This and That:
The design is unique but I don't find it particularly beautiful.
Flat cable - meh. I'm not a fan of flat cables. Also more microphonic than round cables.
Remote control not good (actuation force too high).
Nice and unique carrying/storage case.
Sound:
Low impedance sources. Largest included grey silicone tips.
Tonality:
Rather v-shaped, but mainly bass-oriented with a focus on the sub- and midbass. Bit of an elevation in the middle highs around 6 kHz and also a bit in the upper highs around 8.5 kHz.
Going more in-depth and listening to a sine generator (and of course music), I’m hearing the lows’ emphasis to start climbing around 700 Hz, climbing up in intensity down to 70 Hz where the climax is reached. Climax is held until 30 Hz; minimally losing quantity below.
With a bass elevation of ca. 12 dB (compared to an in-ear with flat lows, such as the Etymotic ER-4S/ER4SR), the bass is definitely strong and present. There's also some warmth in the fundamental range and lower midrange, however it doesn't overshadow voices (no real bloom).
Voices appear subjectively rather relaxed; the upper midrange is neither recessed nor elevated. Besides some warmth in the fundamental range, voices and the mids sound quite accurate, without any lean or dark tendencies.
When it comes to treble, one can notice that it is undeniably somewhat on the somewhat brighter side. One can spot an elevation both at 6 and 8.3 kHz, leading to a somewhat metallic presentation. Not hot, splashy or sharp, but ultimately lacking some realism. Without that 6 kHz elevation, the treble would've been perfect for a mild v-shape.
Above that, the rest of the upper highs and the super treble are neutral and extend past 17 kHz without any detectable roll-off.
So definitely less flawed in the highs than many other in-ears in this price range, but would be even better and more realistic sounding without the lower of the two treble lifts.
Sound:
Low impedance sources. Largest included grey silicone tips.
Tonality:
Rather v-shaped, but mainly bass-oriented with a focus on the sub- and midbass. Bit of an elevation in the middle highs around 6 kHz and also a bit in the upper highs around 8.5 kHz.
Going more in-depth and listening to a sine generator (and of course music), I’m hearing the lows’ emphasis to start climbing around 700 Hz, climbing up in intensity down to 70 Hz where the climax is reached. Climax is held until 30 Hz; minimally losing quantity below.
With a bass elevation of ca. 12 dB (compared to an in-ear with flat lows, such as the Etymotic ER-4S/ER4SR), the bass is definitely strong and present. There's also some warmth in the fundamental range and lower midrange, however it doesn't overshadow voices (no real bloom).
Voices appear subjectively rather relaxed; the upper midrange is neither recessed nor elevated. Besides some warmth in the fundamental range, voices and the mids sound quite accurate, without any lean or dark tendencies.
When it comes to treble, one can notice that it is undeniably somewhat on the somewhat brighter side. One can spot an elevation both at 6 and 8.3 kHz, leading to a somewhat metallic presentation. Not hot, splashy or sharp, but ultimately lacking some realism. Without that 6 kHz elevation, the treble would've been perfect for a mild v-shape.
Above that, the rest of the upper highs and the super treble are neutral and extend past 17 kHz without any detectable roll-off.
So definitely less flawed in the highs than many other in-ears in this price range, but would be even better and more realistic sounding without the lower of the two treble lifts.
Resolution:
The bass, while not being bad, isn’t really the tightest or fastest, even for dynamic driver standards in this price range. It is not boomy and control is also pretty good, however the overall character is more soft than tight and decay isn’t as quick as it could be. Additionally, the bass softens somewhat towards the sub-bass and doesn’t maintain a consistent level of tightness. I've definitely heard better in this price range, also in Brainwavz' own product portfolio.
Midrange details are okay and relatively good – neither bad nor outstanding.
Moving up to the treble, it could be a bit better separated at times. Separation in busy tracks could be somewhat better.
Overall, the S5 is definitely a lower mid-tier/lower average performer in its price range. Nothing that really stands out positively, however also some flaws.
Soundstage:
To my ears, the soundstage is relatively oval and stretched to the sides, with audibly more width than depth, leaving my head at times.
The width helps quite a bit with instrument placement and perception of air as well as separation that seems quite good.
Playing more complex and quicker tracks, the soundstage collapses somewhat though.
- - - - - - - - -
Compared to other Single Dynamic Driver In-Ears:
Brainwavz S3:
Although the S3 doesn’t have the best extension on both ends, it delivers a smooth and coherent sound with a solid level of details for its respective price.
Tonally, both are rather oppositely tuned – a sub-bassy and v-shaped V5 against a mid-centric and rolled-off S5.
When it comes to detail retrieval, I see the S3 above the S5, sounding better layered and more detailed in the mids and highs. Tightness, speed and control are also better in the upper bass. In the treble however, both lack some refinement.
When it comes to soundstage, I perceive the S3’s as slightly less wide but deeper by a good bit, sounding overall mostly round. Both in-ears are comparable when it comes to instrument separation.
Brainwavz M3:
The M3 is probably my favourite dynamic driver Brainwavz in-ear. It is very balanced sounding with only a moderate bass and upper treble lift.
The M3 is more balanced whereas the S5 is more extremely tuned in comparisons, offering more "fun". Both have an emphasised sub-bass but the M3’s is just moderately elevated. The M3 has got the slightly warmer mids and a recessed middle treble but a quite bright upper treble peak, but sounds more realistic in the treble overall.
The M3 isn’t necessarily known for tight bass but is still just a little tighter than the S5 while both have got about identical control. Nonetheless, the M3 appears to have the somewhat better resolving lows. In the mids, both are equally detailed to my ears. In the treble however, the M3 is more refined and detailed sounding.
The S5’s soundstage is kind of the opposite of the M3’s – a lot of width and not as much depth in contrast. The M3 however has got a very deep stage to my ears while the width is less distinct. When it comes to instrument separation, the M3 appears slightly cleaner (but not by much).
Fidue A65:
The Fidue A65 sounds very smooth and even, with excellent value is a musical in-ear that is tuned more for a warmer sound signature. In my opinion, it offers really good value for the money. Its bass is really well controlled and clean, without neglecting a nice body, and the soundstage, while being more on the smaller side, is quite precise.
The Brainwavz is clearly bassier while the A65's low mids are somewhat warmer, thicker in comparison. The Fidue's treble is on the darker side but very smooth and even while the S5's is on the brighter side and not as even.
When it comes to overall detail retrieval, I the A65 is audibly ahead. Tighter, faster, better controlled, more detailed, better layered.
The S5’s soundstage is much wider while both are about comparably deep. The A65’s soundstage is relatively small but quite circular. Instrument separation is noticeably cleaner and sharper on the Fidue’s side.
Conclusion:
Somewhat flawed but nothing really major. Still solid performance overall. Just nothing special. There are worse in-ears for the same money, but there are also many better ones.