Reviews by inventionlws
Disclaimer
This unit is a loaner provide by Westone Audio as part of the US-launch Tour. I am not paid for the review and all thoughts and opinions are my own.
Test conditions
All listening is done by the black stock silicone tip, which fits best for me personally. Source equipment is the apple lightning to 3.5 mm jack dongle driven by iPhone 12 pro max. I compared between the apple dongle and my Hifiman HM802 DAP with Rongyao discrete balanced amp card from the single ended output. The difference is small and will not affect the overall sound signature and the technicality of the earphone themselves. Generally, with a higher power output from the DAP or an amp, I can sense that the bass is a bit tighter and more dynamic but SPL is the same with the apple dongle.
Personal preference and music genres I listen to
I prefer a natural balanced sound signature. I dislike overly forward ear gain region (~3-4 kHz) and lean midrange. I dislike treble grain and mid treble peaks. I listen primarily to rock and metal, occasionally hip-hop and pop.
Ergonomic and sound isolation
The IEM body as well as the cable are lightweight. The shell is ergonomically designed and quite small, but slightly larger than the old W-series. The nozzle diameter is 2-3 mm, the classical Westone/Shure size, so it should fit a wide range of people, especially with the wide range of tip sizes that Westone provides for all of their IEMs. I have to say I respect Westone and Shure for keeping the nozzle diameter thin for comfort reasons, knowing that it is more difficult to get good treble extension with this nozzle size and difficult to use different dampers for individual frequency ranges. Wearing comfort-wise it is definitely above average. The thin nozzle ensures that the radial pressure on the ear canal is small. However, it is not as comfy as the old W-series due to the larger size. It is also less comfy than the Dunu SA6 which has a pseudo custom shell design.
The Mach series all use a fully-sealed all BA design, so the sound isolation is excellent. When using foam tips, the isolation can be better than the silicone tips.
Sound impressions
Overall sound signature and impression:
Perceived neutral flat. Ethereal and lightweight sounding. A bit bland and “boring” as be expected with a neutral tuning. But hearing pass the sound signature I can sense very good details. Treble is present, smooth and pretty extended, with no graininess, leading to an wide and open soundstage. Midrange is tonally correct, it is neither forward and distant. Also not dry sounding. Overall sound signature reminds of the Audeze LCD-X 2021 edition, but with less bass impact and a bit more forward presence region and a bit less upper treble.
Bass:
Fast clean BA bass. Speed, extension and clarity is excellent. Being not boosted much, the bass level may sound a bit light. Also, due to the fast BA nature, the bass is not very weighty. A planar headphone with a similar linear bass typically have more impact. Bass is tighter and faster than the Mach 50 but the bass quantity is lower. Personally, I would prefer a slightly more boosted bass for the contemporary genres that I primarily listen. But for classical and jazz, I find the bass to be sufficient. The absence of the Harman bass shelf leads to a more tightness of the bass and more bass definition.
Midrange:
The overall midrange is pretty neutral. It is neither too forward and too distant. It is less forward than Mach 50 and slightly leaner, but still natural sounding. Compared with W80, the upper midrange is the biggest departure. Westone finally incorporates a quite standard ear gain in the presence region! For the uninitiated, the previous flagship W80 has quite a big dip in the ear gain region (~3 kHz) relative to the Harman target. The dip actually leads to some benefits to the sound, in my opinion: first, it avoids the upper midrange to sound shouty and fatiguing given that the bass is not boosted, leading to a low-fatigue listen; second, it fakes a wider soundstage; third, it leads to a fuller and slightly bloomy lower midrange and more present mid/upper treble, resulting in more of a fun sound. However, there is no free lunch: the tonal correctness is quite a bit compromised due to the 3 kHz dip. Sometimes the distorted electric guitar sounds too rounded and lost the mix. Clean guitar tone sometimes sounds not brilliant enough and vocals, especially female vocals is a bit too smooth sounding and not edgy enough. The sonic imaging is also less defined and sometimes fuzzy.
