[bsoplinger]

Are there any reviews of the differences between V1 and V2?

 

[HiFiChris]

Are there any reviews of the differences between V1 and V2?

Here you go: My review that mainly concentrates on the differences between the discontinued v1 and the v2:


Disclosure/fwiw: The Brainwavz B200 v2 that this very review is about was supplied to me complementary as a free review sample.

- - -

Even at its original introduction price of what I think was $199, the Brainwavz B200 offered excellent value for the money and an easy-going, smooth sound signature with just the right amount of warmth and relaxation to make it a natural sounding in-ear that is easy to the ears and didn’t show any tuning flaws. As a result, it quickly became a favourite of mine and still easily is at its price point, and since its MSRP was reduced even further, it became sort of a no-brainer and steal, at least in my opinion.
Yes, I have no issues with saying that I personally love the B200 and also rate it well on the technical side. Personally, I even prefer it over the technically slightly more proficient B400 that has a treble response that however appears a bit too soft for my preference, hence my personal choice of the B200 over the B400.

Since Brainwavz went from making injection-moulded in-ears to 3D-printing them with in-house devices, which was introduced with the B400, the B200 became revised as well and received 3D-printed shells, in addition to removable cables.

When I was offered a B200 v2 for review, I didn’t say no, a) because I love the original B200, and b) because I was interested to find out if the v2 sounds any different, even though Brainwavz claim that the sound tuning remains similar.

This is not going to be a full-length write-up, a) because I don’t include unnecessary full-length paragraphs and photos about the delivery content/unboxing experience or design anymore, and b) since I’m mainly aiming to focus on in what sound-related ways this sample of the B200 v2 differs from the original, injection-moulded B200 sample I have and love.

For more photos and info that show the in-ear’s design, specs and delivery content, you may refer to the manufacturer’s official product page: https://www.brainwavzaudio.com/collections/earphones/products/b200-dual-balanced-armature-earphones

To read my review of the now discontinued, injection-moulded Brainwavz B200, see here: https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/brainwavz-b200.22219/reviews#review-18657

The B200 v2 retails for $119.50 before taxes. Additional cables with higher flexibility and twisting or braiding are available from Brainwavz as well.

- - -

Obviously, the largest (visual) difference between the original B200 and the v2 are the cables that are now replaceable, as well as the “frosty”, semi-transparent and 3D-printed shells. However unlike the B400 whose shells are 3D-printed as well, the B200 isn’t available in different colours.

Shell-wise, the v2 is only marginally larger and bulkier than the original one and equally comfortable.

When it comes to build quality though, the original B200’s injection-moulded shells are of higher finishing quality compared to the new 3D-printed shells that don’t have the cleanest appearance and suffer from some visual gaps in the housing.
Noise isolation is slightly better on the original B200.


Sound – Similarities and Differences:

Used gear: FiiO Q5 (AM1 Module), my RME ADI-2 DAC

Brainwavz previously claimed that the sound remains untouched, however the redesigned shells might probably lead to some unexpected differences (coupling volume -> if vented woofer, tubing length & diameter & angle). Obviously I only have one sample of the original B200 and one sample of the B200 v2 on hand, so I can only comment on the specific differences that those particular two units have.



The good news is that the mids and highs on both are practically identical (with the v2 having a bit more level above 10 kHz, which I can confirm doing sine sweeps) and the slight differences one can see when measuring both in-ears and subtracting the results (as seen above) could be from normal variance between various units.

- - -

The differences however start with the sensitivity where the new B200 v2 is somewhat less sensitive than the older one and needs a higher volume setting in order to reach the same volume, not that it would really matter though since both are rather sensitive (efficient) in-ears.

The B200 v2 has got a bit less lower fundamental range/root warmth than the original B200, although both place voices on the fuller side, and quite equally so. Where they really differ though is the just mentioned lower fundamental range and the entire bass; everything below around 200 Hz to be exact, as the B200 v2 unfortunately rolls off towards the sub-bass – actually too much for in-ear levels.

The upper bass on the B200 v2 has got a less pronounced kick compared to the original B200, although this doesn’t mean that the v2 lacks it since it is still somewhat above neutral and can kick.

