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
