Preamble
I would like to be able to start by thanking Beyerdynamic for the free pair of Xelentos. Unfortunately, I can't, because Beyerdynamic didn't give me a free pair of Xelentos, so I had to buy my own But the silver lining for anybody reading this review is that I truly wasn't influenced at all by payment or free review samples I truly found them good enough to spend my own money on.
Beyerdynamic's Xelento took me by surprise. I'd heard of it, but had no particular interest in listening to yet another single dynamic driver headphone. I didn't expect to be impressed, but decided to pull up a chair at the Beyerdynamic booth at the 2017 SoCal CanJam, and this headphone stole the show for me. It was the best all-round headphone I listened to (including a few over-ear cans) and I ended up purchasing a pair shortly afterwards. I own the Xelento Remote, but all my listening tests and measurements were made using a custom T2 silver litz cable.
Fit, Comfort and Isolation
The Xelento's have fairly short nozzles. I would personally have preferred the nozzles to be fractionally longer, but once I got use to them, and with some heat treatment to my cable, I was able to get a fairly consistent fit with my favorite CP100-M SpinFit tips. Because of the short nozzles, deep insertion isn't really possible with the Xelento. The advantage to that is they're incredibly comfortable; the disadvantage is they don't isolate particularly well. In fact, you can tick that box twice, because they're also ported. So while they sound amazing, don't expect them to rival the sound isolation you'd get from an Etymotic.
Detachable MMCX Cable with Remote
There are two great aspects to this. 1) Xelento uses (almost) standard MMCX connectors. 2) The remote that comes with the "Xelento remote" version, quite remarkably, works perfectly on both Android and iOS devices. I'm not sure how Beyerdynamic did this. I've owned several cables with iOS remotes, Android remotes and even a few that work with both, but those that are both Android and iOS compatible have always had a switch on them to toggle between the two systems. The Beyerdynamic remote works perfectly on both operating systems without any need to toggle switches. I don't know if I'll ever use the iOS remote functionality (I'm no longer a fan of Apple, and if you care at all about audio, you shouldn't be either: https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/apple-ditching-3-5mm-jack.795656/page-2#post-12708687), but it's a nice touch from Beyerdynamic to give all users that capability.
Now, about those MMCX connectors. I've never been a particular fan of these swiveling connectors. Any current or past owners of the awful (and awfully-overpriced) UE900s, will know what I mean. The MMCX connections on the UE900(s) were prone to drop-outs, no matter how much Deoxit you used. I'm sad to say, I experienced the same problem with the Xelento when attached to my various single-ended and balanced litz cables However, thankfully, there is an easy solution to this. The problem is caused by the center pin on the cable plug not extending quite far enough into the female socket on the Xelento. You'll know if this has happened, because the plug will swivel easily and loosely in the socket and/or you'll hear those drop-outs. What you need to do is take some very fine grit sandpaper and carefully (making sure to keep the sandpaper perfectly perpendicular to the axis of the plug), sand off a fraction of a millimeter from the plug (do not do anything to the Xelento earbud itself!). You want to shave off just a fraction of the plug's lip, shown in red below:
Be sure to clean off any debris and burrs (a can of compressed air will work) from the plug before you connect it to the socket on the Xelento. You should find you now get a snugger, tighter fit with less swivel. No more drop-outs and no more messing about with Deoxit
Sound
You really have to hear them for yourself! The Xelentos have a pretty exciting, gently V-shaped sound which stood out above everything else I heard at the SoCal CanJam. I'll go over this in more detail with comparisons to other competing products below.
Burn-In
I was advised by the Beyerdnamic rep to burn these in for about 80 hours prior to use. Burn-in with 80 hours of pink noise did make a measurable difference, however, it was pretty small - small enough that there'd be no way I could ever properly A/B those differences either side of an 80-hour gap. Burn-in seemed to increase the response at the frequency extremes for both left and right buds, but I don't want to make a big deal of this. The effects are small enough that I wouldn't worry about missing out on anything if you choose to use them straight out of the box.
Channel-Matching
Dang this is close. I've never seen a headphone that had such good matching between L and R buds:
Comparisons with Other IEMs
Summary
I found the Xelento to be easily one of the best-sounding IEMs you can currently buy - at any price. I do prefer Shure's KSE1500 for detail retrieval, but the Xelento isn't all that far behind. The only other non-electrostatic IEM I've heard that had this level of fit and sound quality is the outstanding FLC-8S. However, the FLC-8S comes with a caveat - you need to be prepared to spend quite a bit of time tuning it, and it has tiny filter components that can be easily lost. The FLC-8S isn't for the casual listener or for the faint of heart. The Xelento sounds fantastic right out of the box, and even though it can't be tuned, its frequency response is already very close to that of my ideal sound signature.
If you've never heard the Xelento, I highly recommend you try to get a demo with these outstanding headphones. I doubt you'd be disappointed.
I would like to be able to start by thanking Beyerdynamic for the free pair of Xelentos. Unfortunately, I can't, because Beyerdynamic didn't give me a free pair of Xelentos, so I had to buy my own But the silver lining for anybody reading this review is that I truly wasn't influenced at all by payment or free review samples I truly found them good enough to spend my own money on.
Beyerdynamic's Xelento took me by surprise. I'd heard of it, but had no particular interest in listening to yet another single dynamic driver headphone. I didn't expect to be impressed, but decided to pull up a chair at the Beyerdynamic booth at the 2017 SoCal CanJam, and this headphone stole the show for me. It was the best all-round headphone I listened to (including a few over-ear cans) and I ended up purchasing a pair shortly afterwards. I own the Xelento Remote, but all my listening tests and measurements were made using a custom T2 silver litz cable.
