Comparison.

The sound comparison was done using MM with a stock cable, Crystal eartips, and LPGT source; volume matched in every comparison.

MM vs UM Mason Fabled Sound – FS has less bass quantity and also has more attenuated mids and rolled off upper treble.  That makes its tuning warmer and brings more attention to the bass which creates the perception of beefier low end.  While, MM bass is higher in quantity, and mids are also more elevated, along with more mid-treble presence and better treble extension, giving it more mid-forward sound with a higher resolution, and overall, a more balanced W-shaped tuning.  But with a more mid-forward push, the bass perception is not as elevated as in FS.  MM soundstage is noticeably wider while both have a similar depth/height in soundstage expansion.  MM imaging is more holographic while FS sounds more intimate with imaging closer to the center.

Both have 12xBAs + BCD design, where FS is 4BA bass, 4BA mids, 2BA mid-treble, 2BA treble and MM is 4BA bass, 2BA mids, 2BA mid-treble, and 4BA treble which explains the shift to more upper frequency presence in MM.  There is also a difference in cable with FS using PWA Attila, pure copper, and MM using PWA Deep of Universe, copper and silver-plated copper.  FS also uses more premium shell material, though MM has its own eye-candy shell.  Then, we have a difference in the type of Bone Conduction driver where FS uses a dual-sided piezoelectric BC covering 500Hz to 20kHz, while MM uses frequency shift piezoelectric BC covering even wider 20Hz to 20kHz range.

MM vs UM Mest Indigo – A few people asked me a question if MM would be considered an upgrade from Indigo, thus I decided to cover this comparison in my review here.  Upgrade/improvement is a very subjective opinion, and there are differences between these two, though a few things in common as well.  MM soundstage is bar none, and while Indigo is trying to keep up, MM is still wider in the perception of sound expansion.  With bass, if you like your deep sub-bass rumble, Indigo with its DD driver delivers a lifted sub-bass in comparison to MM.  But MM offers more impact in mid-bass and more body in lower mids.  In comparison, lower mids of Indigo are leaner.  Another noticeable difference is more forward upper mids in MM due to its higher boost in pinna-gain region while Indigo pulls its upper mids slightly back.  But then, to my surprise, their mid-treble boost is nearly the same, bringing more energy to the upper frequencies and to the overall sound.  But here is a thing, because MM upper mids are lifted higher, the boost in mid-treble sounds more balanced while Indigo with its lower quantity upper mids makes its mid-treble a bit too forward.  It is still not as aggressive as the Mest MKII, but relative to MM, the Indigo treble is a bit more aggressive.

MM vs Oriolus Traillii w/Chiron – While MM has one of the biggest soundstage expansions I heard from an IEM, Traillii is not too far behind it, maybe with just a touch narrower expansion.  These two have a lot more in common than other flagship IEMs.  They have nearly the same bass impact and weight, with Traillii having just a little more sub-bass lift.  But the overall bass has the same speed, articulation, and decay of notes.  Lower mids are very similar as well, giving the sound a fuller and more natural body.  But once you cross that threshold and go into upper mids and treble, that is where they have a different approach in tuning.  Traillii pushes upper mids more forward while having a more laidback treble response.  In contrast, MM keeps its mids more balanced with its bass and pushes mid-treble more forward, to give the sound more crunch and higher resolution with more upper frequency emphasis.  As a result of this difference, Traillii sound is more laidback, more relaxed, while MM is charged up with more energy in upper frequencies.  This shouldn’t be mistaken for harsher or sibilant sound, just higher resolution.  And, as a matter of fact, I think it also contributes to a perception of a wider soundstage I hear with MM vs Traillii.

MM vs EE Odin – Quite a few differences in this comparison, but I think it still worth to cover it.  Starting with soundstage, Odin is not too far off with the same depth/height, just a little less width.  With bass you can hear the difference right away where Odin has more sub-bass rumble while MM has more impact. The difference is very noticeable because Odin’s bass is rather lean and neutral in comparison to a stronger punch of MM bass, but Odin also has a deeper bass extension while MM has less of that rumble.  This continuous into lower mids where Odin is very lean while MM has a noticeably fuller body.  This change reverses as you get into upper mids with more pinna-gain in Odin that pushes its vocals more mid-forward while MM has a smoother and less aggressive upper mids/vocals.  Once we reach treble, even though Odin has a bit lower treble presence, MM takes over with more forward and more aggressive mid-treble presentation to give upper frequencies more zing, more energy.  Not much overlap in this comparison.

MM vs Aroma Jewel w/FT – I don’t even bother using Jewel with its stock cable, always with First Times which gives the soundstage a wide expansion it deserves, bringing it closer to MM, though MM still has the upper hand with soundstage width.  Starting with a bass, both have a similar low end extension down to a similar level of sub-bass rumble.  Mid-bass quantity is different with more punch in MM, and less with Jewel, making Jewel bass sounds more like a faster leaner BA while MM is stronger and more rounded DD.  Lower mids are also a little leaner in Jewel while MM is north of neutral which gives mids more body.  Jewel has leaner lower mids and noticeably more forward upper mids, scaling up in pinna-gain region, while MM has fuller body lower mids and scaled back upper mids to give mids/vocals are smoother tonality.  Treble comparison between these two flips it again with more forward mid-treble of MM which puts more emphasis on resolution of upper frequencies.  The main difference here is in leaner and less colored tonality of Jewel versus smoother fuller body tonality of MM which has a more forward presence in treble.

Conclusion.

As soon as I mentioned about receiving MM for review, I got flooded with questions if I consider it to be an upgrade of FS.  I’m not sure why anybody would think that UM going to release a new flagship to dethrone one of their other recent top IEMs.  In the past, a difference in the number of drivers between Mason and Mentor made people assume that one has an upper hand (Mason) and should be considered as a flagship.  For me personally, they always shared flagship crown, and now they also share the number and the type of drivers.  There are differences in the shell material, the cable material, and the design of Bone Conduction driver, but it all comes down to the tuning.  The tuning between the latest Mason and Mentor releases is different, and one is not better than the other.  The difference will appeal to diverse group of audiophiles depending on their sound tuning preference, especially upper mids and mid-treble region.

To my ears, Mason Fabled Sound has closer to U-shaped tuning with more emphasis on the bass and the lower treble while mids/vocals are slightly pulled back.  Mentor Multiverse takes care of mids/vocals with more pinna gain which creates a more balanced sound signature.  For me personally, MM hit the sweet spot and made its way to the top where I have been enjoying it non-stop for the last month.  You do need to keep in mind, this is still a multi-kilobuck release with an eyewatering price.  But there has been quite a few of these releases in the last 2-3 years which no longer shocks anybody.  Instead, it just makes people more selective without assumption that higher price tag will translate into a better IEM.  And you always have other more affordable options, like Mest.  But if you want to go for the best and don’t mind paying extra, even considering diminishing returns, Multiverse will treat you to a new Multi-dimensional sound!