[ArmAndHammer]

I've read the original Magni isn't the best but the Magni 2 is improved and sounds a bit different. I have a Magni 2 Uber that will be here Wednesday...I'll find out then how it pairs. 

 

[Uberclocked]

 
Uber when do you plan on buying the X2 or are you making your comparisons based on X1?

I've never made any comparisons with the X2.
As for the X2, I'll probably try to pick one up used or something and decide if I like it more than the X1.

 

[Hi 5]

What I want to know is ...
 
Why the Fidelio X2 often is referred to as
 
Mid-Fi
 
When it holds it own very well to some real expensive Hi-Fi HeadPhones?
 
Innerfidelity Placed it on the Wall of Fame
 
I've read every review I could find on the X2 and its pretty unanimous that these cans preform quite admirably
 
A few Audiophiles have corrected the Mid-Fi status and rated them as Hi-Fi
 
Maybe the X2 is Mid-Fi for the Mid-Price..
 

 

[alexnishi]

  What I want to know is ...
 
Why the Fidelio X2 often is referred to as
 
Mid-Fi
 
When it holds it own very well to some real expensive Hi-Fi HeadPhones?
 
Innerfidelity Placed it on the Wall of Fame
 
I've read every review I could find on the X2 and its pretty unanimous that these cans preform quite admirably
 
A few Audiophiles have corrected the Mid-Fi status and rated them as Hi-Fi
 
Maybe the X2 is Mid-Fi for the Mid-Price..
 

I think it is mid-fi for the price and it's an overall very good performer and bang for buck. But after I listened to a couple of higher tier headphones, I can't say that the X2 is hi-fi... HiFiMan HE560, LCD3s outperform the X2, but they have to be carefully amped and they cost almost a couple times more...

 

[liraop]

  I've read the original Magni isn't the best but the Magni 2 is improved and sounds a bit different. I have a Magni 2 Uber that will be here Wednesday...I'll find out then how it pairs. 

I'm waiting for your review 8)

 

[Hi 5]

  I think it is mid-fi for the price and it's an overall very good performer and bang for buck. But after I listened to a couple of higher tier headphones, I can't say that the X2 is hi-fi... HiFiMan HE560, LCD3s outperform the X2, but they have to be carefully amped and they cost almost a couple times more...

Thanks you for the Reply, I appreciate the Feedback!

 

[ptaaty]

So I did a bunch of A/B and critical listening today.  For reference I am a nearly 38 year old male who has previously reviewed professionally and have heard many high end home theaters.  I tested my hearing and can clearly hear to at least 18.5kHz and have no issue at all picking out lower bitrate mp3s.  I also own RHA MA750s, SHure e4s, Grado SR80s and a few others, but really haven't been much of headphone guy.
 
Comparo one: Schiit Magni/Modi, foobar HE-400 vs Fidelio X2.  Mine are the X2, friend has the HE-400, flat EQ.  As expected, right off the bat we both "liked our own", but he admitted the X2 sounded more like how he likes his bass (he normally has a bump centered at 60Hz).  Also his immediate comment was that the X2 sounded like large speakers with bass capability, not a speaker with sub.
 
The HE-400 is actually too flat in both our opinion for bass.  I suppose you could say that makes it audiophile grade - but that isn't how it sounds in high end speaker setups, well set up concerts, etc.  The real world isn't flat.  I thought the He-400 was bright and a bit forward, but again, I have a brain bias from more hours on the X2.  He-400 has more upper end air and treble (a bit edgy for me), good detail.  I can't clearly state one is better (even though I vastly preferred the X2...not even close), they are just different signatures.
 
Comparo two: My dedicated Home Theater (HT)....SVS PB/2 ultra sub, EQ'ed to listening level within +/-3 dB for 20-120Hz, crossed over at 80Hz, speakers are Rocket RS-850s, Denon 4306, running in stereo (plus sub, set to +2.5dB hot)....vs the X2.   AudessyXT EQ processing and room correction (distance corrected, proper spacing and toeing as well).  What struck me was how similar the two sounded....like exceptionally similar requiring some repeated A/B.  This, my friends is a very good sign....  I proceeded to test a few of my favorite tracks.  Mark Knopler's shangri-la was first up.  X2 vocals were more pleasing, a bit more forward.  The HT did have a slight advantage in air, and definitely in instrument spacial placement, it is almost 3D (height depth and panning).  Overall pretty close - but the good stereo system won out for "putting me there" it just sounded more like an intimate concert with Mark on stage.  That said - the X2 revealed certain things (especially vocal tonality) that the HT didn't.
 