The Mach 80 basically fills the dip of the W80 at ~3 kHz and is quite a bit more present there, somewhat in-line with the Harman target. This leads to a more correct tonal balance between upper midrange and lower midrange, and gives more definition to vocal and distorted guitar. The balance between the midrange and the treble is also improved partly due to this. For example, the cymbal crash now sound more realistic, with less exaggerated mid/upper harmonics compared with the W80. The imaging also improves quite a bit. What is impressive to me is that the midrange is still not shouty and fatiguing. While not as wet sounding that the W80, the sound is not dry. I guess this is because the 4kHz region is still conservative, avoiding the sound to be overly sharp and fatiguing. Adele’s vocal, which trigger my fatigue easily when the headphone is too forward and dry, sounds fine on the MACH 80 with sufficient thickness and warmth.
Treble:
There is no obvious treble grain and treble peaks. Pretty well done. It sounds more extended than Mach 50 with more air and articulation. Cymbal crash has natural decay and sparkles. Soundstage is open and wide. The treble has a certain similarity with the W80-v3, but upon careful comparison, it seems that the treble of the MACH 80 is slightly smoother, perhaps due to its better balance with the upper midrange (~3-4 k), so the upper harmonic of cymbals sounds less exaggerated than with the W80 as I mentioned before. Stick impact is very well defined. This is the best treble presentation I’ve heard from an IEM with a 2-3 mm thin nozzle.
Comparisons
vs Campfire Audio Andromeda 2019: Andro is more U shaped with more bass and more treble. Treble extension and sparkle seems slightly better with Andro, likely due to the spoutless BA tweeters. But Mach 80 is quite close, which is impressive given that the treble is original Andro’s bread and butter. The Mach 80 does not have the exaggerate 7-9 kHz from Andro so the harmonic of the cymbal is more realistic. The midrange is more present and less hazy with the Mach 80, due to the more standard ear gain that Mach 80 has and its leaner bass. Imaging is better with Mach 80. Soundstage is wider with Andro likely due to the U-shaped tuning. Technicality-wise, I would say Andro is slightly ahead considering the treble, but Andro loses out on the amount of information and clarity of the midrange that Mach 80 provides.
vs Westone W80 v3: Mach 80 is more neutral sounding, has more information in the upper midrange. Treble is perceived slightly smoother with Mach 80 and bass is tighter, likely associated with the filled upper midrange. Imaging is clearly better with Mach 80. But W80 is more fun and has the juicy wet mid-range that is quite comfy sounding. W80 vs Mach 80 is like emotional vs rational. Technicality-wise, Mach 80 is better due to the more resolving upper midrange.
vs DUNU SA6: SA6 has a leaner midrange than the Mach 80. But due to bass-shelf that the SA6 has, the leaner midrange does not result in dryness. The treble smoothness and extension is clearly better with the Mach 80, leading to more perceived resolution. So, technicality-wise, Mach 80 is better. Tuning-wise, my preference goes to SA6 for contemporary music as I think the bass-shelf goes well with the Harman-like ear gain, leading to a fuller and wetter sound.
vs Westone Mach 50: Mach 50 has a warm mid-centric tuning. Mach 80’s bass and midrange is slightly leaner, and the treble is quite a bit brighter with better extension and air. The ear gain around 3 kHz is more pronounced in the Mach 80, but the 4kHz range less forward sounding. Combined with the less forward midrange and the slightly pulled back 4kHz, the Mach 80 is less fatiguing that the Mach 50 in long listening session, but is also less engaging and less fun that the Mach 50. Technicality-wise, Mach 80 is of course better.
Conclusions
Neutral flat tuning with full BA set up is very hard to execute well and Westone Audio has done just that with the Mach 80. Without the masking effect of a boosted bass, any flaw of the midrange and treble is easily revealed. Yet, the treble of the Mach 80 has very good smoothness and definition, without noticeable harshness and graininess. Compared with the previous flagship the W80, Mach 80 manages to extract more information out of a 8-BA set up and filled in the 3 kHz recession, resulting in a significantly better tonal accuracy and better imaging. While I would personally prefer a bit more bass and slightly less ear gain for some more fun, I respect the tuning choice and can see it excel in serious musical genres like classical and jazz, not to mention for monitoring purposes. This is easily the most technical IEM I’ve heard that still use the ergonomically important thin nozzles, a dedication I very much respect out of Westone Audio.