Fit, Comfort and Isolation
The Xelento's have fairly short nozzles. I would personally have preferred the nozzles to be fractionally longer, but once I got use to them, and with some heat treatment to my cable, I was able to get a fairly consistent fit with my favorite CP100-M SpinFit tips. Because of the short nozzles, deep insertion isn't really possible with the Xelento. The advantage to that is they're incredibly comfortable; the disadvantage is they don't isolate particularly well. In fact, you can tick that box twice, because they're also ported. So while they sound amazing, don't expect them to rival the sound isolation you'd get from an Etymotic.
Detachable MMCX Cable with Remote
There are two great aspects to this. 1) Xelento uses (almost) standard MMCX connectors. 2) The remote that comes with the "Xelento remote" version, quite remarkably, works perfectly on both Android and iOS devices. I'm not sure how Beyerdynamic did this. I've owned several cables with iOS remotes, Android remotes and even a few that work with both, but those that are both Android and iOS compatible have always had a switch on them to toggle between the two systems. The Beyerdynamic remote works perfectly on both operating systems without any need to toggle switches. I don't know if I'll ever use the iOS remote functionality (I'm no longer a fan of Apple, and if you care at all about audio, you shouldn't be either: https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/apple-ditching-3-5mm-jack.795656/page-2#post-12708687), but it's a nice touch from Beyerdynamic to give all users that capability.
Now, about those MMCX connectors. I've never been a particular fan of these swiveling connectors. Any current or past owners of the awful (and awfully-overpriced) UE900s, will know what I mean. The MMCX connections on the UE900(s) were prone to drop-outs, no matter how much Deoxit you used. I'm sad to say, I experienced the same problem with the Xelento when attached to my various single-ended and balanced litz cables However, thankfully, there is an easy solution to this. The problem is caused by the center pin on the cable plug not extending quite far enough into the female socket on the Xelento. You'll know if this has happened, because the plug will swivel easily and loosely in the socket and/or you'll hear those drop-outs. What you need to do is take some very fine grit sandpaper and carefully (making sure to keep the sandpaper perfectly perpendicular to the axis of the plug), sand off a fraction of a millimeter from the plug (do not do anything to the Xelento earbud itself!). You want to shave off just a fraction of the plug's lip, shown in red below:
Be sure to clean off any debris and burrs (a can of compressed air will work) from the plug before you connect it to the socket on the Xelento. You should find you now get a snugger, tighter fit with less swivel. No more drop-outs and no more messing about with Deoxit
Sound
You really have to hear them for yourself! The Xelentos have a pretty exciting, gently V-shaped sound which stood out above everything else I heard at the SoCal CanJam. I'll go over this in more detail with comparisons to other competing products below.
All measurements here were made with a Vibro Veritas coupler and either REW using a StarTech input and FiiO X7 USB DAC output (via the usual FFT/transfer function) or Android's AudioTool app using @crinacle's white noise signal trick (https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/crinacles-fr-measurement-database-240-iems-measured.830062/) played from a QP1R. All headphones were measured using SpinFit tips, unless otherwise mentioned. All measurements are diffuse-field compensated and all used the same microphone, however, the REW and AudioTool software used slightly different compensation curves, since REW was used with a StarTech card which requires its own calibration on my Mac. REW is generally more reliable, but (given the same consistent seal in the coupler), the two procedures can get quite close to one another, at least up to 10 kHz:
The oscillatory nature of the white-noise+AudioTool measurements is characteristic of all my portable measurements. I did my best to ensure a good consistent seal and measurement, but some (e.g., RE2000 and Andromeda) might need to be re-done with REW at some point. More information on measurement equipment used is given here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/audio-measurements-on-a-headfi-budget.893084/
Disclaimer: No measurements (from this rig, or any other) should be used for anything other than relative comparisons). This post explains why: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/audio-measurements-on-a-headfi-budget.893084/page-4#post-15229239
Interpret these measurements at your own risk!
The oscillatory nature of the white-noise+AudioTool measurements is characteristic of all my portable measurements. I did my best to ensure a good consistent seal and measurement, but some (e.g., RE2000 and Andromeda) might need to be re-done with REW at some point. More information on measurement equipment used is given here: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/audio-measurements-on-a-headfi-budget.893084/
Disclaimer: No measurements (from this rig, or any other) should be used for anything other than relative comparisons). This post explains why: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/audio-measurements-on-a-headfi-budget.893084/page-4#post-15229239
Interpret these measurements at your own risk!
Burn-In
I was advised by the Beyerdnamic rep to burn these in for about 80 hours prior to use. Burn-in with 80 hours of pink noise did make a measurable difference, however, it was pretty small - small enough that there'd be no way I could ever properly A/B those differences either side of an 80-hour gap. Burn-in seemed to increase the response at the frequency extremes for both left and right buds, but I don't want to make a big deal of this. The effects are small enough that I wouldn't worry about missing out on anything if you choose to use them straight out of the box.
