange is tonally much more accurate and it has got a treble that is not too much on the brighter side but still a bit north of neutral.
The DUNU sounds more nimble, tighter and quicker in the bass and also better differentiated in the midrange and treble.
The soundstage of the Titan 3 is about as large as the M100’s but a bit better separated with more noticeable air and empty space between and around instruments.
Advanced AcousticWerkes Nebula One:
The Nebula One is a bassy in-ear too and has even got a bit more bass presence. However, its bottom end stays much better out of the mids that sound quite noticeably more natural, and even though its treble is more on the neutral to smoother side, it is quite a bit brighter than the M100 in comparison.
The AAW has got the tighter, faster and better controlled bass along with also the more refined appearing midrange and treble.
Both have got about the same soundstage size (depth and width) but the Nebula One’s appears somewhat better separated.
Fidue A65:
Out of all the other models I compared the M100 to, the A65 is the closest match when it comes to midrange and treble, but both are still quite a lot different here. The M100 is the noticeably bassier in-ear but keeps its level better into the lowest sub-bass. The A65 is also a dark sounding in-ear that does not sound unnatural though – its midrange is not unnatural, there is no bleed from the bass/root and voices don’t appear unnaturally sounded or coloured. Its treble is also inoffensive and dark as well as smooth but still quite a bit more present compared to the Brainwavz’.
The A65 has got the better controlled and tighter as well as faster and cleaner bass and sounds more differentiated in the midrange and treble.
The Brainwavz has got the larger soundstage whereas the one of the Fidue is quite small. In terms of precision and separation though, the A65 is very clean and razor-sharp whereas the M100 is foggier and with instruments that tend to bleed into each other.
Brainwavz M3:
The two sound quite different – the M3 is much more balanced, with just a slight v-shape north of neutral and much more realistic mids.
The M3’s bass, while it is not the tightest either, is still somewhat tighter and faster. The overall amount of details isn’t too much different, but I still see the M3 a bit ahead even if I EQ both to sound more comparable.
The M3’s stage is a little narrower but noticeably deeper in my ears and features the more precise instrument separation and layering.
Conclusion:
I wouldn’t generally call the M100 bad because there might still be people who find its tonality pleasant, but based on the very coloured and woolly tuning with an unnaturally fat as well as dark midrange and its technical qualities, I just don’t see it being worth its price. At half of it, I would not complain as much and see it around the level of the Koss Porta Pro that I would rate around 3.5 stars if I would ever convince myself to review it.
Some people might describe this sound signature as being “analogue”, and if you are into this tuning and like the Porta Pro’s tonality, you will likely also enjoy the M100. On the objective side that I try to concentrate to most however, it is just too coloured in the midrange and there are other in-ears that are technically superior for the same price and even less.
As days went by I quite managed to personally adapt to the sound and like it, which however didn’t change my opinion on the objective qualities that I feel are not so good. What’s for sure though is that this tuning is rather unique and isn’t found too often.