1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Introducing MAS Audio Science X5h Headphones and X5i Earbuds - Studio Monitor Performance

  1. Janjohnnn
    I'm really curious to see how this compares to the FH5. I love the tuning of the fh5 though i only wished for it to have a better imaging.
  2. tomscy2000
    Great! Being open and transparent is often the best attitude to take. Unfortunately, there are many audio companies that take on a prescriptive attitude of knowing what's best for people, but don't provide the evidence to support their claims. So I certainly hope MAS is willing to come forward and discuss in-depth all those features that are currently described in shiny buzzwords like 'Core Array Technology' on your website. I understand that a website is designed and written for a broad audience to understand, including those who don't care about audio. Likewise, Head-Fi is composed of a mix of beginners, dilettantes, and extremely experienced users --- the difference is that, on here, the experienced users often volunteer their knowledge to better involve and educate novices. So, the more that a company is able to explain technicalities about its products, the better time it will have in attracting a wide range of users on this forum. While a beginner might not understand how to interpret a raw, uncompensated frequency response plot off an IEC 60318-4 measurement rig or how phase shifts in crossover designs affect sound perception, the experienced user is there to fill in the gaps. So I encourage more information than is necessary, rather than less.

    We should hope so. My contention wasn't that the X5i isn't a brand new design --- from the blow up diagrams it looks clearly different from its predecessors. A well designed audio product, as you may well know, consists not only of technically proficient components, but also encompasses the subjective editorializing of the sound signature to meet the expectations of listeners. While speakers have a generally accepted set of metrics for performance, the headphone and in-ear world is far more variable. In-ears are complicated by resonances that develop within an occluded ear. One person's 'amazing clarity' is another's 'gnawing sibilance'. Personally, I would be interested in the kind of direction MAS took in adjusting these subjective sound variables.

    Fair enough --- that's not what I would've done, but I'm sure you have your considerations.
    Janjohnnn likes this.
  3. Ahmad313
    @64NOMIS please give us some more information about the sound signature of X5i and if it is possible share a FR graph here , thanks ,

    Any link to a review of X5i ,? I could not find a review of these ,
  4. Michael_B
    I have to admit, I'm a bit curious why you chose a straight earbud style in-ear design with mmcx connected cable coming straight down (or up for over ear). That's not typically the most comfortable or stable configuration IMO. I'm skeptical that you have a coherent design goal for the package. What do you see as your competition for these?
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2019
  5. gto88
    Yeah, same here.
    I have FH5 and would like to see comparison.
  6. davescleveland
    Hi all. So my initial impressions are that these are pretty good not great all arounders. The good: punchy bass with a good bit of rumble. Soundstage is nice and wide with above average depth. Guitars sound great so do kick drums. My issue is the vocals are very recessed and treble lacks clarity and sparkle. If you like rolled off treble, you may like. I find them veiled. The periodic be or the b stock one z1 are much better for the price. They are very comfy but tuned too commercially for my taste.
    Ahmad313 likes this.

Share This Page