Channel-Matching
Dang this is close. I've never seen a headphone that had such good matching between L and R buds:
Comparisons with Other IEMs
Let's get this out the way first, because this was always going to be a steep mountain to climb for the Xelento. For my ears (I'm a fan of IEMs, detail, comfort and good isolation), the KSE1500 is currently my favorite headphone on the planet - and I would include full-sized cans in that comparison, such as the Sennheiser Orpheus 2 (HE-1), HIFIMAN Shangri-La, Focal Utopia, etc. (I did like the prototype MrSpeakers' Ether Electrostat, so the jury's still out on that one...) Of course, you sacrifice some soundstage with the KSE1500, but there are ways to get that back without having stupid amounts of sound leakage in both directions, e.g.,: https://fongaudio.com/out-of-your-head-software/
There are two criticisms I often see of the KSE1500. 1) It lacks bass. 2) It's a pain to carry around the separate electrostatic amp. I completely agree with point 2. That separate amp unit does limit where (and therefore how often) you'd use the KSE1500. I completely disagree with point 1. For me, using CP800-M SpinFit tips, the KSE1500 frequency response is just about perfect. The criticism I hear usually goes like this "well, headphone X isn't as clear as the KSE1500, but it has more bass". Well, sure. If pumping bass is what you want, that's not hard to achieve and there are quite a few headphones out there that are almost (but not quite) as resolving as the KSE1500, but have more of a bass punch. I guess that's a legitimate preference, and the Xelento would fall into this category. Here is the KSE1500's FR next to that of the Xelento:
There are two points I'd note from listening to these two headphones back-to-back. 1) The KSE1500 is cleaner-sounding and more resolving. 2) The Xelento has a more emphasized bass. Now, sub-bass rumble, I love; a boomy mid-bass... not so much. If I could tune the mid-bass down just slightly on the Xelento, I would. The fact that you cannot tune the Xelento is a point I'll discuss more later.
The KSE1500 wins on SQ, isolation and FR customization (its amp/DAC unit has a built-in parametric EQ). The Xelento wins on portability and price.
There are two criticisms I often see of the KSE1500. 1) It lacks bass. 2) It's a pain to carry around the separate electrostatic amp. I completely agree with point 2. That separate amp unit does limit where (and therefore how often) you'd use the KSE1500. I completely disagree with point 1. For me, using CP800-M SpinFit tips, the KSE1500 frequency response is just about perfect. The criticism I hear usually goes like this "well, headphone X isn't as clear as the KSE1500, but it has more bass". Well, sure. If pumping bass is what you want, that's not hard to achieve and there are quite a few headphones out there that are almost (but not quite) as resolving as the KSE1500, but have more of a bass punch. I guess that's a legitimate preference, and the Xelento would fall into this category. Here is the KSE1500's FR next to that of the Xelento:
There are two points I'd note from listening to these two headphones back-to-back. 1) The KSE1500 is cleaner-sounding and more resolving. 2) The Xelento has a more emphasized bass. Now, sub-bass rumble, I love; a boomy mid-bass... not so much. If I could tune the mid-bass down just slightly on the Xelento, I would. The fact that you cannot tune the Xelento is a point I'll discuss more later.
The KSE1500 wins on SQ, isolation and FR customization (its amp/DAC unit has a built-in parametric EQ). The Xelento wins on portability and price.
The SE846 is a tough headphone to compare against, because you can do lots of things to it to change its sound. In its stock form (factory issued black, blue or white filters), the SE846 lacks treble extension, with a significant roll-off around 8 kHz. However, there's an amazingly cheap mod for the SE846 that turns them into a whole new headphone (https://www.head-fi.org/f/threads/se846-filter-mod.802350/):
On the main SE846 thread, there's also something call the "trishd mod", which involves pushing all the foam in the blue (or black) filter all the way to the other end of the filter tube. This has the effect of pushing more energy from the lower to the upper mid-range. Coupled with some FS silicone tips (see SE846 filter-mod thread for more details), the SE846 becomes almost as v-shaped as the Xelentos:
This now becomes a tougher choice. In a quiet environment, I'd still favor the Xelento - their upper register is clearer than the SE846, even with its brown Knowles' damper mod, and even with the trishd mod+FS tips, but the latter gets really, really close. On the other hand, the SE846 fit in the ear very easily on account of their longer, thinner nozzles and isolate very well (far better than the Xelentos).
The Xelento wins on SQ (marginally, with the SE846 trishd filter mod) and comfort. The SE846 wins on isolation and customizability. They tie on price.
On the main SE846 thread, there's also something call the "trishd mod", which involves pushing all the foam in the blue (or black) filter all the way to the other end of the filter tube. This has the effect of pushing more energy from the lower to the upper mid-range. Coupled with some FS silicone tips (see SE846 filter-mod thread for more details), the SE846 becomes almost as v-shaped as the Xelentos:
This now becomes a tougher choice. In a quiet environment, I'd still favor the Xelento - their upper register is clearer than the SE846, even with its brown Knowles' damper mod, and even with the trishd mod+FS tips, but the latter gets really, really close. On the other hand, the SE846 fit in the ear very easily on account of their longer, thinner nozzles and isolate very well (far better than the Xelentos).
The Xelento wins on SQ (marginally, with the SE846 trishd filter mod) and comfort. The SE846 wins on isolation and customizability. They tie on price.
Another tough one for the Xelento, which might not be immediately apparent from the following figure:
The above shows only one possible configuration of the FLC 8S, with red ultra-low frequency filters, modified (with acoustic-damping foam) black low-frequency filters and gun-metal high-frequency filters. The FLC 8S officially has 36 different tuning options, but once you get creative, you have an almost infinite number of ways you can adjust this headphone. With the exception of the blue HF filter (which massively rolls off the treble), most combinations sound great, which simply leaves you free to choose your own preferred response. Their sound quality is simply phenomenal. This is the only non-electrostatic headphone that I've found rivals the Xelento. Both are extremely resolving, with the FLC 8S having slightly more emphasis in the lower treble, with the Xelento pushing more into the 10 kHz + region. If I had a gun to my head, I'd probably choose the Xelento's treble, but only by a tiny fraction. Overall though, it's a tough choice and I might go with the FLC 8S, because I sometimes find the mid-bass on the Xelento a little too much (and I can't change that, other than by messing with EQ). On the other hand, the Xelento can sound a little richer as a result its heavier mid and mid-bass presence. I spent more time A/Bing these two headphones than any other - they're just both so good, I found it really difficult to pick a winner between the two. It might be fair to simply say sound quality is a tie - it's too close to call and just comes down to personal preference.