On to track 2/3.  AD/DC Thunderstruck and Fire your Guns (both off Razors Edge).  This wasn't even a contest...X2 won hands down..capturing the kick drum slam, no edginess at all, stunning.  My HT struggled with some edge to the cymbals and secondary vocal tracks on Thunderstruck.
 
Final track - Dave Matthew's Crash.  Really tough call, but again I go to my HT with the edge for putting you there.  I think I found my first "flaw" in the X2 after repeated listens (over and over....) some of the cymbal decay wasn't perfect,  I could tell it was a cymbal and without A/B I thought it was amazing...but the HT captured it perfectly..it sounded exactly like it was a real cymbal.  Similarly the snare taps...the rattle of the snare was just the tiniest bit off of the HT...which admittedly is almost perfect in this area. 
 
Final thoughts on the comparisons.  I came away more impressed than ever with the X2.  I realized I was giving my friend's He-400 the benefit of the doubt (because of brain conditioning favoring the X2)...the reality IMO is that is just is outclassed for most of the audio spectrum.  The X2 sounds like a very good speaker set up in a room...surpassing my own in many ways, falling a bit short in a couple (some due to physics...you just can't create a perfect stage forward of you).  I would say the X2 is right around 2-3 dB "hot" on the lower freq vs mids....just about perfect and aligning with normal bass gain of speakers in a room (sounded like mine with a 2.5dB sub gain).  I have listened to music on the X2 since I bought them with a fervor I can't remember, almost like an addiction.
 
So TL;DR:  The X2 competes on many fronts with my many $k home stereo, and in my opinion, really outclasses the He-400 as far as sounding like a good stereo speaker setup / intimate concert.  These are my opinions, nothing more.  The X2s have a bit of warmth I find exceptional for longer listening periods while still capturing every detail in the upper end.  They do lack (or give up as a compromise?) just a bit of air which also surfaces in a cymbal or snare decay.  I am exceptionally happy with this purchase.

 

[Hi 5]

Excellent Review & Compassion!
 
I am also a HT freak.. and the first thing that struck me when I got my x2's
 
Is "These sounds like really good speaker in a really nice room" 

 

 
Oh.. I have more..

 

[obsidyen]

  So I did a bunch of A/B and critical listening today.  For reference I am a nearly 38 year old male who has previously reviewed professionally and have heard many high end home theaters.  I tested my hearing and can clearly hear to at least 18.5kHz and have no issue at all picking out lower bitrate mp3s.  I also own RHA MA750s, SHure e4s, Grado SR80s and a few others, but really haven't been much of headphone guy.
 
Comparo one: Schiit Magni/Modi, foobar HE-400 vs Fidelio X2.  Mine are the X2, friend has the HE-400, flat EQ.  As expected, right off the bat we both "liked our own", but he admitted the X2 sounded more like how he likes his bass (he normally has a bump centered at 60Hz).  Also his immediate comment was that the X2 sounded like large speakers with bass capability, not a speaker with sub.
 
The HE-400 is actually too flat in both our opinion for bass.  I suppose you could say that makes it audiophile grade - but that isn't how it sounds in high end speaker setups, well set up concerts, etc.  The real world isn't flat.  I thought the He-400 was bright and a bit forward, but again, I have a brain bias from more hours on the X2.  He-400 has more upper end air and treble (a bit edgy for me), good detail.  I can't clearly state one is better (even though I vastly preferred the X2...not even close), they are just different signatures.
 
