Test Beyerdynamic Aventho 100 (2026): Our Complete Verdict

The Aventho 100 comes in a mostly plastic chassis, with a sober matte finish and zinc alloy hinges that inspire confidence when flexed. The folding mechanism is symmetrical: both earcups fold inward toward the headband, reducing bulk for transport. The kit includes a semi-rigid clamshell case, a USB-C cable for charging and a 3.5 mm jack cable for passive wired mode. Nothing superfluous, nothing missing.

The IP53 certification is a concrete argument for daily use: it covers water splashes and fine dust, which proved relevant during outings in Breton drizzle. At 220 g, the headphones sit in the lower average of the supra-aural category, but this figure alone does not tell the whole story about wearing comfort, a point developed in the next section.

Compared with direct competitors, the finish comparison is nuanced:

• Marshall Major V: brushed metal chassis that looks more premium, but heavier (240 g) and without IP certification
• Sony WH-CH720N: lighter plastic (192 g), over-ear, less refined finish on the joints
• Aventho 100: correct balance between perceived robustness and lightness, without reaching the tactile level of headphones at 300 €+

The earpads are perforated synthetic leather, with a usable diameter of about 55 mm. This point directly affects lateral pressure and accumulated heat: an on-ear pad of this diameter rests on the auricle, not around it, which generates mechanical compression after 45 minutes for wide head shapes.

The on-ear format is the structural friction point of this category, and the editorial team chose to make it a documented angle rather than a footnote. Three morphological profiles wore the Aventho 100: narrow head (head circumference 54 cm), average head (57 cm) and wide head (60 cm). The results differ significantly.

On narrow to average heads, lateral pressure remains tolerable up to 2 h 30 without adjustment. The spring-steel headband exerts an estimated force between 4 and 5 N, measured with a precision dynamometer, which corresponds to the upper range of acceptable comfort for an on-ear model. On wide heads, noticeable discomfort appears after 50 minutes, with localized heat on the upper auricle.

Wearing glasses with thick temples (5 mm frames) degrades the acoustic seal of the earpads and increases pressure at the temples. This is not specific to the Aventho 100: it is an inherent limit of the closed supra-aural format, but Beyerdynamic did not attempt to compensate with memory-foam earpads or a self-adjusting headband, unlike some higher-range models.

After 4 h continuous, the editorial team observed mechanical auricular fatigue (pressure) distinct from auditory fatigue. The perforated synthetic leather earpads limit heat buildup compared with solid synthetic leather, but do not compete with velour fabric. For short travel use (daily commute, 45 to 90 min), comfort is satisfactory. For a full day of remote work without removal, it is insufficient.

The sound signature of the Aventho 100 deviates moderately from the Harman 2018 over-ear target, adapted here to the supra-aural context. The bass is present with a slight boost around 80-100 Hz (approximately +3 dB relative to the Harman target), without excessive spillover into the lower midrange. The 200-500 Hz region is clean, without perceptible muddiness on male voices. The upper midrange (1-3 kHz) is slightly recessed, which softens vocal attacks but reduces presence on plucked string instruments.

The treble shows a slight emphasis around 8-9 kHz, audible on cymbals and sibilants. Sibilance remains controlled on most sources, but can become perceptible on already bright recordings in 24 bit/96 kHz. The stereo scene is adequate for a closed supra-aural format, with clear left/right separation but limited depth, consistent with the format.

The editorial team compared the four available codecs on the same Qualcomm Snapdragon source compatible with aptX Lossless, with the same FLAC file 24 bit/96 kHz converted in real time. The observed differences are as follows:

• SBC (328 kbps): audible compression on rapid transients, slight degradation of the stereo scene in high frequency
• AAC (256 kbps): clear improvement on voices, residual artifacts on cymbals at high levels
• aptX Adaptive (up to 1 Mbps): significant difference in dynamics and separation of planes, especially on orchestral recordings
• aptX Lossless (1,1 Mbps, 16 bit/44,1 kHz): on CD material (16 bit/44,1 kHz), the difference with aptX Adaptive is subtle but measurable on percussion transients. On 24 bit/96 kHz material, the gap is more perceptible on details of natural reverberation.

The resonance in the upper bass reported on Reddit was verified with a sinusoidal sweep 150-400 Hz. A slight resonance peak is identifiable around 180-200 Hz in SBC Bluetooth mode, attenuated in aptX Adaptive. This phenomenon is probably linked to the DSP processing applied in low-bitrate codecs, and not to the transducer itself.

The Mute Zone team measured the active attenuation of the Aventho 100 with a calibrated MEMS measurement microphone, in an improvised semi-anechoic chamber (treated room, residual noise below 28 dB SPL). The results are as follows:

• Pink noise (20-20 000 Hz): overall attenuation of 18 to 22 dB depending on frequency, with a peak efficiency between 100 and 500 Hz
• Rail transport noise (TGV Paris-Rennes): perceived reduction of 20 to 25 dB on rolling frequencies (80-300 Hz), lower efficiency on announcement noises (1-4 kHz)
• Human voices in open office: attenuation of only 10 to 14 dB, as speech frequencies (300-3 000 Hz) are less effectively processed
• HVAC ventilation noise: very good efficiency, 25 dB attenuation on continuous low frequencies

For context: the Sony WH-1000XM5 achieves 30 to 35 dB of attenuation on pink noise under the same conditions, and the Bose QC45 sits around 25 to 28 dB. The Aventho 100 therefore ranks below the reference over-ear ANC models in this segment, which is consistent with its supra-aural format and price positioning.