Tie on SQ. Xelento wins on comfort. FLC 8S wins on isolation, fit, customizability and price.
The above shows only one possible configuration of the FLC 8S, with red ultra-low frequency filters, modified (with acoustic-damping foam) black low-frequency filters and gun-metal high-frequency filters. The FLC 8S officially has 36 different tuning options, but once you get creative, you have an almost infinite number of ways you can adjust this headphone. With the exception of the blue HF filter (which massively rolls off the treble), most combinations sound great, which simply leaves you free to choose your own preferred response. Their sound quality is simply phenomenal. This is the only non-electrostatic headphone that I've found rivals the Xelento. Both are extremely resolving, with the FLC 8S having slightly more emphasis in the lower treble, with the Xelento pushing more into the 10 kHz + region. If I had a gun to my head, I'd probably choose the Xelento's treble, but only by a tiny fraction. Overall though, it's a tough choice and I might go with the FLC 8S, because I sometimes find the mid-bass on the Xelento a little too much (and I can't change that, other than by messing with EQ). On the other hand, the Xelento can sound a little richer as a result its heavier mid and mid-bass presence. I spent more time A/Bing these two headphones than any other - they're just both so good, I found it really difficult to pick a winner between the two. It might be fair to simply say sound quality is a tie - it's too close to call and just comes down to personal preference.
Tie on SQ. Xelento wins on comfort. FLC 8S wins on isolation, fit, customizability and price.
Here comes another tunable triple-driver IEM. If you were expecting another verdict like my comparison the FLC 8S, my experience with the LZ-A4 was waayyyyyyyy different. First, here's the FR:
Again, the LZ-A4 is a highly-tunable/customizable IEM, and I'm only showing one configuration above, but, no matter the configuration of high- and low-frequency filters, no combination created anything that came close to the sound quality of the Xelento. Admittedly, the LZ-A4 is one fifth the price, but the Xelento makes the LZ-A4 sound like a cheap pair of Apple earbuds.
Xelento wins on everything but price.
Again, the LZ-A4 is a highly-tunable/customizable IEM, and I'm only showing one configuration above, but, no matter the configuration of high- and low-frequency filters, no combination created anything that came close to the sound quality of the Xelento. Admittedly, the LZ-A4 is one fifth the price, but the Xelento makes the LZ-A4 sound like a cheap pair of Apple earbuds.
Xelento wins on everything but price.
The Lola is another truly wonderful-sounding IEM. I would need to have more quiet time for A/Bing these against the Xelentos to really be sure. What has stopped me from doing that is the fit of the universal version of the Lolas didn't quite work for me. I'm also not a fan of custom-fit IEMs. Here's why:
I feel that custom-fit is the dirty little secret of IEMs. No question they're the best choice for long-term comfort, but there are many negatives:
1) Tests and measurements support the fact that isolation is worse than that of a universal IEM with foam tips. The only way that's not the case is for people who can't get a proper seal with foam tips.
2) You've no idea what custom IEMs are going to sound like in advance. There's a very good chance they won't sound exactly like the universal version you demo'd before purchasing, because your ears and ear canals are unique, leading to varying length bores and varying resonance peaks in the final design.
3) If they don't fit you when they finally arrive, you'll have to send them back for re-working. The manufacturer will probably work with you until you get a proper fit, however...
4) If you don't like the sound of them once you've achieved a proper fit, good luck getting your money back.
5) Good luck selling them when it's time for an upgrade!
The universal-fit Lolas (like all previous JH models) tend to be quite large and protrude from my ears on nozzles that are just too long for me. Consequently, I find it awkward to get a good, consistent fit and seal with the Lolas. However, they have a magical sound and if you can make them fit, they're well worth a listen. The measurement below was made with Lola's bass switches at about one o'clock:
Xelento wins on fit and price. SQ is about a tie - for now. I'd need more time to compare these two, but I'm nudging towards the Xelento.
I feel that custom-fit is the dirty little secret of IEMs. No question they're the best choice for long-term comfort, but there are many negatives:
1) Tests and measurements support the fact that isolation is worse than that of a universal IEM with foam tips. The only way that's not the case is for people who can't get a proper seal with foam tips.
2) You've no idea what custom IEMs are going to sound like in advance. There's a very good chance they won't sound exactly like the universal version you demo'd before purchasing, because your ears and ear canals are unique, leading to varying length bores and varying resonance peaks in the final design.
3) If they don't fit you when they finally arrive, you'll have to send them back for re-working. The manufacturer will probably work with you until you get a proper fit, however...
4) If you don't like the sound of them once you've achieved a proper fit, good luck getting your money back.
5) Good luck selling them when it's time for an upgrade!
The universal-fit Lolas (like all previous JH models) tend to be quite large and protrude from my ears on nozzles that are just too long for me. Consequently, I find it awkward to get a good, consistent fit and seal with the Lolas. However, they have a magical sound and if you can make them fit, they're well worth a listen. The measurement below was made with Lola's bass switches at about one o'clock:
Xelento wins on fit and price. SQ is about a tie - for now. I'd need more time to compare these two, but I'm nudging towards the Xelento.
