Sound:
It were mainly the iBasso DX200 (equipped with the AMP1 module), Cowon Plenue 2 and my iBasso DX90 that served as source devices for listening.
The ear tips I used were the largest included single-flange silicone tips.
Tonality:
The B400 picks up on where Brainwavz started with their Balanced Armature line and presents a very smooth, balanced, tendentially warm and just slightly dark tonality with a very coherent sound that lacks any sterility, sudden peaks or dips.
A thin, mid-focussed and bass-light sound is definitely not what you get from the B400, however real bassheads, medium bassheads or people who want a whole lot of warmth won’t be satisfied either.
Although I personally hate to use this reference, “analogue” is probably what some people would refer to the B400’s tuning and sound in general.
Anyway: from the lower midrange down to the sub-bass the B400’s tuning is virtually identical to the B200’s.
It has got a somewhat forward bottom-end that is a bit more on the stronger side if you are used to a strictly flat in-ear, coming in at around 8 dB north of what would be neutral based on the diffuse-field target (that for example the Etymotic ER-4S and ER-4SR are following in the lows), but is still quite balanced compared to other in-ears that are generally accepted as sounding quite neutral in the bass. Therefore it can address the “case of the missing 6 dB” (https://www.etymotic.com/media/publications/erl-0137-1982.pdf) plus a little extra quantity on top, meaning that the bass quantity and warmth are not too much north of a balanced sound at all.
The upper bass can definitely kick and has some authority without ever becoming dominant, and the midbass carries the same amount of weight when the recording goes down the frequency ladder. The sub-bass doesn’t roll off and is present when called upon on the recording, with just very little less absolute quantity compared to the midbass.
The midrange heads somewhat more into the warmer direction, with a full and rather warm root that does however not feel bloated or unnatural, but rather cosy, intimate and inviting.
Some extra body is added to lower male vocals and instruments such as bass guitars and contrabasses that step more into the foreground, albeit without getting an unnatural timbre. Instruments gain a pleasant body due to this as well.
Female vocals are a bit more on the fuller and warmer side, too, however without becoming dark which is because there is a clever tuning trick going on in the midrange – around 2 kHz is a slight drop that adds a little relaxation, while the slight but broad bump around 4 kHz (those things are only really audible using a sine generator though), which can still be counted to the presence range, doesn’t let them drown and doesn’t rob any overtones. Therefore vocals also have some nice closeness although without becoming obtrusive or playing fully “in your face”.
Above that, the highs are just a little in the background compared to a neutral in-ear – the B400 is certainly no dark sounding in-ear and really just features a grain of darkness.
What’s remarkable though is how smooth and even the treble is. No peaks, no dips. Just a harmonious, very even tuning that contributes a lot to the smooth, somewhat laid-back appearing, cosy and “analogue” sound. This is really marvellous for the price and often only achieved by multi-BA in-ears that retail for clearly above $200.
While this is objectively really good, the only small subjective little gripe I have with this is that as a result, cymbals become a little softer sounding and don’t appear as focussed or snappy compared to the B200 that has a little more bite to it.
Extension past 10 kHz is good and doesn’t lack at all which can also be heard using sine sweeps, although that area is a bit more in the background (for example, the B200 has got more subtle sparkle in the super highs).
- - -
Um, yeah, so I can definitely say that the tuning is really nicely done, super coherent and smooth, balanced, with a nice dose of warmth and great evenness that is quite remarkable for the price. Tuning-wise, I can definitely see why the initially planned metal shell version of the B400 was set to be priced at almost twice as much.
Resolution:
The B400, with the basic cable option, is priced below $200, which is a pretty good deal for the overall performance it delivers. The question is though: Would it have been a good performer close to the $400 mark in terms of pure technical capabilities? Honestly no, not fully when compared to models such as the UE900 and W4R. And it only sees comparatively little land compared to the NocturnaL Atlantis (to be fully fair though, the Atlantis costs a good bit more and has got a technical performance that is more worthy of a four-digit price tag). There are just things like note separation and instrument separation where the B400 is good but cannot fully compete with those models and appears less focused and blurrier, softer in comparison. But would it have been an adequately- to well-performing in-ear if its price was closer to the $300 mark? Yes, yes it would definitely be.