Side-by-side comparison with Westone W80 v3
This unit is a loaner provide by Westone Audio as part of the US-launch Tour. I am not paid for the review and all thoughts and opinions are my own.
Test conditions
All listening is done by the black stock silicone tip, which fits best for me personally. Source equipment is the apple lightning to 3.5 mm jack dongle driven by iPhone 12 pro max. I compared between the apple dongle and my Hifiman HM802 DAP with Rongyao discrete balanced amp card from the single ended output. The difference is small and will not affect the overall sound signature and the technicality of the earphone themselves. Generally, with a higher power output from the DAP or an amp, I can sense that the bass is a bit tighter and more dynamic but SPL is the same with the apple dongle.
Personal preference and music genres I listen to
I prefer a natural balanced sound signature. I dislike overly forward ear gain region (~3-4 kHz) and lean midrange. I dislike treble grain and mid treble peaks. I listen primarily to rock and metal, occasionally hip-hop and pop.
Ergonomic and sound isolation
The IEM body as well as the cable are lightweight. The shell is ergonomically designed and quite small, but slightly larger than the old W-series. The nozzle diameter is 2-3 mm, the classical Westone/Shure size, so it should fit a wide range of people, especially with the wide range of tip sizes that Westone provides for all of their IEMs. I have to say I respect Westone and Shure for keeping the nozzle diameter thin for comfort reasons, knowing that it is more difficult to get good treble extension with this nozzle size and difficult to use different dampers for individual frequency ranges. Wearing comfort-wise it is definitely above average. The thin nozzle ensures that the radial pressure on the ear canal is small. However, it is not as comfy as the old W-series due to the larger size. It is also less comfy than the Dunu SA6 which has a pseudo custom shell design.
The Mach series all use a fully-sealed all BA design, so the sound isolation is excellent. When using foam tips, the isolation can be better than the silicone tips.
Sound impressions
Overall sound signature and impression:
Perceived neutral flat. Ethereal and lightweight sounding. A bit bland and “boring” as be expected with a neutral tuning. But hearing pass the sound signature I can sense very good details. Treble is present, smooth and pretty extended, with no graininess, leading to an wide and open soundstage. Midrange is tonally correct, it is neither forward and distant. Also not dry sounding. Overall sound signature reminds of the Audeze LCD-X 2021 edition, but with less bass impact and a bit more forward presence region and a bit less upper treble.
Bass:
Fast clean BA bass. Speed, extension and clarity is excellent. Being not boosted much, the bass level may sound a bit light. Also, due to the fast BA nature, the bass is not very weighty. A planar headphone with a similar linear bass typically have more impact. Bass is tighter and faster than the Mach 50 but the bass quantity is lower. Personally, I would prefer a slightly more boosted bass for the contemporary genres that I primarily listen. But for classical and jazz, I find the bass to be sufficient. The absence of the Harman bass shelf leads to a more tightness of the bass and more bass definition.
Midrange:
The overall midrange is pretty neutral. It is neither too forward and too distant. It is less forward than Mach 50 and slightly leaner, but still natural sounding. Compared with W80, the upper midrange is the biggest departure. Westone finally incorporates a quite standard ear gain in the presence region! For the uninitiated, the previous flagship W80 has quite a big dip in the ear gain region (~3 kHz) relative to the Harman target. The dip actually leads to some benefits to the sound, in my opinion: first, it avoids the upper midrange to sound shouty and fatiguing given that the bass is not boosted, leading to a low-fatigue listen; second, it fakes a wider soundstage; third, it leads to a fuller and slightly bloomy lower midrange and more present mid/upper treble, resulting in more of a fun sound. However, there is no free lunch: the tonal correctness is quite a bit compromised due to the 3 kHz dip. Sometimes the distorted electric guitar sounds too rounded and lost the mix. Clean guitar tone sometimes sounds not brilliant enough and vocals, especially female vocals is a bit too smooth sounding and not edgy enough. The sonic imaging is also less defined and sometimes fuzzy.
