By aspect — in detail
Comfort
Strong consensus · 9 srcThe most settled thing about it. The self-adjusting headband needs no fiddling, weight is spread across the crown rather than a single point, and nobody reports hotspots over long sessions. Two caveats recur: clamp is firmer than on the 105 AER (a plus for most, a break-in period for some), and the flat driver sits close enough that larger ears may brush it.
“Very, very comfortable when I wear it. No issues with the clamp pressure whatsoever.”
Resolve, Headphones.com
“There is no need to adjust anything when putting on the 105 SILVA, and it doesn’t put stress on the area around the ears even after hours of listening.”
James, Headfonics
“Comfort is sensational, the mids are the best I’ve heard on any headset I’ve ever owned”
Pure_Artichoke_5168, r/headphones
Measured
354 g without cable — 18 g heavier than the 105 AER, and light for the class next to planars at the price.
Build
Strong consensus · 10 srcUniversally praised, and the praise is specific rather than vibes: walnut and PC-ABS over a spring-steel and PVD-coated zinc frame, velour pads, and a design that comes apart with Torx screws so headbands, pads and cables are all user-replaceable. The only recurring gripe is the recessed 3.5 mm sockets, whose narrow diameter rules out some third-party cables.
“All in all, excellent build quality and once again class-leading attention to detail from Meze. I can’t really find anything to fault here.”
Kazi, audioreviews.org
“Every part of the headphone is replaceable, which, along with the general high standard of build quality, means these headphones should make for a good long-term investment.”
Chris Baillie, HiFi and Music Source
The part of the tuning reviewers most often name as its point. Vocals and instruments sit forward and clean, with several outlets calling the midrange the headphone's defining strength. The dissent is about the shape rather than the quality: a dip through the lower mids means thin voices can sound set back on a weak source, and the steep climb out of 1.5 kHz can read hollow on soaring vocals.
“The 105 Silva places strong emphasis on the mid-range, presenting a crisp, forward, and highly transparent character.”
Berkhan, Headfonia
“a midrange that is clean – male vocals have correct tonality with neutral weight”
Animagus, Twister6 Reviews
“The mids need some attention on pairing as the intensity in the mid-range frequencies, particularly around the 600-800 Hz area, feels relatively dipped compared to the two ends.”
James, Headfonics
Measured
A shallow dip at ~1.5 kHz followed by a steep rise to +9 to +12 dB of ear gain at 2.5–3 kHz; the 600–800 Hz region sits slightly behind the bass and the presence peak.
Sources split, and they are split about quantity rather than quality — nobody calls it loose or bloated. One camp hears a forward, physical mid-bass with real slam; the other hears a deliberately trimmed low end that runs out of sub-bass weight. The two camps are measuring from different places: against a neutral target the mid- and upper-bass are up a couple of dB, but against Meze's own warmer siblings the sub-bass is what's missing. Amplification moves it too — several reviewers found the bottom end fills out on a proper amp rather than a dongle.
Measured
About +2 to +3 dB through 80–150 Hz relative to 500 Hz, falling back to roughly level by 20 Hz — a mid-bass lift over a sub-bass that does not extend to match. jeromeoflaherty's KB501X read is "mostly linear bass but a slight sub-bass dip"; both his rig and Resolve's 5128 place it slightly below Meze's own 105 AER down low. Distortion is well controlled at normal levels and rises in the bass past ~104 dB.
⚠ vs. listeners — Both camps are right about the curve and wrong about each other. The elevation is real and sits in the mid- and upper-bass, which is what the "punchy" camp hears; the sub-bass genuinely does not keep up, which is what the "lean" camp hears. Source gear shifts the balance further, so a phone and a desktop amp can produce two honest, opposite verdicts.
Where it splits
punchy and physical — real slam, and it stays clean58%
“this gives it a good balance between that sense of slam and impact and physicality”
Resolve, Headphones.com
polite and lean — short on sub-bass weight and impact42%
“The mid-bass quantity is also modest, resulting in a flatter, less impactful overall character.”
Berkhan, Headfonia
The widest disagreement of any aspect, and unusually it is three-way. Most reviewers hear a top end that is brighter than past Meze headphones yet stays civil. A measurement-led minority hears the narrow 10–11 kHz peak as overcooked and says it costs timbre. A third group hears the opposite — a sweetened, rolled-off top with little air above 10 kHz. The graphs show why: a narrow spike sits directly above a 9 kHz dip, and the response falls away from 12 kHz up, so all three are describing real, adjacent features of one curve.
Measured
A presence peak of +6 to +9 dB at 5.5–6 kHz, a dip of −4 to −7 dB at 9 kHz, a narrow spike of +6 to +9 dB at 10 kHz, then a fall to −4 to −8 dB from 12 kHz upward. Both Resolve (B&K 5128) and Kazi flag the region above 10 kHz as elevated; jeromeoflaherty's suggested EQ is a −2 to −3 dB cut at 5.5–6 kHz.
⚠ vs. listeners — The "too much air" and "rolled off" camps are not contradicting each other so much as hearing different parts of the same shape — a narrow spike at 10 kHz on top of a top octave that is genuinely down. And the spike is not stable across a fitting: one unit measures about 3.5 dB apart left to right at 10 kHz, so how the cups seat on your head decides which camp you land in.