Comparo two: My dedicated Home Theater (HT)....SVS PB/2 ultra sub, EQ'ed to listening level within +/-3 dB for 20-120Hz, crossed over at 80Hz, speakers are Rocket RS-850s, Denon 4306, running in stereo (plus sub, set to +2.5dB hot)....vs the X2.   AudessyXT EQ processing and room correction (distance corrected, proper spacing and toeing as well).  What struck me was how similar the two sounded....like exceptionally similar requiring some repeated A/B.  This, my friends is a very good sign....  I proceeded to test a few of my favorite tracks.  Mark Knopler's shangri-la was first up.  X2 vocals were more pleasing, a bit more forward.  The HT did have a slight advantage in air, and definitely in instrument spacial placement, it is almost 3D (height depth and panning).  Overall pretty close - but the good stereo system won out for "putting me there" it just sounded more like an intimate concert with Mark on stage.  That said - the X2 revealed certain things (especially vocal tonality) that the HT didn't.
 
On to track 2/3.  AD/DC Thunderstruck and Fire your Guns (both off Razors Edge).  This wasn't even a contest...X2 won hands down..capturing the kick drum slam, no edginess at all, stunning.  My HT struggled with some edge to the cymbals and secondary vocal tracks on Thunderstruck.
 
Final track - Dave Matthew's Crash.  Really tough call, but again I go to my HT with the edge for putting you there.  I think I found my first "flaw" in the X2 after repeated listens (over and over....) some of the cymbal decay wasn't perfect,  I could tell it was a cymbal and without A/B I thought it was amazing...but the HT captured it perfectly..it sounded exactly like it was a real cymbal.  Similarly the snare taps...the rattle of the snare was just the tiniest bit off of the HT...which admittedly is almost perfect in this area. 
 
Final thoughts on the comparisons.  I came away more impressed than ever with the X2.  I realized I was giving my friend's He-400 the benefit of the doubt (because of brain conditioning favoring the X2)...the reality IMO is that is just is outclassed for most of the audio spectrum.  The X2 sounds like a very good speaker set up in a room...surpassing my own in many ways, falling a bit short in a couple (some due to physics...you just can't create a perfect stage forward of you).  I would say the X2 is right around 2-3 dB "hot" on the lower freq vs mids....just about perfect and aligning with normal bass gain of speakers in a room (sounded like mine with a 2.5dB sub gain).  I have listened to music on the X2 since I bought them with a fervor I can't remember, almost like an addiction.
 
So TL;DR:  The X2 competes on many fronts with my many $k home stereo, and in my opinion, really outclasses the He-400 as far as sounding like a good stereo speaker setup / intimate concert.  These are my opinions, nothing more.  The X2s have a bit of warmth I find exceptional for longer listening periods while still capturing every detail in the upper end.  They do lack (or give up as a compromise?) just a bit of air which also surfaces in a cymbal or snare decay.  I am exceptionally happy with this purchase.

On of the best posts in the thread.
 
As you said, the real world isn't flat. Head-Fi members are usually obsessed with flatness and prefer a dry, analytical sound due to this (such as Hifiman HE 560). Real, live music doesn't sound that way though. Yes, in studios monitors are flat but this is because mastering engineers have to make the music sound good on thousands of different speakers, headphones, amps etc... This is why they have to work with flat sounding monitors. If I worked in music production, then yes I would want flat speakers and headphones. 
 
Live music doesn't sound flat. It sounds fun, engaging, it moves you. When you're at a concert, you feel the music in your soul; when you're at a club dancing to EDM tunes, you feel the bass shaking your bones... None of the speakers in these venues are meant to sound flat, they're meant to make people feel the greatness of music. 
 
In the traditional amp-speaker Hi-Fi world, musicality matters. People don't obsess over how neutral the sound is. They obsess over how much it sounds like real, live music. I always go to Hi-Fi shops to audition new speakers, amps where I live. I've had a chance to listen to speakers I couldn't possibly afford. None of them sounded flat, boring. They all sound highly musical, entertaining, fun and with amazing detail and timbre. When I listen to headphones like HE 560, LCD-2 fazor or HD800, the only thing I can think of is how boring the sound is.
 
This is why X2 is so great. It sounds like high quality speakers. I've finally found the same sound in earphones with Earsonics SM64 (highly recommended).

 

[ptaaty]

  On of the best posts in the thread.
 
As you said, the real world isn't flat. Head-Fi members are usually obsessed with flatness and prefer a dry, analytical sound due to this (such as Hifiman HE 560). Real, live music doesn't sound that way though. Yes, in studios monitors are flat but this is because mastering engineers have to make the music sound good on thousands of different speakers, headphones, amps etc... This is why they have to work with flat sounding monitors. If I worked in music production, then yes I would want flat speakers and headphones. 
 
