By aspect — in detail
Tonality
Contested · 9 srcSources broadly agree on the shape — bass-forward, with slightly recessed/tame upper-mids — and split on the verdict. Most enthusiast and mainstream reviewers hear a well-executed, engaging, tastefully tuned balance; a critical minority hear it as unexciting or mediocre for the price. Reviewers even disagree on the direction (Crinacle hears a U-shape with sub-bass emphasis, RecordingNow hears 'neutral bright'), which tells you how listener-dependent the read is.
Measured
SoundGuys measures a response that 'follows our headphone preference curve fairly closely,' with a reduced emphasis in the highs and a little extra sub-bass; Crinacle measures a mild sub-bass lift and a recession in the upper-midrange versus the Harman target (Tone grade A-). The broad shape is agreed; the verdict is preference.
Where it splits
Well-tuned, engaging and pleasant — tastefully done, even by audiophile standards.68%
“very well-tuned headphone, even within the context of the “hifi audiophile” models”
Crinacle
Unexciting and mediocre for the money — sounds like a mid-range pair, not a $549 flagship.32%
“confronted with extremely average, unexciting audio”
The Budget Hifi Guy
Broad agreement that the bass is boosted, reaches deep and — unusually for a boosted tuning — stays well-controlled and clean, without bleeding into the mids. Sources differ on emphasis (Crinacle hears a sub-bass focus that prioritises rumble over punch; RecordingNow hears mid-bass punch), and a few listeners find it simply too much, but the dominant read is 'emphasised but tidy.'
“Very well-controlled and focused boost down into the lowest octaves of bass, resulting in a good separation between the basslines and the rest of the melodic mix”
Crinacle
“The bass is punchy and dynamic, focusing more on the mid-bass as opposed to deep sub-bass which I would’ve liked a little more of”
RecordingNow
Measured
Crinacle notes the sub-bass 'very clearly dominates the sound' yet without bleed; SoundGuys measures a little extra sub-bass kick. The disagreement is over sub-bass vs mid-bass emphasis, not over whether the low end is boosted or controlled.
The dominant view is that the upper-midrange is slightly recessed or 'tame' — present enough not to sound hollow, but set a touch back, with timbre that a few reviewers wish were fuller and more natural. A minority of listeners hear the mids as clear and forward. Not a headline flaw either way.
“The upper midrange is a little tame for my own liking”
Crinacle
“The mids could be fuller and aren’t the most realistic timbre”
RecordingNow
Measured
Crinacle measures a recession in the upper-midrange versus the Harman target and would 'EQ up the 2kHz to 6kHz to balance out the tonality.' A minority of community listeners hear the mids as 'clear and forward' instead — the recessed read is the larger, measurement-backed one.
Genuinely split, and both camps are describing the same modest treble. One side hears it as bright and sparkly — even 'spicy' or sharp for treble-sensitive ears; the other hears it as reduced and rolled-off, short on air. Part of the split is real: SoundGuys notes the USB-C unit has a touch more high-end than the Lightning version it measured.
Measured
SoundGuys measures a reduced emphasis in the highs on the Lightning unit but notes the USB-C version 'has a bit more high-end'; What Hi-Fi hears the treble as present and sparkly ('twinkling brilliantly'). The same modest top end lands as 'spicy/sharp' for the treble-sensitive and 'dark/rolled-off' for others.
⚠ vs. listeners — Both reads describe one tuning: the highs measure fairly restrained, so listeners chasing air call it dark; but the presence region relative to the recessed upper-mids makes cymbals stand out, which treble-sensitive listeners hear as 'spicy' or sharp.
Where it splits· split roughly even
Bright and sparkly — even 'spicy' or sharp for treble-sensitive listeners.
“there is a certain “spiciness” to the upper frequencies that one may or may not be accustomed to”
Crinacle
Reduced and rolled-off up top — measures tame in the highs, and can read as dark or lacking sparkle.
“notably reduced emphasis in the highs and little extra kick in the sub-bass region”
SoundGuys
Soundstage
Contested · 6 srcContested, with an important asterisk: much of the width is computational — manufactured by the headphones' DSP. One camp hears a genuinely wide, spacious, immersive stage; the other hears a perfectly ordinary closed-back that isn't especially wide. Which you get seems to depend partly on head shape and how the DSP fits you.
Measured
Marius Masalar notes that 'much of that magical soundstage is in fact manufactured by the headphones’ Digital Signal Processing (DSP)' — so the width both camps describe is partly a computed effect rather than raw driver behaviour, which helps explain why the read varies so much person to person.
Where it splits
Wide, spacious and immersive — crisp and atmospheric, with room for each instrument.58%
“we’re instantly thrilled by the AirPods Max's super-crisp and spacious delivery”
What Hi-Fi
Not particularly wide — an above-average closed-back at best, and unremarkable imaging.42%
“The soundstage isn’t particularly wide or spacious (though above average for a closed-back headphone) and the positioning of the instruments themselves aren’t impressive either”
Crinacle
Lightly covered and middling. Instrument placement is called solid by some and merely decent — 'decent-ish closed-back' — by others; nobody holds it up as a standout, and it's hemmed in by whatever the DSP does to the stage.