The Mach 80 basically fills the dip of the W80 at ~3 kHz and is quite a bit more present there, somewhat in-line with the Harman target. This leads to a more correct tonal balance between upper midrange and lower midrange, and gives more definition to vocal and distorted guitar. The balance between the midrange and the treble is also improved partly due to this. For example, the cymbal crash now sound more realistic, with less exaggerated mid/upper harmonics compared with the W80. The imaging also improves quite a bit. What is impressive to me is that the midrange is still not shouty and fatiguing. While not as wet sounding that the W80, the sound is not dry. I guess this is because the 4kHz region is still conservative, avoiding the sound to be overly sharp and fatiguing. Adele’s vocal, which trigger my fatigue easily when the headphone is too forward and dry, sounds fine on the MACH 80 with sufficient thickness and warmth.
Treble:
There is no obvious treble grain and treble peaks. Pretty well done. It sounds more extended than Mach 50 with more air and articulation. Cymbal crash has natural decay and sparkles. Soundstage is open and wide. The treble has a certain similarity with the W80-v3, but upon careful comparison, it seems that the treble of the MACH 80 is slightly smoother, perhaps due to its better balance with the upper midrange (~3-4 k), so the upper harmonic of cymbals sounds less exaggerated than with the W80 as I mentioned before. Stick impact is very well defined. This is the best treble presentation I’ve heard from an IEM with a 2-3 mm thin nozzle.
Comparisons
vs Campfire Audio Andromeda 2019: Andro is more U shaped with more bass and more treble. Treble extension and sparkle seems slightly better with Andro, likely due to the spoutless BA tweeters. But Mach 80 is quite close, which is impressive given that the treble is original Andro’s bread and butter. The Mach 80 does not have the exaggerate 7-9 kHz from Andro so the harmonic of the cymbal is more realistic. The midrange is more present and less hazy with the Mach 80, due to the more standard ear gain that Mach 80 has and its leaner bass. Imaging is better with Mach 80. Soundstage is wider with Andro likely due to the U-shaped tuning. Technicality-wise, I would say Andro is slightly ahead considering the treble, but Andro loses out on the amount of information and clarity of the midrange that Mach 80 provides.
vs Westone W80 v3: Mach 80 is more neutral sounding, has more information in the upper midrange. Treble is perceived slightly smoother with Mach 80 and bass is tighter, likely associated with the filled upper midrange. Imaging is clearly better with Mach 80. But W80 is more fun and has the juicy wet mid-range that is quite comfy sounding. W80 vs Mach 80 is like emotional vs rational. Technicality-wise, Mach 80 is better due to the more resolving upper midrange.
vs DUNU SA6: SA6 has a leaner midrange than the Mach 80. But due to bass-shelf that the SA6 has, the leaner midrange does not result in dryness. The treble smoothness and extension is clearly better with the Mach 80, leading to more perceived resolution. So, technicality-wise, Mach 80 is better. Tuning-wise, my preference goes to SA6 for contemporary music as I think the bass-shelf goes well with the Harman-like ear gain, leading to a fuller and wetter sound.
vs Westone Mach 50: Mach 50 has a warm mid-centric tuning. Mach 80’s bass and midrange is slightly leaner, and the treble is quite a bit brighter with better extension and air. The ear gain around 3 kHz is more pronounced in the Mach 80, but the 4kHz range less forward sounding. Combined with the less forward midrange and the slightly pulled back 4kHz, the Mach 80 is less fatiguing that the Mach 50 in long listening session, but is also less engaging and less fun that the Mach 50. Technicality-wise, Mach 80 is of course better.
