Philips Fidelio X2HR Review (headphone)

[Jimbob54]

Let me reassess the award, according to manufacturer, Amir was dealing with "mid-range" issues basically, right?

View attachment 105045
I strike back with their own weapons..

I hope these have a nice black and gold sticker on them so my ears know they are hearing that extra 20Khz of spectrum and ZERO bass roll off.

 

[Tks]

A lot of people complained about the numbers they generated.
I too had a lengthy talk with Sam about this.
This was the solution he came up with. It makes sense for measurements but doubt it is accurate.
My proposal is to have a rather large LF swing and superimpose a many dB's smaller frequency and measure what happens to the smaller signals only.
That test signal doesn't exist (AFAIK) but would give more clarity as to what happens when a large LF swing modulates other frequencies in music.

Sam's goal was to use weigh the distortion measurement a bit better in the headphone ranking. That one is not solely based on FR (conformity to a standard) and tilt but also weighs in distortion and all other aspects.

I've heard something like this before. But aside from "complaints from people". What exactly was the problem in reality with their older graphs?

 

[solderdude]

It's absolutely definitely positive that I can know I wouldn't like a headphone from it's measurements

When looking at plots I can reasonably guess its tonal balance under sealed conditions. When the measured differences are small (say a few dB here and there max.) I can make an educated guess of how they might tonally differ a bit. I sure as hell can NOT say which one sounds best to me, let alone for someone else. And I have measured and listened to > 150 headphones. I admit I used to think the same way as you do untill I found a few headphones that wouldn't play along.

The small wiggles in Amirs plots are too small an narrow to have a clear audible effect. It's the overall elevated level (at least acc. to my measurements and those from Oratory as well) that make it too bright on some pop recordings. On classical it might even be a blessing.

 

[solderdude]

I've heard something like this before. But aside from "complaints from people". What exactly was the problem in reality with their older graphs?

The older distortion plots showed substantial distortion in the bass but the numbers were for 500 or 1kHz or so. There was no correlation and the weighting in the final 'rating' also was a bit off because of this.
It's just the way that Rtings rates... all measurable numbers they got out of the measuring devices (not from the individual In ear mics) and their weighting produces a number. That differs from Harman rating as well as the subjective rating from Oratory
For this reason rating headphones is nonsensical. Sure you get a ranking in all cases. You can put them in a list and publish it as evidence but in reality it isn't. In fact the rating from @crinacle makes far more sense to me than the Harman rating and mostly would agree with that list (the ones I know)

 

[rodtor]

I'm just not sure if that is actually from Philips or just made by an Amazon seller.

It is Philips; it can be found on p. 12 of the brochure they send with the phones.

 

[Tks]

The older distortion plots showed substantial distortion in the bass but the numbers were for 500 or 1kHz or so. There was no correlation and the weighting in the final 'rating' also was a bit off because of this.
It's just the way that Rtings rates... all measurable numbers they got out of the measuring devices (not from the individual In ear mics) and their weighting produces a number. That differs from Harman rating as well as the subjective rating from Oratory
For this reason rating headphones is nonsensical. Sure you get a ranking in all cases. You can put them in a list and publish it as evidence but in reality it isn't. In fact the rating from @crinacle makes far more sense to me than the Harman rating and mostly would agree with that list (the ones I know)

Wait, you mean his letter ranking system? Yeah, I don't think so. The man engages far too much in claims he could never substantiate if you ask me. Talking about "technicalities" and time domain "stuff" he experiences that flys in the face of the reality that makes it clear things like transducers and such are minimum phase devices that basically have time domain occurances manifest in the frequency domain. It gets real "ehh" once you throw in "attack" "timbre" "transients" "texture" and "temperature", and then off the wall claims of "BA bass" with respect to IEM's.

I know he knows this. Not sure why a simple reference to physocilogical effects, and general nueral interpolation aren't given a mention. Or the differences in something simple like seals with IEM's and bore-configurations and such could be involved heavily in all the supposed variation he seems to experience. Or simply frequency response variations even by a small amount over the entire spectrum would be enough to cause all these sorts of differences. ESPECIALLY considering anything beyond 10K is properly measured anyway, so who knows how much that unknown region is causing differences in sound itself.

The guy understands the science behind most of the stuff you need to form a somewhat consistent opinion. But then you get products that measure nearly idetically (same family of product of listening devices from a company for example), and there are claims of differences worthy of merrit somehow. Just don't get why there needs to be a journey to audiophile-land with those silly terms in an attempt to explain the differences. When we all know for example listening to the same device in the morning, versus right before you're off to bed, sounds quite different.