Performance-wise, it sits right between the B200 and W4R with somewhat closer proximity to the B200, which means that is a really good performer although it does not belong to the technically most capable models – but its price point doesn’t suggest otherwise anyway, so there is absolutely nothing to complain about.
The bass is well-controlled and tight, and only shows some really minor softness in terms of attack compared to some of the more expensive multi-BA offerings.
Where it really shines are things like definition as well as control, layering and details where it can indeed compete with models such as the W4R.
Fast single- and multi-bass-lines are rendered with ease, speed and good separation with well-controlled and -defined punches.
When it comes to midrange resolution and speech intelligibility, the B400 once again shows that it is a good performer. Nonetheless it lacks a little behind the UE900 and W4R in this area while it puts out somewhat more micro details than the B200.
High notes are rendered realistically and details are certainly there although the presentation and attack here appear a little soft, which however fits really nicely to the tuning and smoothness. As a little drawback, note separation takes a slight step back as well and feels a bit soft, too, while it doesn’t appear blurry or bad.
To wrap it up, the B400 performs really well for an in-ear starting from less than $200 although it cannot fully compete with models in the $400 range when it purely comes to micro details and note separation.
Soundstage:
The B400’s imaginary soundstage is neither especially large nor any congested and a little more spacious than average when it comes to expansion to the sides wherefore it is able to already leave the base between my ears.
Overall, the presentation feels a little more wide than deep although there is some spatial depth (albeit the B400 is not as three-dimensional or spacious as models such as the Pai Audio MR3).
Separation of single instruments is plenty good for the price, and notes, single instruments or musicians don’t stick together but are separated rather nicely and cleanly, even when busier tracks with many musicians are played, although the presentation doesn’t appear as clean or well-done when compared to several more expensive models.
A few layers can be perceived although they appear to rather blend into each other than to be precisely separated and distinguishable.
---------
In Comparison with other In-Ears:
Westone W4R:
The W4R has got slightly more quantity in the upper root/lower midrange wherefore it is the somewhat fuller sounding in-ear out of the two, while midbass quantity is comparable. The Westone however rolls more off towards the sub-bass, leaving it with more of a midbass hump compared to the B400 that has got a more even bass distribution.
The W4R has got the more relaxed appearing midrange and middle treble which is mainly due to its 5 kHz recession. In the upper highs and with cymbals though, it is the Brainwavz that appears softer and more reserved in comparison.
When it comes to micro details in the mids and highs, the Westone reproduces the somewhat higher transparency and resolution and appears more focused in comparison.
Bass definition is quite similarly good, which also goes for the control, while the W4R seems slightly faster.
The Westone’s soundstage is even somewhat wider but lacks spatial depth whereas the B400 has got some. In terms of instrument separation, it is the W4R that somewhat outperforms the Brainwavz with the higher cleanness.
NocturnaL Audio Atlantis (UIEM):
To make it short, when it comes to detail retrieval, note separation, soundstage expansion as well as spatial precision, the Atlantis is a whole different beast that can compete with models costing a good bit more.
The reason why I chose the more expensive and technically much more capable Atlantis for this comparison is because things like the smoothness, pleasant fullness, naturalness and balance are areas that it shares with the B400, just as it already did when compared to the B200.
From the central mids down to the sub-bass, both in-ears are tuned almost identically. In the presence range, it is the Brainwavz that is a bit more pronounced. The B400 is somewhat darker and more relaxed in the following treble. Super treble extension past 10 kHz is somewhat better on the Brainwavz.
Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900:
The Brainwavz has got the somewhat stronger bass elevation by ca. 3 dB.
The UE’s (upper) midrange is a bit darker mainly due to the presence range showing a downslope.
At 4 and 5 kHz it is the UE that is a bit more relaxed while it shows more energy around 6 and 8 kHz albeit without any real emphasis (the level doesn’t cross the ground line) wherefore it sounds more focused and “snappier”.
Bass speed, bass control and tightness are where both in-ears are pretty much on the same level while the B400 appears to have got the somewhat higher low-end definition.
In terms of midrange and treble details though, the UE900 sports the somewhat higher amount of micro details and cleaner note separation.