Conclusions
Neutral flat tuning with full BA set up is very hard to execute well and Westone Audio has done just that with the Mach 80. Without the masking effect of a boosted bass, any flaw of the midrange and treble is easily revealed. Yet, the treble of the Mach 80 has very good smoothness and definition, without noticeable harshness and graininess. Compared with the previous flagship the W80, Mach 80 manages to extract more information out of a 8-BA set up and filled in the 3 kHz recession, resulting in a significantly better tonal accuracy and better imaging. While I would personally prefer a bit more bass and slightly less ear gain for some more fun, I respect the tuning choice and can see it excel in serious musical genres like classical and jazz, not to mention for monitoring purposes. This is easily the most technical IEM I’ve heard that still use the ergonomically important thin nozzles, a dedication I very much respect out of Westone Audio.
Side-by-side comparison with Westone W80 v3
Bret Halford
Very interesting to read (and see) the comparison with the W80, thank you!
Disclaimer
This unit is a loaner provide by Westone Audio as part of the US MACH series launch Tour. I am not paid for the review and all thoughts and opinions are my own.
Test conditions
All listening is done by the medium-size (black) stock silicone tip, which fits best for me personally. Source equipment is the apple lightning-to-3.5 mm jack dongle driven by iPhone 12 pro max. I compared between the apple dongle and my Hifiman HM802 DAP with Rongyao discrete balanced amp card from the single-ended output. The difference is small and will not affect the overall sound signature and the technicality of the earphone themselves. Generally, with a higher power output from the DAP or an amp, I can sense that the bass is a bit tighter but SPL is the same with the apple dongle.
Personal preference and music genres I listen
I prefer a natural balanced sound signature. I dislike overly forward ear gain region (~3-4 kHz) and lean midrange. I dislike treble grain and mid treble peaks. I listen primarily to rock and metal, occasionally hip-hop and pop.
Ergonomic and sound isolation
The IEM body and the cable are lightweight. The shell is ergonomically designed and quite small, but slightly larger than the Westone W series. The nozzle diameter is 2-3 mm, the classical Westone/Shure size, so it should fit a wide range of people, especially with the wide range of tip sizes that Westone provides for all of their IEMs. I have to say I respect Westone and Shure for keeping the nozzle diameter thin for comfort reasons, knowing that it is more difficult to get good treble extension with this nozzle size and difficult to use different dampers for individual frequency ranges. Wearing comfort-wise it is definitely above average. The thin nozzle ensures that the radial pressure on the ear canal is small. However, it is not as comfy as the old W series due to the larger size. It is also less comfy than the Dunu SA6 which has a pseudo custom shell design.
The Mach series use fully-sealed all BA designs, so the sound isolation is excellent. When using foam tips the isolation can be better than the silicone tips.
Sound impressions
Overall sound signature and impression:
Warm mid-centric. Treble is smooth and relaxed. Bass is linear and roughly in line with low mid so does not sound boosted to my ear. Midrange is warm and organic. Its overall sound signature reminds me of my Audeze LCD-2 classic (2021 edition).
The sound that impressed me the most upon first listen is the smooth and linear mid treble. There is no grain to the treble and the rather relaxed level makes the IEM very relaxing in the treble region but it is still sufficiently detailed. Then I noticed the midrange is quite revealing and organic, definitely the focus of the overall sound. The relaxed ear gain region compared to the Harman tuning allows for a more natural reproduction of electric guitars and vocals, preventing the midrange to sound thin and shouty. The soundstage is slightly intimate. Clarity of the midrange is excellent.
Bass:
Bass is handled by a single BA. It is slightly boosted in SPL above absolute linear but subjectively to me the bass is quite neutral and does not sound boosted, since it is roughly in line with the low mid. Attack of the bass is fast as expected from BA woofers and decay is also quite fast, although perhaps slower than typical dual BA woofer setups. Bass guitar sound full, present and clean, and will not be diluted by the sub-bass as with a Harman-like bass shelf. Also, since there is no bass-shelf thus the associated crossover point in the upper-bass/low-mid, the mid-range and bass is well integrated without any coherency issues. However, there is also a draw back with the lack of a bass-shelf, that is, the mid-range can sound a bit forward and dry, especially when the treble is relaxed as in the case of Mach 50.