The Fourte is a good-sounding headphone, but even though I've heard it multiple times now, I've never found it a particularly exciting or special-sounding IEM. Its ergonomics aren't great, but they're also not the worst I've experienced. The Fourte is a standard 3 BA+DD earphone with a rather sketchy "Apex" module. It sells for an unbelievable price, given that all these drivers come from Sonion/Knowles at a cost of about 50 cents each. The Apex module is a semi-vent/port artifact left over from the days when 64 Audio used to con their customers with the ADEL (Ambrose Diaphonic Ear Lens) scam. After parting ways with Stephen Ambrose, I guess 64 Audio felt they had to either come clean with a mea culpa, or keep up the BS pretense. Unfortunately they chose the latter, which means you end up paying more money for less isolation and who-knows-what extra distortions as a result of a totally unnecessary Apex module. The tubeless-in-ear audio (TIA) concept absolutely isn't new (most IEMs considered in this review also have a "Tubeless In-ear Audio" system - with the exception of the Noble Kaiser Encore and JH Lola) but 64 Audio are pushing it like they've just invented time travel. Despite 64 Audio's claims, the Fourte has resonance peaks like any other headphone. It has fairly significant peaks around 9 kHz and an odd one around 1 kHz, which would have resulted in a strange-looking FR comparison if I'd normalized both responses at 1 kHz, so I've adjusted levels below so that the overall sound-pressure levels look more comparable:
The Fourte's frequency response cannot be adjusted after the fact. Consider that - a $3600 IEM that can't be tuned in any way.
For my ears, the Xelento wins on SQ, comfort and price. I will acknowledge the Fourte is a good-sounding IEM and others might prefer its more extended treble and slightly lower bass impact. TIA Fourte certainly wins on placebo effect
The Fourte's frequency response cannot be adjusted after the fact. Consider that - a $3600 IEM that can't be tuned in any way.
For my ears, the Xelento wins on SQ, comfort and price. I will acknowledge the Fourte is a good-sounding IEM and others might prefer its more extended treble and slightly lower bass impact. TIA Fourte certainly wins on placebo effect
No comparative measurements here yet, but I hope to add some one day. These are impressive sounding IEMs, with a prominent treble and punchy, in-your-face mid range. It has a good low-end impact too, but something down there sounded slightly off to me, and their ergonomics are just awful. If you can get them to fit and stay in your ears, good luck! Also, is it just me, or is a little arrogant to label yourself "The Wizard", with the obvious implication that you're a master at designing headphones? Surely, that's for others to decide?
Xelento wins on everything (with the possible exception of isolation, if you can get these enormous things to seal in your ear canals).
Xelento wins on everything (with the possible exception of isolation, if you can get these enormous things to seal in your ear canals).
I've long been a fan of Etymotic because of their isolation, which is second to none. They're also famed for their neutral sound signature:
In terms of sound quality, I prefer the Xelento in pretty much every area. Yes, the ER4XR are more "neutral", but I don't consider neutral sound realistic. If I watch a bass player live, I can feel the ground moving beneath my feet. The ER4XR does have a slight bump in the low end, but it still lacks that sub-bass rumble. Surprisingly (given that everybody extols the clarity and resolution of the Etymotics line), I also find the Xelento far more resolving and detailed in the upper range. By comparison, there's a coarseness to the sound of the Etys.
Xelento wins on SQ and comfort. ER4XR wins on isolation and price.
In terms of sound quality, I prefer the Xelento in pretty much every area. Yes, the ER4XR are more "neutral", but I don't consider neutral sound realistic. If I watch a bass player live, I can feel the ground moving beneath my feet. The ER4XR does have a slight bump in the low end, but it still lacks that sub-bass rumble. Surprisingly (given that everybody extols the clarity and resolution of the Etymotics line), I also find the Xelento far more resolving and detailed in the upper range. By comparison, there's a coarseness to the sound of the Etys.
Xelento wins on SQ and comfort. ER4XR wins on isolation and price.
Sennheiser's IE800 invites the most obvious comparison with the Xelentos, being a similarly-priced (at least, at the initial launch of the IE800) single dynamic driver earphone. The IE800 sounds awesome for such a surprisingly tiny IEM, but it also has some unfortunate issues. The IE800 has the shortest nozzles you've ever seen, which require proprietary Sennheiser clip-on eartips. Other than trying to sell more of their own eartips, I can see no reason for this poor design choice. The IE800 also has non-replaceable cables with very little length from the earbuds to the y-split, so you're forced to wear the cables down and all this results in a pretty shallow seal. That, together with the fact they're ported, results in very poor isolation. That poor isolation tends to help accentuate the treble, which can sometimes be seen as exciting and detailed, and sometimes as a little bright and splashy.
Xelento wins on SQ, isolation, ergonomics, replaceable cable, and its ability to accept standard eartips. These days, the IE800 can be found (new) for around $600, so I guess IE800 now wins on price.
Xelento wins on SQ, isolation, ergonomics, replaceable cable, and its ability to accept standard eartips. These days, the IE800 can be found (new) for around $600, so I guess IE800 now wins on price.
This is going to be short, because I simply couldn't get them in my ears.
Xelento wins on ergonomics (by a massive margin - what the heck were you smoking when you designed the shape of this housing, HiFiMAN?) and on price (RE2000 retails for $2000). I'm unable to comment on SQ, because I couldn't get any kind of seal with the RE2000.
Xelento wins on ergonomics (by a massive margin - what the heck were you smoking when you designed the shape of this housing, HiFiMAN?) and on price (RE2000 retails for $2000). I'm unable to comment on SQ, because I couldn't get any kind of seal with the RE2000.