When it comes to soundstage, both in-ears reproduce about the same amount of width whereas the B400 has got a bit more depth. However, the UE900 separates instruments a bit more precisely.
Brainwavz B200 (v1):
Both in-ears have got a similar bass response and central midrange while the B400 is more forward in the presence range, making vocals gain some proximity compared to the B200 that is more laid-back in the middle and lower highs.
While the B200 is even a little more relaxed in the middle and upper treble, it sounds crisper and “snappier” than the B400 which is because the quadruple-driver in-ear has got the softer appearing treble attack while ultimately having somewhat more details.
When it comes to super treble extension, both extend similarly well however the B200 showcases somewhat more subtle sparkle which is due to it being more forward in this range.
Micro details are good and present on the B400 although presented rather subtly and smoothly – which fits perfectly to the entire presentation. Without direct comparison or switching between both in-ears, I honestly did not really think that there was much – if any – of a difference between the B400 and B200 when it comes to detail retrieval, but switching from one to the other made it clear: the B400 sounds somewhat more transparent and is cleaner when it comes to small details, which is especially noticeable with rather busy tracks were small things remain better separated from each other and where small nuances are rendered somewhat more cleanly on the quad-BA in-ear. It’s not like a totally different class upgrade though, but still that plus in details is what makes the difference – the B400 can “pull it off” more easily and has got more reserves/headroom.
Bass definition, control and low-end details are slightly higher on the B400 as well.
So yes, the B400 is playing somewhat above the already really good B200 when it comes to detail retrieval and bass definition, although I wouldn’t describe it as a large difference but rather a medium one.
When it comes to soundstage, the B400 appears somewhat more open sounding with a bit more spatial width while there is no real difference in terms of spatial precision.
It were mainly the iBasso DX200 (equipped with the AMP1 module), Cowon Plenue 2 and my iBasso DX90 that served as source devices for listening.
The ear tips I used were the largest included single-flange silicone tips.
Tonality:
The B400 picks up on where Brainwavz started with their Balanced Armature line and presents a very smooth, balanced, tendentially warm and just slightly dark tonality with a very coherent sound that lacks any sterility, sudden peaks or dips.
A thin, mid-focussed and bass-light sound is definitely not what you get from the B400, however real bassheads, medium bassheads or people who want a whole lot of warmth won’t be satisfied either.
Although I personally hate to use this reference, “analogue” is probably what some people would refer to the B400’s tuning and sound in general.
Anyway: from the lower midrange down to the sub-bass the B400’s tuning is virtually identical to the B200’s.
It has got a somewhat forward bottom-end that is a bit more on the stronger side if you are used to a strictly flat in-ear, coming in at around 8 dB north of what would be neutral based on the diffuse-field target (that for example the Etymotic ER-4S and ER-4SR are following in the lows), but is still quite balanced compared to other in-ears that are generally accepted as sounding quite neutral in the bass. Therefore it can address the “case of the missing 6 dB” (https://www.etymotic.com/media/publications/erl-0137-1982.pdf) plus a little extra quantity on top, meaning that the bass quantity and warmth are not too much north of a balanced sound at all.
The upper bass can definitely kick and has some authority without ever becoming dominant, and the midbass carries the same amount of weight when the recording goes down the frequency ladder. The sub-bass doesn’t roll off and is present when called upon on the recording, with just very little less absolute quantity compared to the midbass.
The midrange heads somewhat more into the warmer direction, with a full and rather warm root that does however not feel bloated or unnatural, but rather cosy, intimate and inviting.
Some extra body is added to lower male vocals and instruments such as bass guitars and contrabasses that step more into the foreground, albeit without getting an unnatural timbre. Instruments gain a pleasant body due to this as well.
Female vocals are a bit more on the fuller and warmer side, too, however without becoming dark which is because there is a clever tuning trick going on in the midrange – around 2 kHz is a slight drop that adds a little relaxation, while the slight but broad bump around 4 kHz (those things are only really audible using a sine generator though), which can still be counted to the presence range, doesn’t let them drown and doesn’t rob any overtones. Therefore vocals also have some nice closeness although without becoming obtrusive or playing fully “in your face”.
