Meze Audio 105 AER Headphone Review

[amirm]

This is a review, listening tests, EQ and detailed measurements of the Meze Audio 105 AER open-back headphone. It was kindly sent to me by a member and costs US $399.

I must say, I don't care for the look of 105 AER. That honeycomb patter and central mounting just doesn't do it for me. However, the comfort more than makes up for it. It is so lightweight compared to my everyday headphone. It gets some of my highest marks in this regard.

If you are not familiar with my headphone measurements, I highly recommend to watch my tutorial on it:

Meze Audio 105 AER Headphone Measurements
As usual, we start with the frequency response measurements on my GRAS 45CA test rig:

We have good compliance with our target from 100 Hz to 1 kHZ. Below that, we have bass droop. Above that, some deficiency in lower treble, followed by what seems like some resonances. The difference between our target and measured frequency response give us the level of correction we potentially need with equalization:

I was disappointed that even at 94 dBSPL, we have a lot of bass distortion together with some in treble:

Group delay shows fair bit of internal reflections, albeit at lower amplitudes:

Sensitivity is quite high which is a good thing:

Combined with low impedance, you should be able to drive the 105s with a lot of sources:

Meze 105 AER Listening Tests and Equalization
Out of box tuning seemed pleasant. As usual, it is not until you make correction for frequency response, that you learn what is wrong:

I first added the bass correction and that nicely brought the impact that was essentially missing. I filled the treble hole with Band 2. That opened the female vocals yet didn't cause brightness due to increased bass response we have now. I have to be honest that Band 3 subjective response was mixed. Adding it reduces the region that provides spatial queues in headphone which I preferred in some tracks. But in others, it removed some of the high frequency exaggeration. I usually don't correct above 10 KHz but here, I added a filter and thought it too smoothed out the highs.

With the package of filters in place, the sound was beautiful and when combined with the comfort of the headphone, provided a very attractive proposition.

Conclusions
The combination of frequency response errors and high distortion in objective tests could easily scratch off the 105 AER from many people's wish list. Fortunately, frequency response correction was highly effective. Combined with the comfort, it kept me from having negative feelings about the headphone. Seeing how without EQ, the sound is not at all offensive, I can't be too harsh on the it anyway.

While I would not run out to buy the Meze Audio 105 AER, I can't say you have made a bad choice if you have. Just make sure you have EQ to correct its response.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

 

[amirm]

Reserved for @AdamG to kindly post the specs.

Manufacturer Specifications:

Link to product details and webpage:

105 AER

mezeaudio.com

 

[bachatero]

Where's the Shrek green iPad?

 

[Maiky76]

Here are some thoughts about the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

Notes about the EQ design:

• The average L/R is used to calculate the score.
• The resolution is 12 points per octave interpolated from the raw data (provided by @amirm)
• A Genetic Algorithm is used to optimize the EQ.
• The EQ Score is designed to MAXIMIZE the Score WHILE fitting the Harman target curve (and other constraints) with a fixed complexity.
  This will avoid weird results if one only optimizes for the Score, start your journey here or there.
  There is a presentation by S. Olive here.
  It will probably flatten the Error regression doing so, the tonal balance should be therefore more neutral.
• The EQs are starting point and may require tuning (certainly at LF and maybe at HF).
• The range around and above 10kHz is usually not EQed unless smooth enough to do so.
• I am using PEQ (PK) as from my experience the definition is more consistent across different DSP/platform implementations than shelves.
• With some HP/amp combo, the boosts and preamp gain (loss of Dynamic range) need to be carefully considered to avoid issues with, amongst other things, too low a Max SPL or damaging your device. You have beed warned.
• Not all units of the same product are made equal. The EQ is based on the measurements of a single unit. YMMV with regard to the very unit you are trying this EQ on.
• I sometimes use variations of the Harman curve for some reasons. See rational here and here
• NOTE: the score then calculated is not comparable to the scores derived from the default Harman target curve if not otherwise noted.

Good L/R match.

I have generated one EQ, the APO config file is attached.