A lot of people really like the Andromedas, and I've seen several headfiers abandon the SE846 for these, because they do have a brighter, more treble-oriented sound signature. To my ears, the Xelento has the more exciting sound signature. Andromeda also has just fractionally more mid-bass than I'd like (but that may be just my personal weirdness - most seem to love Andromeda's sound signature). Ergonomics are a potential problem for many though. The Andromeda's housings are boxy and metallic, with very short, stubby nozzles. I can get them to fit, but not reliably; I have to hold very still and not move my head, for fear the seal will break.
Xelento wins on SQ (this is subjective - I accept others may disagree), ergonomics, comfort and price. Tie on isolation. Both have replaceable cables with mmcx connectors.
Xelento wins on SQ (this is subjective - I accept others may disagree), ergonomics, comfort and price. Tie on isolation. Both have replaceable cables with mmcx connectors.
Campfire Audio's latest flagship is the Atlas - which has a slightly odd shape and is really designed to be worn cable-down. Atlas uses a diamond-coated driver similar to (but larger than) that in the Vega. I wouldn't say the ergonomics didn't work for me, but I prefer deep-insertion, over-ear IEMs as they tend to give better isolation and less microphonics. The Atlas has a fairly pronounced v-shaped signature, with a more pronounced treble peak than the Xelentos, but it does have better extension past 10 kHz:
I haven't had enough listening time to declare a winner in terms of SQ, but I don't think I'd get on with the heavy mid-bass or the very emphasized treble peak of the Atlas. Both Xelento and Atlas give similar levels of isolation. Both have replaceable cables with mmcx connectors.
I haven't had enough listening time to declare a winner in terms of SQ, but I don't think I'd get on with the heavy mid-bass or the very emphasized treble peak of the Atlas. Both Xelento and Atlas give similar levels of isolation. Both have replaceable cables with mmcx connectors.
The latest flagship offering from Empire Ears is the $2300 Legend X, which is a hybrid design with dual dynamic drivers and five balanced armature drivers. Almost inevitably, when you pack that many drivers into one shell, you don't end up with the greatest ergonomics, but if you can get the Legend X to fit in your ears, their frequency response is not bad at all. They have a little drop around 9-10 kHz and are perhaps a little bass-heavy, but then so is the Xelento in that regard:
I've not had enough time to A/B these to declare a winner on SQ, but (for me) Xelento wins on ergonomics, comfort and price. The two IEMs tie on isolation, since the dynamic drivers on both use vent ports. The Legend X also has replaceable (Effect Audio) cables with 2-pin connectors.
I've not had enough time to A/B these to declare a winner on SQ, but (for me) Xelento wins on ergonomics, comfort and price. The two IEMs tie on isolation, since the dynamic drivers on both use vent ports. The Legend X also has replaceable (Effect Audio) cables with 2-pin connectors.
Another expensive ($1800) offering from Empire Ears is the 5-BA-driver Phantom, which comes in just short of the price of the $2300 Legend X. I was not particularly impressed with this one and don't think the money you'd save (relative to the Legend X) would be worth it. It tends to roll-off early at both ends of the frequency spectrum:
For me, Xelento wins on SQ, ergonomics, comfort and price. The two IEMs are again similar with respect to isolation (it's not ported, but it's difficult to get a good isolating seal with these types of large-bodied, short-nozzled IEMs). The Phantom also has replaceable (Effect Audio) cables with 2-pin connectors.
For me, Xelento wins on SQ, ergonomics, comfort and price. The two IEMs are again similar with respect to isolation (it's not ported, but it's difficult to get a good isolating seal with these types of large-bodied, short-nozzled IEMs). The Phantom also has replaceable (Effect Audio) cables with 2-pin connectors.
I was surprised to find this reasonably-priced IEM from a company I knew very little about. The EN700Pro is a single dynamic driver IEM which has been tuned to give quite a remarkable performance, considering it sells for only $149:
Here's my standard comparison using SpinFit tips:
Wow! One of the smoothest frequency responses I've ever seen. This should embarrass even the likes of Etymotic. It's worth noting that the EN700Pro comes with two sets of tips that can be used to tune the sound. The results are slightly different to those previous measurements with SpinFit tips:
When I first heard the EN700Pro, I had no idea of its MSRP. I would have guessed this was a ~$500 IEM. I still think it sounds like a $500 IEM. Its frequency response is one of the best I've seen - at any price. It has a slight lift at the extremes, but almost no peaks and troughs in between. I spent a lot of time listening to these and concluded that maybe(?) it does sound slightly grainier than the Xelento, but barely. For $149, the EN700Pro is outstanding value for money; its sound quality beats many of the $1000+ IEMs compared in this review. Again, the dynamic driver is vented on the EN700Pro, so its isolation is similar to that of the Xelento. It also has a replaceable cable, but again with a 2-pin connector.
Here's my standard comparison using SpinFit tips:
Wow! One of the smoothest frequency responses I've ever seen. This should embarrass even the likes of Etymotic. It's worth noting that the EN700Pro comes with two sets of tips that can be used to tune the sound. The results are slightly different to those previous measurements with SpinFit tips:
When I first heard the EN700Pro, I had no idea of its MSRP. I would have guessed this was a ~$500 IEM. I still think it sounds like a $500 IEM. Its frequency response is one of the best I've seen - at any price. It has a slight lift at the extremes, but almost no peaks and troughs in between. I spent a lot of time listening to these and concluded that maybe(?) it does sound slightly grainier than the Xelento, but barely. For $149, the EN700Pro is outstanding value for money; its sound quality beats many of the $1000+ IEMs compared in this review. Again, the dynamic driver is vented on the EN700Pro, so its isolation is similar to that of the Xelento. It also has a replaceable cable, but again with a 2-pin connector.