Above that, the highs are just a little in the background compared to a neutral in-ear – the B400 is certainly no dark sounding in-ear and really just features a grain of darkness.
What’s remarkable though is how smooth and even the treble is. No peaks, no dips. Just a harmonious, very even tuning that contributes a lot to the smooth, somewhat laid-back appearing, cosy and “analogue” sound. This is really marvellous for the price and often only achieved by multi-BA in-ears that retail for clearly above $200.
While this is objectively really good, the only small subjective little gripe I have with this is that as a result, cymbals become a little softer sounding and don’t appear as focussed or snappy compared to the B200 that has a little more bite to it.
Extension past 10 kHz is good and doesn’t lack at all which can also be heard using sine sweeps, although that area is a bit more in the background (for example, the B200 has got more subtle sparkle in the super highs).
- - -
Um, yeah, so I can definitely say that the tuning is really nicely done, super coherent and smooth, balanced, with a nice dose of warmth and great evenness that is quite remarkable for the price. Tuning-wise, I can definitely see why the initially planned metal shell version of the B400 was set to be priced at almost twice as much.
Resolution:
The B400, with the basic cable option, is priced below $200, which is a pretty good deal for the overall performance it delivers. The question is though: Would it have been a good performer close to the $400 mark in terms of pure technical capabilities? Honestly no, not fully when compared to models such as the UE900 and W4R. And it only sees comparatively little land compared to the NocturnaL Atlantis (to be fully fair though, the Atlantis costs a good bit more and has got a technical performance that is more worthy of a four-digit price tag). There are just things like note separation and instrument separation where the B400 is good but cannot fully compete with those models and appears less focused and blurrier, softer in comparison. But would it have been an adequately- to well-performing in-ear if its price was closer to the $300 mark? Yes, yes it would definitely be.
Performance-wise, it sits right between the B200 and W4R with somewhat closer proximity to the B200, which means that is a really good performer although it does not belong to the technically most capable models – but its price point doesn’t suggest otherwise anyway, so there is absolutely nothing to complain about.
The bass is well-controlled and tight, and only shows some really minor softness in terms of attack compared to some of the more expensive multi-BA offerings.
Where it really shines are things like definition as well as control, layering and details where it can indeed compete with models such as the W4R.
Fast single- and multi-bass-lines are rendered with ease, speed and good separation with well-controlled and -defined punches.
When it comes to midrange resolution and speech intelligibility, the B400 once again shows that it is a good performer. Nonetheless it lacks a little behind the UE900 and W4R in this area while it puts out somewhat more micro details than the B200.
High notes are rendered realistically and details are certainly there although the presentation and attack here appear a little soft, which however fits really nicely to the tuning and smoothness. As a little drawback, note separation takes a slight step back as well and feels a bit soft, too, while it doesn’t appear blurry or bad.
To wrap it up, the B400 performs really well for an in-ear starting from less than $200 although it cannot fully compete with models in the $400 range when it purely comes to micro details and note separation.
Soundstage:
The B400’s imaginary soundstage is neither especially large nor any congested and a little more spacious than average when it comes to expansion to the sides wherefore it is able to already leave the base between my ears.
Overall, the presentation feels a little more wide than deep although there is some spatial depth (albeit the B400 is not as three-dimensional or spacious as models such as the Pai Audio MR3).
Separation of single instruments is plenty good for the price, and notes, single instruments or musicians don’t stick together but are separated rather nicely and cleanly, even when busier tracks with many musicians are played, although the presentation doesn’t appear as clean or well-done when compared to several more expensive models.
A few layers can be perceived although they appear to rather blend into each other than to be precisely separated and distinguishable.
---------
In Comparison with other In-Ears:
Westone W4R:
The W4R has got slightly more quantity in the upper root/lower midrange wherefore it is the somewhat fuller sounding in-ear out of the two, while midbass quantity is comparable. The Westone however rolls more off towards the sub-bass, leaving it with more of a midbass hump compared to the B400 that has got a more even bass distribution.
The W4R has got the more relaxed appearing midrange and middle treble which is mainly due to its 5 kHz recession. In the upper highs and with cymbals though, it is the Brainwavz that appears softer and more reserved in comparison.