Score no EQ: 71.3
Score Amirm: 72.9
Score with EQ: 91.4

Meze Audio 105 AER APO EQ Score Flat@HF 96000Hz
March252025-113118

Preamp: -5.10 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 18.0 Hz Gain 5.98 dB Q 0.32
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 150.9 Hz Gain -2.95 dB Q 0.63
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 919.5 Hz Gain -1.32 dB Q 2.28
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2107.3 Hz Gain 4.50 dB Q 1.46
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 4503.0 Hz Gain -5.69 dB Q 1.88
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 9333.1 Hz Gain 4.88 dB Q 1.64
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 13815.4 Hz Gain -10.32 dB Q 4.96

A bit smoother
Score no EQ: 71.3
Score Amirm: 72.9
Score with EQ: 91.4
Score with EQ 2: 94.4

Meze Audio 105 AER APO EQ Score 2 Flat@HF 96000Hz
March252025-114350

Preamp: -5.10 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 19.8 Hz Gain 5.22 dB Q 0.38
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 162.8 Hz Gain -3.52 dB Q 0.58
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 883.1 Hz Gain -1.76 dB Q 1.93
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2072.5 Hz Gain 3.84 dB Q 2.29
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 5495.5 Hz Gain -4.67 dB Q 4.73
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3967.8 Hz Gain -5.03 dB Q 3.83
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 10456.6 Hz Gain 4.97 dB Q 1.08
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 13678.7 Hz Gain -14.60 dB Q 4.15

 

[Curupira]

Surprised for the high levels of distortion in the bass. I'd expect that being newer and with better materials it could surpass the 20 year old HD600/650s, but I think that though the Meze have better extension, the end THD might even exceed those headphone's low end's, which already was pretty apparent when you tried to EQ any more bass.

I usually don't correct above 10 KHz but here, I added a filter and thought it too smoothed out the highs.

With most headphones that shouldn't be necessary, but IME the few that do benefit from it really do need it, as the Uber high treble peaks bring an unnatural "zing" to instruments that some might confuse with detail. For me, the oval hifimans suffered chronically from this problem.

The worst of it all is that those peaks vary from person to person, as those frequencies have such short lengths that their reflections are literally chaotic.

 

[staticV3]

Thanks for giving this one a spin!

Sensitivity is quite high which is a good thing:

Combined with low impedance, you should be able to drive the 105s with a lot of sources:

Just a note/clarification for those dipping their toes into headphone measurements:

High sensitivity improves drivability, but low impedance reduces drivability.

Low impedance is an unfortunate byproduct of making a sensitive headphone, and is not in itself desirable or an attribute that makes the headphone more compatible with various sources.

Low impedance means the headphone Amp has to output more current to maintain a given voltage, which means more heat and an increased chance of distortion, crosstalk, and voltage drop if the source device is not up to snuff (e.g. an old iPod, Walkman, AVR, CD Player, laptop etc.)

In theory, if Meze could maintain the 105's high sensitivity but bump up the impedance to 300Ω, then that would make the headphone easier to drive and better suited to weak headphone outputs from iPods and the like.

 

[AndreaT]

Thank you Amir for an excellent review. I think I will pass on this product: distortion seems high, fr at best tentative. Dialing in more bass might increase the distortion further.

 

[amirm]

Score no EQ: 71.3
Score Amirm: 72.9

That's curious. Just the bass enhancement should have boosted the score more than this.

 

[Maiky76]

That's curious. Just the bass enhancement should have boosted the score more than this.

The score is based on 50 -10000Hz range. Your LF EQ does not do much above 50Hz...
Mathematically the EQ you devised is not addressing the driving factors, predominantly the slope of the error regression hence the very moderate change in score.

No EQ
Error Slope: -0.6
Error std: 2.7dB
Error Avg: 2.2dB
Score: 71.3

Amirm EQ
Error Slope: -0.7
Error std: 2.5dB
Error Avg: 1.9dB
Score: 72.9

If I apply what I have observed as your preference (more bass less HF than default Harman target)
the change is slightly more substantial:
Scores NOT comparable

No EQ
Error Slope: +0.1
Error std: 2.8dB
Error Avg: 2.3dB
Score: 77.5

Amirm EQ
Error Slope: -0.0
Error std: 2.5dB
Error Avg: 2.0dB
Score: 83.1

 

[amirm]

The score is based on 50 -10000Hz range.

Oh, that is a flaw in the metrics then. I was guessing this was the case as none of the files used in the research have deep bass. That confirms it.