Continuing with the midbass, there is noticeably less fullness and slam going on in contrast to the original B200 whose midbass is quite rich, full and offers slam and warmth.
In absolute terms, most parts of the midbass portrayed by the B200 v2 are actually what one could consider neutral, however this is a bit of a contrast to the fundamental warmth hump, and as a result the B200 v2 features more warmth with very low voices and in the fundamental range and a somewhat more pronounced upper bass punch whereas the midbass falls a bit behind, although it is still there and with appropriately neutral levels, however too little compared to what’s above it.

Not all that much surprisingly, the low midbass sub-bass and actual sub-bass are represented with too little quantity – the B200 v2’s roll-off starts just too high and is too strong.

-

So yeah, the B200 v2 lack’s the original B200’s midbass and sub-bass density and richness as well as slam in these areas, and in absolute terms its sub-bass and low midbass are even below neutral levels, which is rather disappointing.

So if you don’t need any midbass slam and don’t mind having below-neutral levels of sub-bass (still audibly but definitely too quiet), the B200 v2 is okay since it does the rest very well and offers enough warmth in the low midrange and fundamental range. Just don’t really expect bass with it.
If you do however want mid- and sub-bass, which is the likelier case, you’re probably better off with a different in-ear (and there are several dynamic driver and even some BA (various single- and few dual-BA-) models around $100).
So while I easily recommend(ed) the (now unfortunately discontinued) original Brainwavz B200, the v2 doesn’t get a recommendation from me based on timbre – Brainwavz unfortunately just effed up when it comes to bass implementation with this one and didn’t manage to get a linear extension at least into the midbass.

- - -

Treble attack appears a little more direct and metallic (not really in a negative way) on the B200 v2 in comparison, however with similar details. The reason is simply because of the v2 being a bit more pronounced right above 10 kHz.

Midrange resolution is similar to me.

Very likely due to the rolling off bass on the v2, its lows appear subjectively tighter and cleaner compared to the original B200.

- - -

Both in-ears’ soundstages are of equal expansion and quality to my ears.


Conclusion:

There are several aspects about the new Brainwavz B200 v2 that are excellent: the mids, the highs, the resolution and soundstage, removable cables despite the price, great ergonomics, good and plenty accessories.
But then there are flaws such the average build quality/visual finish and especially that one timbre issue – the bass that starts to roll off just too early and too strongly for in-ear standards. There would be absolutely no complaint if the B200 v2 were earbuds, but that is obviously not the case. In-Ears have to fare better and extend better in the lows, and the B200 v2 unfortunately does not, in contrast to the discontinued B200 that did not.

•Tonality/Timbre: 2/ 3 [1 for each lows, mids, highs] (good mids and highs, but bass roll-off too early and strong for in-ear levels)
•Technical Performance/Resolution: 1.5/1.5 (great for the price with good speed, tightness, transients, micro details etc.)
•Build Quality, Accessories, Fit: 0.25/0.5 (good accessories and great fit, however mediocre build quality and average cable)
•••Total: 3.75/5

Despite the relatively good and quite high rating based on my actually private new rating standards displayed right above, I wouldn’t recommend the B200 v2 whereas the original B200 was an easy recommendation and still is a favourite of mine it its price range (hereby I’m by the way even referring to its original MSRP). The B200 v2 just appears like an incomplete product due to the light bass that starts to roll off too early for in-ear standards and is below neutral in quantity.

Applicable lesson: A product refreshment doesn’t automatically equal to progress and improvements in all areas.

 

[Moonstar]

Hi there,
Here are my short impression for the Brainwavz B200

The Brainwavz B200 is an In-Ear Monitor that is very comfortable and which shows a detail retrieval and realism above its price. The overall tonality and presentation will highly satisfy if you are listening mainly to genres such like jazz, metal, acoustic or blues, while you should look elsewhere if you are listening to more bass intensive genres like EDM, Trans or RNB.

The 24 month of warranty and the nice accessory package is also a nice addition.


Pros and Cons:

• + Detail retrieval and realism
• + Transparency and control
• + Comfortable fit
• + Nice accessory package
• + 24 Month of Warranty

• - Not an all-rounder
• - Subbass depth and extension
• - Nozzle is a bit small for tips rolling

Full Review:
https://moonstarreviews.net/brainwavz-b200-review/

Some Favourite Shots:

 

[suman134]

Here is my review of the B200

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/review/22316/

 

[jasonb]

I just got a B200 V2 and they are not what I expected at all. I'm actually a bit confused. To me they sound overly warm and mid-bassy and they don't have the mids or highs I was expecting. I was expecting no bass and all mids and highs, and that is not what I'm hearing at all.