The Aventho 100 microphone is MEMS type, integrated into the right earcup, with an ambient noise suppression algorithm. During a Microsoft Teams video call in a simulated open office (background noise at 65 dB SPL), voice intelligibility is acceptable: remote participants report a clear but slightly compressed voice, with perceived bandwidth limited above 6 kHz. Background noise suppression is effective on continuous noises (ventilation, keyboard), less so on nearby interfering voices.

Outdoors with lateral wind at approximately 20 km/h (measured coastal conditions), microphone capture degrades significantly: wind generates audible breath artifacts for the interlocutor from 15 km/h onward. The absence of a physical windscreen on the microphone is a design choice that penalizes calls in windy mobility conditions. This point is rarely documented in competing tests.

The Bluetooth 5.4 multipoint was tested with a Windows 11 PC and an Android smartphone. Automatic reconnection when switching from one active source to another works in 8 out of 10 cases in repeated testing (20 switches). The 2 observed failures required manual disconnection then reconnection. Switching latency is approximately 2 to 3 seconds, acceptable for office use but noticeable on incoming calls.

The Mute Zone battery life measurement protocol: volume set to 75 dB SPL measured at ear level (calibrated sound level meter), aptX Adaptive codec, ambient temperature of 20 °C, ANC activated in automatic mode. The result obtained is 38 h 40 min, representing a deviation of less than 4 % from the manufacturer's claimed 40 h. This is an honest and rare performance in the category.

Without ANC, under the same volume and codec conditions, the team measured 57 h 20 min, again very close to the claimed 60 h. Battery management appears conservative, with no notable marketing overstatement.

On fast charging, 15 minutes of USB-C charge restores approximately 3 h 30 of listening with ANC activated, for a ratio of 14:1 (listening minutes per charging minute). Full charge from 0 % takes 1 h 50 min. USB-C Power Delivery is supported up to 5V/1A: a standard smartphone PD charger works without restriction. No wireless charging function is available at this price point.

The dedicated beyerdynamic app (available on iOS and Android, updated January 2026) offers a 5-band parametric EQ with adjustable center frequency, gain (±6 dB) and Q factor for each band. This is a higher level of customization than Marshall (fixed 3-band EQ on the Marshall Headphones app) or Sony (semi-parametric 5-band EQ on the WH-CH720N). There are 4 presets available: Flat, Bass Boost, Vocal Clarity and Beyerdynamic Signature.

Multipoint management via the app is limited: you can see the two connected devices and disconnect them manually, but automatic switching cannot be configured from the app. Firmware updates are triggered from the app, taking about 4 minutes for the tested version.

A point rarely checked in competing tests: the EQ settings are saved in the headphones (headless mode). Disconnect the app, power the headphones off and on, then connect to a device without the app: the custom settings are retained. This is a detail that matters for multi-device users or those who do not have the app installed on their main source.

The head-to-head comparison covers three headphones positioned between 150 and 220 € in 2026, with distinct form-factor philosophies. The Aventho 100 and the Marshall Major V share the supra-aural format, while the Sony WH-CH720N is a lightweight circumaural over-ear model. This format difference structurally influences several criteria.

The Marshall Major V stands out solely for its price (149 €) and its aesthetics, but the lack of ANC and high-resolution codecs places it in a lower functional category than the Aventho 100. For 50 € less, you lose ANC, aptX Lossless and the IP certification: the value delta clearly favors the Aventho 100 for mobile use.

The Sony WH-CH720N presents a more structuring format choice. Its over-ear format offers superior comfort over 4 h and slightly more effective ANC on voices. However, it does not offer aptX Lossless (LDAC instead, relevant on Android/Sony source), and its ANC autonomy is slightly lower. The buyer profile determines the choice: short daily mobility with compatible aptX Lossless source, the Aventho 100 wins. Prolonged remote work or mixed use without source constraint, the WH-CH720N is more versatile.

The Aventho 100 is a coherent pair of headphones in its technical choices: aptX Lossless on a 199 € pair of headphones is a rarity in 2026, the verified autonomy lives up to its promises, the IP53 certification is a real advantage over direct competition, and the parametric EQ with headless backup is a feature that headphones at 300 € do not always offer.

The limitations are just as clear. The supra-aural format penalizes comfort over 4 h and more. The ANC, measured at 18-22 dB, is functional but does not compete with reference over-ear ANC. The microphone degrades in the wind. And the aptX Lossless chain is fully exploitable only on compatible Qualcomm source, which excludes iOS users or PCs without aptX chipset.

The Aventho 100 is suitable for:

• The Android user with Qualcomm smartphone who wants the best available codec under 200 €
• The daily commuter (45-90 min trip) who values long autonomy and lightness
• Those who listen in variable conditions (rain, dust) and want IP certification without paying the premium of a sports headset

It is less suitable for:

• The iOS user (no aptX Lossless, AAC only)
• The remote worker who wears their headphones 6 to 8 h per day without removal
• Those looking for ANC at the level of Sony WH-1000XM5 or Bose QC Ultra at this budget (nonexistent at 199 €)