Midrange:
The mid-range is the star of the show in the Mach 50s. It is present, natural, organic and warm. Midrange clarity is excellent but it never harsh and shouty. Frequency response wise, the ear gain region is relaxed compared to Harman but there is sufficient ear gain for me. Even more upper-mids will make the sound less organic and drier, and less upper-mids will run into the risk of a muffled sound. I think the Mach 50 strikes a good balance here and sounds more tonally correct than the my Westone W60 gen-2 and W80 v3. Electric guitar sounds analog and has the tube-like warmth to it. My only nit-pick here is that the forward midrange is very satisfying but could lead to fatigue in long listen sessions. This could potentially be mitigated with a slightly more subdued 4kHz range but it will also hurt the midrange clarity.
Treble:
From my experience with iems with thin nozzles, the treble is the most difficult part of the frequency to get right. With BA drivers, you may either reasonable mid treble linearity yet very limited upper treble extension as with Shure IEMs, or decent upper treble extension but noticeable mid treble peak/graininess as with Westone's previous offerings (except W80). Here with Mach50, what immediately grabs my attention is that the mid treble is impressively smooth, yet the extension is still simultaneously satisfactory. There is no obvious treble peak. No sign of graininess from tube resonance. The smooth and slightly relaxed nature of the treble allows you to relax and focus on the midrange information. The upper treble is a bit subdued. It is slightly lacking in air pass 10k. Soundstage is not exaggerated and is slightly intimate. Overall the treble sounds a bit relaxed, reminding me of the treble of an HD650. I can see that the treble smoothness is weighted more than sparkle and extension in the Mach 50.
Comparisons:
vs W60 gen-2: Mach 50 is less U shaped. Less low mid and bass. Treble is more controlled, darker and smoother but with less sparkle and air. Upper mid is more revealing and articulate. Much more “correct” sounding and more immediately likable. Less laid back and more forward sounding so it is easier to get ear fatigue. Less analog and wet sounding. Mach 50's technicality may be slightly better.
vs Andromeda 2019: Andro is more U-shaped, bassier, has brighter treble, which is more extended and more sparkly than the Mach 50. Andro has bigger soundstage, hazier mids. more fun, but mid-range less articulate and take a slightly back seat. Technicality of Andro is higher due to the treble being more extended and present.
vs Mach 80: Mach 80 is brighter in the treble, less forward in the midrange and less bassy. Mach 80 has a more extended treble and more air. The treble smoothness is even better and the over resolution is higher with Mach 80. As a result, the soundstage is larger. The balance between mid-range and treble is better with Mach 80. Mach 80 is also slightly less dry sounding that Mach 50. However, the Mach 80’s upper midrange around 3 kHz is slightly too forward to my liking and the bass level is a bit light, resulting in a more bland listen and less emotionally engaging than the Mach 50.
vs Dunu SA6: SA6 has the bass shelf and a leaner midrange. The lower-mid treble of the SA6 is less even and grainer than the Mach 50 but sounds a bit less damped and brighter. Upper treble extension and air on SA6 appears to be slightly better. The SA6 is more wet sounding and less mid forward due to the sub-bass boost and brighter treble. Technicality is similar.
vs Shure se535 (from memory so take with a huge grain of salt): Both have a mid-centric tuning. se535 has less bass and low midrange. Se535’s treble is less even and has less extension so resolution is worse than the Mach 50. Mach 50’s midrange is more natural and slightly less forward. Midrange tonality has some similarity, both having a relaxed upper midrange but still quite revealing and transparent. Mach 50 easily wins in technicality and musicality.
vs Shure se846 with blue filter (from memory so take with a huge grain of salt): Although se846 has a bass-shelf, it still sounds very mid forward, maybe more so than Mach 50. I would say the Mach 50’s treble is slightly smoother and less damped, with slightly better extension. The bass speed is easily better from Mach50 but the sub-bass has no boost. Overall resolution and technicality of the Mach 50 is better. The sound stage is also wider with Mach 50.