“a tremendously wide soundstage, solid instrument placement”
Marius Masalar
“in terms of imaging, the APM performs on the level of a decent-ish closed-back”
Crinacle
The framing decides the verdict. Judged as a wireless ANC headphone, most reviewers find it surprisingly detailed and resolving; judged against wired headphones at its price, the more critical listeners find its resolution and transient attack fall short. Both can be true at once.
Measured
Crinacle rates the technicalities a C+ ('slightly above average'), likening resolution to lower-end closed-back studio monitors; owners note the improvement is real but subtle when fed 24-bit/48 kHz lossless over USB-C rather than Bluetooth AAC.
Where it splits
Surprisingly detailed and resolving — impressive for a wireless, Bluetooth-fed headphone.58%
“surprisingly detailed and resolving for a wireless headphone”
RecordingNow
Short of its price — resolution and transients only slightly above average against wired rivals.42%
“Resolution and leading-edge transients are where the APM falls short”
Crinacle
Mostly a strength. Reviewers describe articulate, punchy dynamics and very low distortion, helped by Apple's claimed sub-1% THD across the audible range. The caveats: switching noise cancelling on slightly flattens the dynamics, and a minority hear less dynamic range than the Sony rivals.
“some of the most articulate dynamics I’ve heard from consumer equipment”
Marius Masalar
“there is more dynamic range between parts in a good mix”
AppleVis
Measured
Apple claims total harmonic distortion under one per cent across the audible range (relayed by What Hi-Fi), and Marius corroborates 'incredibly low distortion'; What Hi-Fi notes a 'slight flattening of dynamics' with noise cancelling switched on, so the headphones sound their best with ANC off.
The comfort debate is really a debate about weight. Everyone praises the mesh, weight-distributing headband; everyone agrees ~385 g is heavy. From there it splits hard: one camp finds the design hides the mass so well it disappears over long sessions, the other finds it too heavy with a strong clamp that brings on fatigue or headaches after an hour.
Measured
Measured at ~385 g, the heaviest headphone in its class (What Hi-Fi puts it 131 g over the Sony WH-1000XM6). RecordingNow and Marius both flag the clamping force as strong; the mesh headband is the agreed high point, the mass and clamp the fault line.
Where it splits
Heavy on paper, but the weight-distributing design hides it — comfortable for long sessions.55%
“such is the effectiveness of the Apple headphones' weight-distributing design, they really don’t feel heavy on the head and there are no pronounced pressure points”
What Hi-Fi
Too heavy, with a strong clamp — uncomfortable and fatiguing over longer listens.45%
“these are just plain uncomfortable for long listening sessions”
Marius Masalar
A rare point of broad agreement and a genuine strength: stainless steel and anodised aluminium make it feel a class above the mostly-plastic Sony, Bose and Sennheiser rivals. The caveats are real but narrow — the aluminium scuffs, there's no true power button, and the mocked Smart Case doesn't actually protect the headphone.
“The AirPods Max plays the part of luxury headphones extremely well”
SoundGuys
“it has the most premium materials and feel compared to the mostly-plastic competitors from Bose, Sony, and Sennheiser”
RecordingNow
Measured
Stainless-steel headband and aluminium ear cups; no IP/water rating and no power switch (the Smart Case is the only way to fully idle them). What Hi-Fi calls the case out for failing the most basic job of a case — actually protecting the product from knocks and scratches — and long-term owners report the anodised finish scuffing.
Isolation
Strong consensus · 8 srcThe headline strength and the clearest agreement of all: the active noise cancelling is class-leading — even the harshest critics single it out — and the transparency mode is widely called the best on any over-ear. The only caveats are that a good seal matters and that newer rivals (the Sony WH-1000XM6, and Apple's own AirPods Max 2) have since edged it on constant low-frequency rumble.
“The active noise canceling on the AirPods Max is fantastic”
SoundGuys
“The noise cancelling is the best in the business, it really is. It shuts out pretty much everything”
The Budget Hifi Guy
Measured
Reviewers converge on best-or-near-best in class, with an unusually good transparency mode (Marius calls it 'the best I’ve heard on over-ear headphones'). What Hi-Fi notes 'the newer Sony WH-1000XM6 is better at blocking constant, consistent noise,' and Apple says the 2026 AirPods Max 2 improves ANC by up to 1.5x — so the lead has narrowed, not vanished.
The sharpest split of all, and it turns on what you're buying it for. Judged on the build, noise cancelling and Apple-ecosystem features, several reviewers call the price fair — especially now that it's routinely discounted. Judged on sound-per-dollar, enthusiasts and owners call it far too expensive, pointing to cheaper wireless rivals and much cheaper wired headphones that sound as good or better. The recurring line: you're paying for the badge, the ANC and the convenience, not the SQ.
Measured
Launched at $549 and still officially that price; SoundGuys flatly calls it 'overpriced' while praising the headphone, and the Reddit consensus is that 'you definitely are paying for the convenience features and not sound.' Renewed/discounted units around $400 shift several reviewers toward 'good value,' and the arrival of the AirPods Max 2 has pushed street prices down further.
Where it splits
Far too expensive for the sound — you pay for the badge, ANC and convenience, not the audio.58%
“550 is far too high for the level of sound quality that the APM presents. Not worth the dosh if sound is your primary concern”
Crinacle
The build, ANC and features justify it — especially at a discount and for Apple users.42%
“Overall performance and build justifies their price – especially when it's discounted”
What Hi-Fi