Live music doesn't sound flat. It sounds fun, engaging, it moves you. When you're at a concert, you feel the music in your soul; when you're at a club dancing to EDM tunes, you feel the bass shaking your bones... None of the speakers in these venues are meant to sound flat, they're meant to make people feel the greatness of music. 
 
In the traditional amp-speaker Hi-Fi world, musicality matters. People don't obsess over how neutral the sound is. They obsess over how much it sounds like real, live music. I always go to Hi-Fi shops to audition new speakers, amps where I live. I've had a chance to listen to speakers I couldn't possibly afford. None of them sounded flat, boring. They all sound highly musical, entertaining, fun and with amazing detail and timbre. When I listen to headphones like HE 560, LCD-2 fazor or HD800, the only thing I can think of is how boring the sound is.
 
This is why X2 is so great. It sounds like high quality speakers. I've finally found the same sound in earphones with Earsonics SM64 (highly recommended).

Thanks.  I suppose we have a similar mind on headphones being "flat" vs sounding like actual music.  I totally understand the nature of aiming for flat...seems like that would be best, exact reproduction right?  Obviously needed for actual mastering (but you also need training....).  What some people don't get is how physics impact "flat".  High frequencies attenuate the quickest in transmission (why as you move away eventually everything is bass).  In addition, real music and speakers get varying degrees of gain as frequencies get lower.  Even a guitar playing in an anechoic chamber gets some high freq attenuation...something that your headphone literally on (or in!) your ear won't experience.
 
This is why some companies like Hardon are working on creating a new standard for HPs that accounts for it.  A speaker can aim for flat - but if you want a headphone to sound like that speaker, it can't be flat...bass needs some boost, treble needs some attenuation.  I didn't mean to create a side discussion on the topic,  I am just trying to come to grips with what my ears hear, freq charts, and HP preferences.  I would expect that someone used to mastering HPs may have a couple issues with the X2, but still comment that it is "fun" or very enjoyable to listen to but not "audiophile grade".  To me it is...but it is audiophile grade music consumption, not creation/mastering. 

 

[bavinck]

This is interesting. What other headphones would you guys say recreate music as it would sound from a good home theatre? What about the beyer dt series?

 

[bwr827]

This is interesting. What other headphones would you guys say recreate music as it would sound from a good home theatre? What about the beyer dt series?

Agreed, and good question! Now that I've read this exchange, I'm going to A/B my Beyerdynamic DT-990s with my home theatre (Paradigm monitor series with a mid-level Yamaha receiver). I won't be able to compare with the X2 as I haven't heard it yet, but I'll add the thoughts here anyway because I'm very interested in how the X2 stacks up against the DT-990s for movie watching (home theatre sound).

 

[bavinck]

I like the V sound of the dt990/600 for movies compared to the x2. Both are excellent on movies though. Using a Yamaha receiver for movies the dt990/600 sounds more open and dynamic than the x2 (which sounds a bit dark and muddy).  I think this is due to the high output impedance of the headphone jack which is a MUCH better pairing with the 600 Ohm headphone. 

 

[bwr827]

  I like the V sound of the dt990/600 for movies compared to the x2. Both are excellent on movies though. Using a Yamaha receiver for movies the dt990/600 sounds more open and dynamic than the x2 (which sounds a bit dark and muddy).  I think this is due to the high output impedance of the headphone jack which is a MUCH better pairing with the 600 Ohm headphone. 

Good point re: impedance. I have the 250-ohm version of the DT990, not the 600, but the point stands. I have an O2 amp, but haven't successfully made it work with my receiver as the DAC (Yamaha seems to restrict a digital signal from outputting to analog). I'm waiting for a Canadian source for the X2, because there's a good chance it won't work for my needs.

 

[bavinck]

I LOVE my X2 with my o2, but it just doesn't work as well with the receiver. That being said, I used the X2 for movies and loved it before I got my dt990/600. Just got it a week ago, and plugged it in and was blown away how clear it sounded. Sometimes you just don't know what you are missing, then you can't go back