Conclusions:
I think the Mach 50 is an excellent execution of an all-BA mid-centric tuning. The sound is easily likable, as it avoids some of the classic issues with BA designs such as uneven/grainy treble and dryness in the sound, without going too far as to compromise tonal correctness. The smooth and relaxed treble combined with the organic and big midrange allows for an engaging listen and let the music shine through with emotions, as magic is in the midrange. Well done Westone Audio!
Some pictures and size comparison with W60 gen-2:
This unit is a loaner provide by Westone Audio as part of the US MACH series launch Tour. I am not paid for the review and all thoughts and opinions are my own.
Test conditions
All listening is done by the medium-size (black) stock silicone tip, which fits best for me personally. Source equipment is the apple lightning-to-3.5 mm jack dongle driven by iPhone 12 pro max. I compared between the apple dongle and my Hifiman HM802 DAP with Rongyao discrete balanced amp card from the single-ended output. The difference is small and will not affect the overall sound signature and the technicality of the earphone themselves. Generally, with a higher power output from the DAP or an amp, I can sense that the bass is a bit tighter but SPL is the same with the apple dongle.
Personal preference and music genres I listen
I prefer a natural balanced sound signature. I dislike overly forward ear gain region (~3-4 kHz) and lean midrange. I dislike treble grain and mid treble peaks. I listen primarily to rock and metal, occasionally hip-hop and pop.
Ergonomic and sound isolation
The IEM body and the cable are lightweight. The shell is ergonomically designed and quite small, but slightly larger than the Westone W series. The nozzle diameter is 2-3 mm, the classical Westone/Shure size, so it should fit a wide range of people, especially with the wide range of tip sizes that Westone provides for all of their IEMs. I have to say I respect Westone and Shure for keeping the nozzle diameter thin for comfort reasons, knowing that it is more difficult to get good treble extension with this nozzle size and difficult to use different dampers for individual frequency ranges. Wearing comfort-wise it is definitely above average. The thin nozzle ensures that the radial pressure on the ear canal is small. However, it is not as comfy as the old W series due to the larger size. It is also less comfy than the Dunu SA6 which has a pseudo custom shell design.
The Mach series use fully-sealed all BA designs, so the sound isolation is excellent. When using foam tips the isolation can be better than the silicone tips.
Sound impressions
Overall sound signature and impression:
Warm mid-centric. Treble is smooth and relaxed. Bass is linear and roughly in line with low mid so does not sound boosted to my ear. Midrange is warm and organic. Its overall sound signature reminds me of my Audeze LCD-2 classic (2021 edition).
The sound that impressed me the most upon first listen is the smooth and linear mid treble. There is no grain to the treble and the rather relaxed level makes the IEM very relaxing in the treble region but it is still sufficiently detailed. Then I noticed the midrange is quite revealing and organic, definitely the focus of the overall sound. The relaxed ear gain region compared to the Harman tuning allows for a more natural reproduction of electric guitars and vocals, preventing the midrange to sound thin and shouty. The soundstage is slightly intimate. Clarity of the midrange is excellent.
Bass:
Bass is handled by a single BA. It is slightly boosted in SPL above absolute linear but subjectively to me the bass is quite neutral and does not sound boosted, since it is roughly in line with the low mid. Attack of the bass is fast as expected from BA woofers and decay is also quite fast, although perhaps slower than typical dual BA woofer setups. Bass guitar sound full, present and clean, and will not be diluted by the sub-bass as with a Harman-like bass shelf. Also, since there is no bass-shelf thus the associated crossover point in the upper-bass/low-mid, the mid-range and bass is well integrated without any coherency issues. However, there is also a draw back with the lack of a bass-shelf, that is, the mid-range can sound a bit forward and dry, especially when the treble is relaxed as in the case of Mach 50.
Midrange:
The mid-range is the star of the show in the Mach 50s. It is present, natural, organic and warm. Midrange clarity is excellent but it never harsh and shouty. Frequency response wise, the ear gain region is relaxed compared to Harman but there is sufficient ear gain for me. Even more upper-mids will make the sound less organic and drier, and less upper-mids will run into the risk of a muffled sound. I think the Mach 50 strikes a good balance here and sounds more tonally correct than the my Westone W60 gen-2 and W80 v3. Electric guitar sounds analog and has the tube-like warmth to it. My only nit-pick here is that the forward midrange is very satisfying but could lead to fatigue in long listen sessions. This could potentially be mitigated with a slightly more subdued 4kHz range but it will also hurt the midrange clarity.
