Beyerdynamic Xelento!

[Tenlow]

Any tip recommendations for the Xelento 2?

Stock tips are great and I get a perfect seal for my left ear but just an „okay“ seal for the right ear despite the variety of included tip sizes. Don‘t like foam too much. Tried a couple of tips I have in my collections but not many come close to the stock tips.

I’ve received the new Spinfits W1 today and they are the first ones on par for me compared to stock. Not quiet as comfortable but still comfortable enough and a good seal in both ears. Sound is also very similar it seems. Quite satisfied with them so far.

What are good other tips for the new Xelentos?

Thanks

 

[freelancr]

Spinfits W1

I use Spinfits W1 and CP100. If I had to pick only one type It'll be the CP100s

 

[ryanmatic]

Cannot say enough good things about the SpinFit CP240. They’re double flange but super comfy, they sit nice and securely on the Xelentos, and they increase passive isolation a bit compared to the stock silicone tips.

 

[Tenlow]

I use Spinfits W1 and CP100. If I had to pick only one type It'll be the CP100s

What makes the CP100 better for you than the W1? Would you say that either of them sound different to you than the stock tips? And are the W1 a deep or shallow fit for you (different ears I know but still)?

Thanks!

 

[enveedee]

Any tip recommendations for the Xelento 2?

Azla Crystal does the magic for me.
Usually I use MS or M but I tried ML for the shallow fit and the vocal is just gorgeous.

Tried W1, size S deep fit, much better stereo imaging but it thins out the vocal too much, sounds metallic.

L-sized Springtips also a good choice with shallow fit, it controls the bass to highlight other freq too.

The oval tips, Size L/XL also works too. Although, I'd say it is too warm for me. It is the most comfortable tho.

FIIO HS18 sounds similar with the stock tips.

Spinfit X (dunno what type it is, it is black with yellow nozzle, size L) has the biggest, widest, Soundstage. It actually sounds amazing but it is the most sibilance too.

Oh, and personally for me Xelento is much better with shallow fit rather than deep fit for an extra sense of soundstage.
So I tried to up my usual tip size, and it works.

Edit: So my Softears UC just arrived, Size M.
It has pretty big soundstage but it also reduce a lot of warmth.
Much cleaner than Crystal, but honestly too clean, the warmth is what make Xelento special to me.
I think the right word to describe this eartips are... Lifeless.

I like Crystal better for female vocal and overall any music.
And Softears UC for specifically orchestra, or music with a lot of stereo imaging.

 

[holsen]

Any tip recommendations for the Xelento 2?

Stock tips are great and I get a perfect seal for my left ear but just an „okay“ seal for the right ear despite the variety of included tip sizes. Don‘t like foam too much. Tried a couple of tips I have in my collections but not many come close to the stock tips.

I’ve received the new Spinfits W1 today and they are the first ones on par for me compared to stock. Not quiet as comfortable but still comfortable enough and a good seal in both ears. Sound is also very similar it seems. Quite satisfied with them so far.

What are good other tips for the new Xelentos?

Thanks

I'm a little late to this post but my discovery yesterday had me come back to share. I've been using the stock oval tips (XL - Where I usually take M) and have been very happy with them but just for giggles and kicks decided to do a little tip rolling yesterday and with the Xelento 2 I have found the first IEM I actually like the Final E and the first instance where I cant stand the AZLA Crystals. It amazing because the Crystals have become my go to on every other universal but on the Xelento they totally gutted the bass and introduced and hollowness into the soundstage. Hard to describe really but it was aweful. On the other hand I bought a 3 pack Final E a couple of years ago because I read so many positive comments and I've absolutely hated them. With the small bore, they accentuated bass on my units and clipped the treble and restricted the stage. (My Experience with My IEMs Only). Anyway, I put them on the Xelento and I LOVE THEM - stock tips are off, these are staying. First off, these tips secure the short stem Xelentos better into my ears and inserts deeper. The by product of that is better isolation and occlusion from the outside environment. 3rd, they notch the bass up bringing more impact while keeping it extremely well controlled. The mids are about the same but because I'm sealed off better to the outside world the whole soundfield is seemingly fuller and last but not least - They do not clip the upper end as has been my experience with every other IEM I have tried the E's with. Lastly, I still get a little driver flex but it is for some reason dramatically less. I didnt think I would change tips on the X's but the E's are here to stay.

 

[ryanmatic]

I'll have to try the Final E tips!

Agreed about the Azla Crystals—they also have the effect you describe on the AirPods Pro 2nd generation, which surprised me. The bass was notably reduced and the highs sounded a bit harsh at times. I don't remember them doing that with the 1st generation APP, but perhaps that's because those had poor bass presence even with a good seal.

 

[MarkParity]

I'll have to try the Final E tips!

Agreed about the Azla Crystals—they also have the effect you describe on the AirPods Pro 2nd generation, which surprised me. The bass was notably reduced and the highs sounded a bit harsh at times. I don't remember them doing that with the 1st generation APP, but perhaps that's because those had poor bass presence even with a good seal.

Perhaps they give too good a seal and that prevents the DD from moving enough to give good bass?

 

[holsen]

Perhaps they give too good a seal and that prevents the DD from moving enough to give good bass?