When it comes to micro details in the mids and highs, the Westone reproduces the somewhat higher transparency and resolution and appears more focused in comparison.
Bass definition is quite similarly good, which also goes for the control, while the W4R seems slightly faster.
The Westone’s soundstage is even somewhat wider but lacks spatial depth whereas the B400 has got some. In terms of instrument separation, it is the W4R that somewhat outperforms the Brainwavz with the higher cleanness.
NocturnaL Audio Atlantis (UIEM):
To make it short, when it comes to detail retrieval, note separation, soundstage expansion as well as spatial precision, the Atlantis is a whole different beast that can compete with models costing a good bit more.
The reason why I chose the more expensive and technically much more capable Atlantis for this comparison is because things like the smoothness, pleasant fullness, naturalness and balance are areas that it shares with the B400, just as it already did when compared to the B200.
From the central mids down to the sub-bass, both in-ears are tuned almost identically. In the presence range, it is the Brainwavz that is a bit more pronounced. The B400 is somewhat darker and more relaxed in the following treble. Super treble extension past 10 kHz is somewhat better on the Brainwavz.
Logitech/Ultimate Ears UE900:
The Brainwavz has got the somewhat stronger bass elevation by ca. 3 dB.
The UE’s (upper) midrange is a bit darker mainly due to the presence range showing a downslope.
At 4 and 5 kHz it is the UE that is a bit more relaxed while it shows more energy around 6 and 8 kHz albeit without any real emphasis (the level doesn’t cross the ground line) wherefore it sounds more focused and “snappier”.
Bass speed, bass control and tightness are where both in-ears are pretty much on the same level while the B400 appears to have got the somewhat higher low-end definition.
In terms of midrange and treble details though, the UE900 sports the somewhat higher amount of micro details and cleaner note separation.
When it comes to soundstage, both in-ears reproduce about the same amount of width whereas the B400 has got a bit more depth. However, the UE900 separates instruments a bit more precisely.
Brainwavz B200 (v1):
Both in-ears have got a similar bass response and central midrange while the B400 is more forward in the presence range, making vocals gain some proximity compared to the B200 that is more laid-back in the middle and lower highs.
While the B200 is even a little more relaxed in the middle and upper treble, it sounds crisper and “snappier” than the B400 which is because the quadruple-driver in-ear has got the softer appearing treble attack while ultimately having somewhat more details.
When it comes to super treble extension, both extend similarly well however the B200 showcases somewhat more subtle sparkle which is due to it being more forward in this range.
Micro details are good and present on the B400 although presented rather subtly and smoothly – which fits perfectly to the entire presentation. Without direct comparison or switching between both in-ears, I honestly did not really think that there was much – if any – of a difference between the B400 and B200 when it comes to detail retrieval, but switching from one to the other made it clear: the B400 sounds somewhat more transparent and is cleaner when it comes to small details, which is especially noticeable with rather busy tracks were small things remain better separated from each other and where small nuances are rendered somewhat more cleanly on the quad-BA in-ear. It’s not like a totally different class upgrade though, but still that plus in details is what makes the difference – the B400 can “pull it off” more easily and has got more reserves/headroom.
Bass definition, control and low-end details are slightly higher on the B400 as well.
So yes, the B400 is playing somewhat above the already really good B200 when it comes to detail retrieval and bass definition, although I wouldn’t describe it as a large difference but rather a medium one.
When it comes to soundstage, the B400 appears somewhat more open sounding with a bit more spatial width while there is no real difference in terms of spatial precision.
Conclusion:
The Brainwavz B400 is a smooth, balanced, (in a positive way) soft and inoffensive in-ear with a remarkably even and harmonious tuning (some people would refer to it as being “analogue”) that picks up on the B-series’ house sound while adding somewhat more micro details and definition compared to the already really good B200 (v1 - the v2 isn't).
While the originally planned price of up to 400$ might have been just a little too ambitious judged by the technical performance given other contenders in this area (although it might have probably been justifiable due to the super smooth, even and harmonious tonal tuning), in its current price range ($190 to $275 depending on colour and cable choices) there are only few in-ears that are playing in the same league as the B400 (and most of them are exotic).
Once again, Brainwavz has shown that the introduction of the B-Series was a really good idea.