 

[Brooko]

I just got a B200 V2 and they are not what I expected at all. I'm actually a bit confused. To me they sound overly warm and mid-bassy and they don't have the mids or highs I was expecting. I was expecting no bass and all mids and highs, and that is not what I'm hearing at all.

Maybe they changed them again after some of the critique. Mine are both audibly and measurably rolled off in the lower bass. The last thing I'd call them is warm.

 

[jasonb]

Maybe they changed them again after some of the critique. Mine are both audibly and measurably rolled off in the lower bass. The last thing I'd call them is warm.

Maybe. They are packaging them with a bluetooth neckband now as well, so maybe they also tuned them to sound more mainstream friendly. The sub-bass is still rolled off, but they definitely seem too warm and too mid bass heavy. Not what i was expecting at all. I sent Brainwavz an email. We'll see what they say.

 

[jasonb]

I just tried to sit down and listen to these again and they just don't sound good at all. My same feelings still stand. Overly warm and mid-bassy to the point it actually messes up male vocals really badly. They really aren't listenable to me at all.

From reviews of other people and from looking at graphs they should be bass light and extremely detailed and clear and that is not the case at all.

Even an HD650 whether properly amped or not still sounds way more clear and detailed and less warm and less mid-bassy. These sound like they are elevated down to about 80hz, then roll off. Mid-bass is elevated all the way into the mids which completely ruins male vocals making everything sound muffled and a bit honky. Treble seems smooth, but not very present, then rolled off early too. I'm not expecting these to sound better than an HD650, but I did not expect them to sound more bassy and more warm, and have less clarity and detail and so on.

They had to have changed the tuning or started using different drivers after all the reviews and frequency response graphs I've seen were made.

I also just recently got a Blon BL03 which of course have more and better sub-bass than the B200, but the B200 are even warmer sounding than the BL03 and have more mid-bass which just shouldn't be. I know the BL03 is a bit more of a Harman "V" shaped response but they just overall blow the B200 away everywhere in terms of clarity, detail, and top end extension.

I'm not sure what to do with this B200. I guess it's just $67 wasted.

 

[jasonb]

So Brainwavz believes that burn in is a real thing. They told me to burn them in for 40 to 60 hours to get their "natural sound". I'm doing so just to do as they ask, but I don't expect any difference.

 

[jasonb]

So they still sound bad to me after burning in for 2 whole days.

I stumbled across this graph and this is basically how i hear them. Not sure why people say that these sound good and detailed and all that.

 

[Brooko]

Thats a graph for the B2 V1. The ones I got were B2 V2. Are you sure you didn't get a V1 in error. The reviews and measurements I've seen - including my own - say the V2 is sub-bass light. Whoever is using the coupler to produce that graph doesn't have it adjusted to any standard either. Too much lower treble roll-off. My graphs can be found here : https://www.hear.reviews/2018/02/08/brainwavz-b200-v2-review/

 

[jasonb]

Thats a graph for the B2 V1. The ones I got were B2 V2. Are you sure you didn't get a V1 in error. The reviews and measurements I've seen - including my own - say the V2 is sub-bass light. Whoever is using the coupler to produce that graph doesn't have it adjusted to any standard either. Too much lower treble roll-off. My graphs can be found here : https://www.hear.reviews/2018/02/08/brainwavz-b200-v2-review/

The ones I have are definitely the V2. Removable cables and the clearish color. They sound nothing like the way people describe them or how your graph looks.

 

[fjf]

The B400 is also...not so good. Very bassy, the bass invades the medium frequencies and obscures them. Not a lot of clarity or separation capability. Heck, the Blon B03 is way better.

 

[jasonb]

The B400 is also...not so good. Very bassy, the bass invades the medium frequencies and obscures them. Not a lot of clarity or separation capability. Heck, the Blon B03 is way better.

That's actually the IEM I've been using lately, the BL03. I ordered a BL03 while impatiently waiting for the B200. I still expected to like the B200 as well though, but they sound like garbage.

 

[0stick]

...I still expected to like the B200 as well though, but they sound like garbage.

Just dropping in here to see if there is anyone else who has tried the "new" B200 that comes with the bluetooth cable.

Any additional comments or reviews about the sound of the currently available B200?

jasonb,
Is it possible that you received a defective pair? The reason for this assumption is the B200 has received fairly positive reviews in the past for its sound signature. The differences you mention sound like a significant change.