 

[Nango]

Antonio Meze from Romania is known for manufacturing headbands for all Audio Technica models since the 70s. Indeed, they look all equal.

 

[ObjectiveSubjectivist]

I would not call 44ohms on the low side...
Is that just me?

 

[thewas]

Low impedance means the headphone Amp has to output more current to maintain a given voltage, which means more heat and an increased chance of distortion, crosstalk, and voltage drop if the source device is not up to snuff (e.g. an old iPod, Walkman, AVR, CD Player, laptop etc.)

Also it can be added that if that low impedance fluctuates the frequency response of the headphone will change if connected to amplifier outputs with relatively high impedance, like for example on many loudspeaker amplifiers where the headphone output is just some resistors connected to the loudspeaker outputs.

 

[Curupira]

I would not call 44ohms on the low side...
Is that just me?

For full-size dynamics it can be. OG headphones that had high impedance to compensate high OI from dirty sources frequently had >100 ohm impedance (often reaching 400 or 600ohm); even recent releases like the HD560s and HD 505s are over 100 ohm.

 

[A Surfer]

It is on the low side.

 

[DanTheMan]

A compelling reason to buy this over the 6XX would be that you can power it straight off of your laptop. The Meze headband is great as well. I do wish someone would equal the 6XX‘s OOB tonality someday for similar money. For people like me who use headphones for piano practice, headphones that don’t require EQ are currently mandatory unless you don’t mind complexity.

 

[staticV3]

I do wish someone would equal the 6XX‘s OOB tonality someday for similar money. For people like me who use headphones for piano practice, headphones that don’t require EQ are currently mandatory unless you don’t mind complexity.

The best options currently are HD505, HD550, HD560S, and K371.

You can find measurements on ASR, headphones.com, and in oratory's repo: https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/wiki/index/list_of_presets

Edit:
Some frequency response overlays:

 

[Mr Swing King]

Thanks for the review Amir.
Looks like the ZMF Bokeh Open with that peakiness in the uppermids/low treble….actually also reminds me a bit of the HD490 Pro, although the Sennheiser is way smoother and doesn’t come with a bootful of distortion.
I know how much the headphone hobby revolves around the looks and how luxurious X can feels…but from a pure sound quality pov, it’s hard to top a good plastic Sennheiser.
Sure if you are equalising the heck out of your headphones and listen LOUDLY…maybe a planar is a better bet, but for the crazy people out there, like me, who don’t equalise? I’ll take an HD505 thank you very much

I like the look of this Meze though. Too bad the performance doesn’t match.

 

[solderdude]

I would not call 44ohms on the low side...
Is that just me?

It's is not, in fact for a low impedance headphone (which most are these days) it even is a bit higher than average... Anything below 25ohm (and with a low sensitivity) would be 'harder' to drive.

With a sensitivity of 115dB/V (101dBmW efficiency) it is actually really easy to drive, even from a phone to loud enough levels.

When the same driver were made in 300ohm (with the same efficiency) it would be 101dBV (so 2dB less sensitive as HD600) now that would be 'harder' to drive as a phone could not drive it loud enough.

Nah .. this is very easy to drive. When one wants to reach 120dB 1.8V would be enough (72mW) so an amplifier spec'd at 100mW in 32ohm could make it go impressively loud.

The +5dB treble peaks would bother me (so did the treble of the 109).
Distortion would probably be a deal breaker if it were used at not sensible levels (with Harman bass boost).
Judging from measurements distortion is high in 3rd harmonic pointing to dynamic compression.

The build quality and comfort of Meze headphones is always excellent and as Amir stated, not offensive without EQ for certain.

Reserved for @AdamG to kindly post the specs.

Manufacturer Specifications:

View attachment 438861
Link to product details and webpage:

105 AER

mezeaudio.com

Funny how manufacturers often seem to get the measurements section wrong.
Sensitivity is in dB/V (Amir measured 115dB/V)
Efficiency is in dB/mW (Amir measured 101dB/mW)

 

[Robbo99999]

Based on the review there are obviously better headphones out there for the money. I don't like the aesthetics of this one either. Nearly voted it Poor, but it's not broken so Not Terrible. Not a very controversial or exciting headphone, ha!