Rose Technics make the smallest quad-balanced armature IEM that I've ever seen. Ergonomically, these things are just perfect - nobody is going to have fit issues with the Mini 4! Their sound quality isn't bad either. The sub-bass rolls off a little, but they have incredible high-frequency extension:
The Mini 4 isn't ported, so it isolates better than the Xelentos. The Mini 4 is a good-sounding pair of IEMs for the price, with bonus points for their awesome, tiny design
Xelento wins on SQ. Rose Mini 4 wins on price, fit and isolation.
The Mini 4 isn't ported, so it isolates better than the Xelentos. The Mini 4 is a good-sounding pair of IEMs for the price, with bonus points for their awesome, tiny design
Xelento wins on SQ. Rose Mini 4 wins on price, fit and isolation.
Brainwavz' B400 is one of the least-expensive quad-BA drivers you can currently buy. These IEMs are 3D printed and Brainwavz pass the savings in manufacturing costs on to their customers. They come with two cables (one standard; one with a remote/mic) and these use standard mmcx connectors. They do a great job in terms of treble extension, but they probably aren't best suited for those that love their pounding sub-bass:
Curiously, the B400s are actually ported - they have a small vent hole in the shell. My experience is that closing that hole causes the sub-bass to roll off further, so I don't suggest messing with that. These are generally good-sounding IEMs that while not as good-sounding as the Xelentos, are much cheaper, have no violent peaks or troughs in their FR and don't really do anything too offensive to the sound.
Xelento wins on SQ. B400 wins on price.
Curiously, the B400s are actually ported - they have a small vent hole in the shell. My experience is that closing that hole causes the sub-bass to roll off further, so I don't suggest messing with that. These are generally good-sounding IEMs that while not as good-sounding as the Xelentos, are much cheaper, have no violent peaks or troughs in their FR and don't really do anything too offensive to the sound.
Xelento wins on SQ. B400 wins on price.
I want to give kudos to Westone for getting one thing absolutely right about their design - the shape and fit of their IEMs are exactly what's needed (IMHO) - a comfortable fit in your ear and long, thin nozzles that allow a wide choice of eartips and provide very good isolation. Most IEMs these days have short, stubby nozzles and vent ports for their dynamic drivers (yes, Xelento, I'm looking at you here!). Perfectly-fitting and perfectly isolating IEMs are now a rarity that I'd credit only to Westone, Shure, Etymotic and maybe(?) Klipsch, though Klipsch seem to have been losing the plot a bit with their recent IEMs. BTW, if I've missed any manufacturers from the list, please pm me and I'll correct this post - I would definitely be interested to try out any IEM with a form-factor similar to that of the W80.
That being said, it's unfortunate that the sound quality of the W80 doesn't - to my ears - quite justify its price tag. In the graph below, I've attempted to match OASPL, since the W80 has a lot of energy around 1 kHz. The W80 does have a good amount of air on account of its treble peak around 10 kHz (slightly higher than that of the Xelento), but its sub-bass is lacking and I find too much missing from the upper mid-range before that resonance peak:
The design of the W80 is excellent and I prefer its fit and isolation to that of the Xelento, but I much prefer the sound of the Xelento. The W80 also has a replaceable cable with mmcx connectors. Xelento wins on price.
That being said, it's unfortunate that the sound quality of the W80 doesn't - to my ears - quite justify its price tag. In the graph below, I've attempted to match OASPL, since the W80 has a lot of energy around 1 kHz. The W80 does have a good amount of air on account of its treble peak around 10 kHz (slightly higher than that of the Xelento), but its sub-bass is lacking and I find too much missing from the upper mid-range before that resonance peak:
The design of the W80 is excellent and I prefer its fit and isolation to that of the Xelento, but I much prefer the sound of the Xelento. The W80 also has a replaceable cable with mmcx connectors. Xelento wins on price.
In full and fair disclosure, I was hit on the head by a UE900s as a baby and have never really been a fan of UE since then. Their IEMs are typically big and bulky and expensive and their universals are poorly fitting, to the point where I suspect they're only intended as a marketing tool for their custom IEMs. The UE18+ has a strange name, given that it only has 6 BA drivers. Ok, so the UE18+ doesn't have the worst FR I've seen, but like too many IEMs, it packs more of a punch in the mid-bass than the sub-bass. Its treble extension is pretty good though:
Its sound and sound-stage didn't grab me like the Xelento's did, but in fairness - I would need to spend more time A/B-ing these.
The UE18+ are expensive at $1500. They do have replaceable cables, with 2-pin connectors.
Its sound and sound-stage didn't grab me like the Xelento's did, but in fairness - I would need to spend more time A/B-ing these.
The UE18+ are expensive at $1500. They do have replaceable cables, with 2-pin connectors.
Just for fun, I wanted to show an interesting comparison with some earbuds that you might not have expected to see here:
Recognize those nozzles? Do they look familiar?
Here is a comparison of their frequency responses:
They're remarkably similar. Both feature a single dynamic driver, which has obviously been very cleverly (and weirdly similarly) tuned. Now, I will say that the Xelento sound better than mystery IEM X, but not by much - the differences are worryingly small.
Xelento wins (just) on SQ. Mystery IEM X wins on everything else. Especially on price
I managed to pick these up for $12.99 at Ross. Many thanks to my buddy @moedawg140 for the tip on these. @moedawg140 - you're truly my headphone Maestro and Sensei!
Recognize those nozzles? Do they look familiar?
Here is a comparison of their frequency responses:
They're remarkably similar. Both feature a single dynamic driver, which has obviously been very cleverly (and weirdly similarly) tuned. Now, I will say that the Xelento sound better than mystery IEM X, but not by much - the differences are worryingly small.