Where it splits
brighter than past Mezes, but never harsh61%
“Slightly brighter, more open treble than the 105 AER, adding definition and edge without becoming overtly harsh”
Animagus, Twister6 Reviews
the 10–11 kHz peak is overdone and costs timbre22%
“the peak around 11kHz becomes quite prominent. I feel like this region was boosted too much”
Kazi, audioreviews.org
actually rolled off — little air up top17%
“Instead of emphasizing the air beyond 10kHz, it chooses a more sweetened approach and effectively tames the sibilance zone”
James, Headfonics
Tonality
Moderate · 10 srcDescribed consistently as warm-neutral with a bright accent — variously called W-shaped, mildly V-shaped, or a near-match for the Harman target depending on the rig. The common thread is that it is leaner and more incisive than the 105 AER and calmer than the 109 PRO. The dissent is that this middle position gives it a narrower comfort zone: one outlet found it excellent on vocal- and instrument-led music and less convincing as an all-rounder.
“The Meze 105 Silva is best described as a coloured W-shaped tuning, and that colour is not accidental.”
Animagus, Twister6 Reviews
“The general tuning of the 105 Silva can be described as warm-tilted, with some boost near the upper-midrange and lower-treble.”
Kazi, audioreviews.org
“It has a warm-neutral sound signature and is not as bass heavy as the 105 AER or the 109 Pro.”
Mardrommar, r/Mezeaudio
Measured
jeromeoflaherty's KB501X read calls it "almost perfect match for the Harman 2018 target with a mostly linear bass but a slight sub-bass dip"; Resolve's 5128 read is that it is "not going strictly for neutrality" and carries deliberate colorations.
Soundstage
Contested · 7 srcSources split, though not evenly. The weight of opinion calls the stage moderately wide and honest, with width ahead of depth and separation better than absolute scale. A minority rates it as the headphone's standout feature and recommends it for games and film. One outlet goes the other way entirely and names staging its weakest area.
Measured
The 1.5 kHz dip and the 5.5–6 kHz presence peak are the pair of features reviewers associate with a widened stage; jeromeoflaherty describes them on his graph as the "soundstage dip" and treble peak common to headphones tuned this way.
Where it splits
moderately wide and well separated, but depth is the limit77%
“There is some bias towards stage width rather than depth and height, which leads to vocals still not being projected as far up front as an HD800, for example.”
Kazi, audioreviews.org
a genuine highlight — expansive and immersive for the price23%
“The soundstage is without a doubt my favorite aspect of the reviewed Meze 105 Silva.”
Bruno Paprocki, Ear Fidelity
Broadly praised for precise placement and clean separation, which most sources tie to the upper-midrange lift. The reservation is that it is not a surgical, analytical imager: one outlet found instruments floating in open air rather than pinned to exact coordinates.
“imaging is natural and predictable. Instruments occupy well-defined positions without excessive spread.”
Animagus, Twister6 Reviews
“The exact position of certain sounds might not localize themselves with the most distinct imaging”
Major HiFi
Most sources rate resolution as good to excellent for the money, and several single out a quick, almost planar-like transient snap. The significant dissent comes from the reviewer who compared it directly against planars at the price: he found surface detail fine and the fine nuance missing, and listed microdynamics as a weakness.
“Detail retrieval, resolution, and transparency are excellent”
Berkhan, Headfonia
“it’s the finer nuances that the 105 Silva cannot unearth too well”
Kazi, audioreviews.org
Transient speed is one of the more consistent compliments — several reviewers call it a step up on the 105 AER and note it behaves quicker than a 50 mm dynamic driver usually does. Macro dynamics also scale noticeably with a stronger amp. The one dissent is on microdynamics, which a single reviewer found underplayed.
“The driver reacts with impressive speed and control, delivering one of the best transient performances in its class.”
Berkhan, Headfonia
“Microdynamics are not too evident”
Kazi, audioreviews.org
Isolation
Strong consensus · 4 srcEffectively not applicable — it is an open-back, and nobody buys one for isolation. The one shared observation worth having is that the mesh damping behind the grille makes it a little less open than most: reviewers report slightly more attenuation coming in and slightly less leakage going out than an open-back usually gives.
“Isolation is obviously limited as it is an open-back, yet leakage is less than expected thanks to rear mesh damping”
jeromeoflaherty, Head-Fi
“Isolation is not a concern here given the open-back nature of these headphones, despite them being less “open” than some of their counterparts (so expect some noise attenuation).”
Kazi, audioreviews.org
Sources split, and the split is about what you think $499 is buying. Most conclude the whole package — walnut, comfort, serviceability and a competent tuning — justifies the price and undercuts the 109 PRO by $300. A measurement-led minority argues the sound alone does not keep up with cheaper rivals, naming the Sennheiser HD 550 and HD 490 PRO specifically. A third position makes it conditional: buy it for timbre, comfort and craft, not for raw resolution per dollar, where planars at the price win.
Where it splits
worth it — looks, feels and plays above its price71%
“at $499, the 105 SILVA looks and feels like a headphone twice the price”
jeromeoflaherty, Head-Fi
cheaper headphones sound better — you are paying for the craft18%
“I feel that the HD 550 sounds better than the 105 Silva.”
Resolve, Headphones.com
conditional — right buy for timbre and comfort, wrong one for resolution11%
“If you prefer a rich timbre and value comfort and design, the 105 Silva is a strong contender in the $400-600 USD price range.”
Kazi, audioreviews.org