Treble:
From my experience with iems with thin nozzles, the treble is the most difficult part of the frequency to get right. With BA drivers, you may either reasonable mid treble linearity yet very limited upper treble extension as with Shure IEMs, or decent upper treble extension but noticeable mid treble peak/graininess as with Westone's previous offerings (except W80). Here with Mach50, what immediately grabs my attention is that the mid treble is impressively smooth, yet the extension is still simultaneously satisfactory. There is no obvious treble peak. No sign of graininess from tube resonance. The smooth and slightly relaxed nature of the treble allows you to relax and focus on the midrange information. The upper treble is a bit subdued. It is slightly lacking in air pass 10k. Soundstage is not exaggerated and is slightly intimate. Overall the treble sounds a bit relaxed, reminding me of the treble of an HD650. I can see that the treble smoothness is weighted more than sparkle and extension in the Mach 50.
Comparisons:
vs W60 gen-2: Mach 50 is less U shaped. Less low mid and bass. Treble is more controlled, darker and smoother but with less sparkle and air. Upper mid is more revealing and articulate. Much more “correct” sounding and more immediately likable. Less laid back and more forward sounding so it is easier to get ear fatigue. Less analog and wet sounding. Mach 50's technicality may be slightly better.
vs Andromeda 2019: Andro is more U-shaped, bassier, has brighter treble, which is more extended and more sparkly than the Mach 50. Andro has bigger soundstage, hazier mids. more fun, but mid-range less articulate and take a slightly back seat. Technicality of Andro is higher due to the treble being more extended and present.
vs Mach 80: Mach 80 is brighter in the treble, less forward in the midrange and less bassy. Mach 80 has a more extended treble and more air. The treble smoothness is even better and the over resolution is higher with Mach 80. As a result, the soundstage is larger. The balance between mid-range and treble is better with Mach 80. Mach 80 is also slightly less dry sounding that Mach 50. However, the Mach 80’s upper midrange around 3 kHz is slightly too forward to my liking and the bass level is a bit light, resulting in a more bland listen and less emotionally engaging than the Mach 50.
vs Dunu SA6: SA6 has the bass shelf and a leaner midrange. The lower-mid treble of the SA6 is less even and grainer than the Mach 50 but sounds a bit less damped and brighter. Upper treble extension and air on SA6 appears to be slightly better. The SA6 is more wet sounding and less mid forward due to the sub-bass boost and brighter treble. Technicality is similar.
vs Shure se535 (from memory so take with a huge grain of salt): Both have a mid-centric tuning. se535 has less bass and low midrange. Se535’s treble is less even and has less extension so resolution is worse than the Mach 50. Mach 50’s midrange is more natural and slightly less forward. Midrange tonality has some similarity, both having a relaxed upper midrange but still quite revealing and transparent. Mach 50 easily wins in technicality and musicality.
vs Shure se846 with blue filter (from memory so take with a huge grain of salt): Although se846 has a bass-shelf, it still sounds very mid forward, maybe more so than Mach 50. I would say the Mach 50’s treble is slightly smoother and less damped, with slightly better extension. The bass speed is easily better from Mach50 but the sub-bass has no boost. Overall resolution and technicality of the Mach 50 is better. The sound stage is also wider with Mach 50.
Conclusions:
I think the Mach 50 is an excellent execution of an all-BA mid-centric tuning. The sound is easily likable, as it avoids some of the classic issues with BA designs such as uneven/grainy treble and dryness in the sound, without going too far as to compromise tonal correctness. The smooth and relaxed treble combined with the organic and big midrange allows for an engaging listen and let the music shine through with emotions, as magic is in the midrange. Well done Westone Audio!
Some pictures and size comparison with W60 gen-2:
dsrk
Excellent review and fantastic comparisons. You got me with LCD2C, I will definitely give this a try.