Could be but I suspect it's because the Crystal's bore is wider than the IEM nozzle.

 

[csglinux]

I had a chance to check out the Gen 2 Xelentos. I'm afraid it's a no from me
I know there's somebody out there for every headphone, so if you enjoy them, great, but there are also people out there
that enjoy being eaten in bizarre sadomasochistic canabalistic rituals, so forgive me if I ignore any such anecdotal responses.
Strip away the marketing fluff and hype and I don't believe the average person would consider the Gen 2 to be an upgrade.
Some more thoughts (and measurements) here.

 

[joegreat99]

I had a chance to check out the Gen 2 Xelentos. I'm afraid it's a no from me
[...}
Strip away the marketing fluff and hype and I don't believe the average person would consider the Gen 2 to be an upgrade.

Hmm, one more critical report on the Gen 2 - given the price it looks like the performance does not catch up with it.

 

[povidlo]

Haven't heard the 2, but OG still punches weight and can compete with my newest DD darling IE900. On technical level, IE900 has a bit of advantage especially in terms of speed and agility related to micro-dynamic transitions. However, on tonality side they're equals in terms of cohesiveness of tuning. While IE900 is energetic and up-front and OG is chill and laid-back in comparison, the Germans can each produce a very coherent scene of sound with their own unique profile. Lastly, both are light, small and super comfortable to wear, a far cry from massive hybrid monsters on the market!

 

[csglinux]

I totally agree about the small size and comfort of Xelentos and IE900. Other than dynamic range (which is helpful only if you're a stage musician needing faster ways to destroy your hearing), single driver headphone tech seems to be just as competitive these days and has found methods to tune FR which are every bit as flexible as those in the large multi-driver monstrosities.

The 'technical capability' argument is pretty fascinating, but probably confused by the fact that people might not agree on what they mean by the term. We've spent a couple of years looking into this, measuring the total waveform error from a range of headphones (including the Gen 1 Xelento and IE600 - but not IE900 yet, sorry) once corrected for whatever tonality the headphone possesses. In other words, once EQ corrected, 'technical performance' is the total error from whatever remains, from whatever source, including THD, IMD, the (in)ability to respond to fast transients, phase, decay, slew rate/transient response of the driver and/or amp, RMF noise from the cable, etc. We call this total non-tonal error (or NTE). The measurements are actually quite stable in that they don't have quite as large a variability as FR does with things like eartip type and insertion depth. But a word of caution - there's still a lot we don't understand here. Also, there's a valid criticism of this type of time-domain measurement - not all errors are equally audible. Some errors (e.g., phase rotation/distortion) might be completely inaudible. So take all this with a large pinch of salt That being said, it's still intrinsically interesting to see the total waveform error from the perspective of a mathematician. If your dog poops on the floor, but you don't see it because it's behind the sofa, you might still want to know about it, and in an ideal world, you'd still hope your dog wouldn't have shat on the floor to begin with, because it's hard to be 100% sure there's never going to be a future circumstance in which you're going put your foot in it.

Technical performance seems to have some contributing factors we would have expected (BA drivers having inherently higher harmonic distortion than dynamic drivers), but also some unexpected factors. It seems that low NTE favors IEMs that don't have wild swings in their FR curves - in particular it favors IEMs that were flatter to begin with, regardless of EQ correction. As I said, there's still a lot we don't know, but there might be a plausible explanation for this, which is that every sound any human has ever heard has already been distorted to some degree, because our external anatomy 'messes up' the amplitude and phase before the sound ever arrives at our eardrums. We need some of that 'mess' for things to sound normal to us, because our brains have adapted to our anatomies. That amplitude correction is already accounted for by comparing FR against a target that includes the effect of things like the 3-4 kHz pinna gain, but that means some level of accompanying NTE may be inevitable.

So whether 'technical performance' is something that is actually useful, i.e., could provide an additional metric (on top of FR) that would be helpful in assessing headphone quality or value-for-money is still up for debate. Sean Olive thinks definitely not. I suspect not (other than obvious outliers). But that won't stop certain reviewers (whose ears & brains certainly aren't capable of accurately assessing total waveform error) from continuing to supply all us mere mortals with a grade from D- to A+

There's a longer rant on technical performance here and some initial NTE measurement results here. Lower errors have the histogram peaks farther left; higher errors peak father right. The histograms are basically bins of summed error (in decibels) over 400 ms windows. What's remarkable about these curves is they're statistically converged from actual music test tracks - play any broad range of music and over a long-enough period of time and the headphone error converges on the same NTE curve.

 

[Loftprojection]

Anyone has both Xelento and Rai Penta? I would like to know if size wise the Rai Penta is bigger or almost the same as Xelento, specially interested in the thickness of the casing itself to see if it will be protruding more or less from most ears? A pic of both side by side would be really appreciated! Many thanks.

 

[Scubadevils]

I’ve decided to part with my Xelento 2, reluctantly I must admit but I’ve too many sets and need to clear a few - it was a choice between these or my IE900, and the latter still take the edge. So shameless plug for anyone interested in Europe…

https://www.head-fi.org/classifieds/xelento-2-weekend-special.43195/