Xelento wins (just) on SQ. Mystery IEM X wins on everything else. Especially on price
I managed to pick these up for $12.99 at Ross. Many thanks to my buddy @moedawg140 for the tip on these. @moedawg140 - you're truly my headphone Maestro and Sensei!
Here's my opportunity to vent about all the world's problems. Or at least, those that relate to headphones. While I absolutely love to see genuine progress and innovation, I've always had a strong loathing toward those that try to BS or rail against known scientific facts and exploit others for their own financial gain.
A few years ago, Ultimate Ears (Logitech) released an "upgraded" UE900 - the UE900s. It cost an additional $100, but many loved it and wrote rave reviews about how much better it sounded than the older UE900. It turned out there was only one difference - the cardboard packaging. Fast forward to Focal's Utopia - a pretty standard dynamic driver headphone that sold for more than many electrostatic systems. Plenty of people went nuts over it. To my ears, it's a good-sounding headphone, but not one that justifies a $4k price tag. (I was going to give Focal a break here on account of their Beryllium drivers, but many other manufacturers now have Be drivers and way more reasonable sticker prices.) Then came the 64 Audio TIA Fourte. Another pretty standard attempt at a hybrid multi-driver IEM, but with a giant leap forward in price. The Fourte also came with some dubious science (Apex) and some obviously false claims (acoustic tubing creates distortion and acoustic resonances, whereas machined aluminum housings don't). Again, there are people going crazy over it, calling it the best headphone ever made.
There are worthwhile innovations out there that result in expensive headphones, for example, those that are genuinely unique, took years of expensive R&D, dedicated driver manufacturing and accompanying hardware (e.g., electrostatic amps). But it seems there's always an opportunity to exploit the gullible and ignorant, simply by taking established technology and slapping an ever-higher price tag on it. There was an interesting article in this vein that was recently cited by InnerFidelity: https://www.innerfidelity.com/conte...headphone-frequency-response-and-retail-price. Now frequency response isn't the only aspect that matters - we also care about efficiency, distortion, etc., but given that many of the component BA or DD drivers are all from the same manufacturer, I have to wonder how significant those differences are.
The Xelento aren't cheap, but they're comparable in price to earlier single dynamic driver IEMs like the IE800, which were generally well respected. The added bonuses with the Xelento are the improved sound quality, replaceable cables with mmcx connections and the option of a well-designed remote for those that want to use it with their smartphones. I'm not entirely convinced there are major new technological breakthroughs with the Tesla driver (given how similar its sound is to that of the Skull Candy Smokin' Buds 2), but it has been very well tuned and overall I would consider it fair value for money, considering it is one of the very best-sounding IEMs - and remains so more than a year after its release.
A few years ago, Ultimate Ears (Logitech) released an "upgraded" UE900 - the UE900s. It cost an additional $100, but many loved it and wrote rave reviews about how much better it sounded than the older UE900. It turned out there was only one difference - the cardboard packaging. Fast forward to Focal's Utopia - a pretty standard dynamic driver headphone that sold for more than many electrostatic systems. Plenty of people went nuts over it. To my ears, it's a good-sounding headphone, but not one that justifies a $4k price tag. (I was going to give Focal a break here on account of their Beryllium drivers, but many other manufacturers now have Be drivers and way more reasonable sticker prices.) Then came the 64 Audio TIA Fourte. Another pretty standard attempt at a hybrid multi-driver IEM, but with a giant leap forward in price. The Fourte also came with some dubious science (Apex) and some obviously false claims (acoustic tubing creates distortion and acoustic resonances, whereas machined aluminum housings don't). Again, there are people going crazy over it, calling it the best headphone ever made.
There are worthwhile innovations out there that result in expensive headphones, for example, those that are genuinely unique, took years of expensive R&D, dedicated driver manufacturing and accompanying hardware (e.g., electrostatic amps). But it seems there's always an opportunity to exploit the gullible and ignorant, simply by taking established technology and slapping an ever-higher price tag on it. There was an interesting article in this vein that was recently cited by InnerFidelity: https://www.innerfidelity.com/conte...headphone-frequency-response-and-retail-price. Now frequency response isn't the only aspect that matters - we also care about efficiency, distortion, etc., but given that many of the component BA or DD drivers are all from the same manufacturer, I have to wonder how significant those differences are.
The Xelento aren't cheap, but they're comparable in price to earlier single dynamic driver IEMs like the IE800, which were generally well respected. The added bonuses with the Xelento are the improved sound quality, replaceable cables with mmcx connections and the option of a well-designed remote for those that want to use it with their smartphones. I'm not entirely convinced there are major new technological breakthroughs with the Tesla driver (given how similar its sound is to that of the Skull Candy Smokin' Buds 2), but it has been very well tuned and overall I would consider it fair value for money, considering it is one of the very best-sounding IEMs - and remains so more than a year after its release.
Summary
I found the Xelento to be easily one of the best-sounding IEMs you can currently buy - at any price. I do prefer Shure's KSE1500 for detail retrieval, but the Xelento isn't all that far behind. The only other non-electrostatic IEM I've heard that had this level of fit and sound quality is the outstanding FLC-8S. However, the FLC-8S comes with a caveat - you need to be prepared to spend quite a bit of time tuning it, and it has tiny filter components that can be easily lost. The FLC-8S isn't for the casual listener or for the faint of heart. The Xelento sounds fantastic right out of the box, and even though it can't be tuned, its frequency response is already very close to that of my ideal sound signature.
If you've never heard the Xelento, I highly recommend you try to get a demo with these outstanding headphones. I doubt you'd be disappointed.