Especially for things like IEM's where pinna activation isn't a factor. I'd wish he would just EQ a bunch of them to his preference curve, and then start blind testing precisely the differences he's hearing in a semi blind test (it's tough to blind test IEM's since simply touching them gives away what the shape is).

 

[MrOtto]

Note Rtings do not use industry standard measuring equipment. In terms of the Harman target, below is a better ranking table based on measurements that do, ranked according to Harman's predicted preference rating (effectively adherence to their target):

https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq/blob/master/results/RANKING.md

Sennheiser HD-650 has a score of 78 and is recommended at ASR, X2HR has a score of 84 and is not recommended.

 

[Pdxwayne]

I have always thought the low bass is a bit lacking. I have yet to be able to distort the bass before the sharp highs got to me first.
I wonder what normal songs @amirm used that can be played loud enough to produce the bass distortions, without the piercing highs get to me first....

 

[frogmeat69]

I have the older X2 without the HR marking I purchased 5 years ago, the ones that were made by WOOX, before Gibson and whoever it is now got involved, wonder how they would measure up compared to the newer model?
I am a fan of these headphones when just kicking back jamming some hard rocking tunes.

 

[brachypelma44]

I have the older X2 without the HR marking I purchased 5 years ago, the ones that were made by WOOX, before Gibson and whoever it is now got involved, wonder how they would measure up compared to the newer model?

Me too. I checked, and mine were purchased at the end of 2014.

 

[Robin L]

Right now I've got 7 headphones in the house. 3 are Sennheiser headphones I got from Blinq a couple of years ago that sound inferior to the Drop 6XX 'phones I got a few months ago. The Sennheiser HD579, HD599 are veiled on top, too fat in the midbass [like the 6xx], lacking in the bottom octaves. The Urbanite XL is a little better, but still fat and veiled. The AKG k167s used to be my favorite, but compared to the eq-ed 6xx sound shrill. I was excited when I got the X2HR 'phones about a month ago. I'll guess that the treble issues are not as great for me on account of my aging ears, but I'm not so sure. It's possible I've got a pair with slightly less going on on top. One solution I tried was to cut out 2 50mm circles of Viva towel for each earpiece and placing them over the drivers. Not hard to do, as the earpads are easy to work with. That worked at cutting back the treble, but I took them out. Which leaves the AKG K371. I'll be interested in Amir's findings. I noticed yesterday that the string tone on an early music recording I'm very familiar with---the infamous Musica Antiqua Köln recording of Pachelbel's Canon---had a much more accurate reproduction of Reinhard Goebel's nasty string tone via the K371 'phones than on the eq-ed 6XX 'phones.

I pulled out the X2HR 'phones again, listened again to the MAK recording. The top was nastier via the X2HR 'phones than the K371 phones. Tried the paper towel filter again, that damped down the edge of the string sound but the result didn't sound as good as the K371s. FWIW, the K371 'phones play louder at the same volume setting than the X2HRs. I'm hanging on to the Philips headphones for the moment, but have to say that my current default is the K371 pair without eq.

 

[Robbo99999]

All fine as long as it works for you with high practical correlation.

I have had enough mixed bags which give me the reason to look at measurements more critically in general. This applies primarily to the extremes, bass seal and treble resonance. The broad response is mostly safe to judge. Not so much for particular bumps and high Q resonances in the response which may vary with unit-to-unit variation, seating and the ear-related properties. That's why we have to consider as much measurements and practical reviews as possible. Obviously, one should not judge based on just a single source.


See, that is where I could claim the exact opposite based on my personal experience. Since the X2HR seals much better to my head than the AKG K7 series I get a much fuller and more realistic presentation of the music. This context can not be sufficiently extrapolated from any measurement I can find on the net. Best I can find is Solderdude's flat plate measurement which thankfully does not completely ignore this (often underestimated) aspect. But after all, predicting the sound is very tricky without having the can on my own head. I don't care about bass THD or the 5 kHz peak (which I personally do not find as an audible issue) if already the seal is broken.

Look man, you keep changing the goal posts of the discussion along with only quoting snippets of my posts to reply to. If you're not gonna play fair or have integrity within & between your postings I'm not having a convo with you, refer to my previous posts, I've said everything that's relevant to your previous replies. You have an agenda.

EDIT: basically (to realign the goal posts) it all goes back to this first post of mine that you replied to which you "weren't happy that I posted", which I stand by and I think I'm within my right posting, as well as being a reasonable analysis:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...delio-x2hr-review-headphone.19250/post-631808
So, yes, I will continue to make such posts in headphone reviews based on the measurements & frequency response, because that is what Amir is measuring (there'd be no point measuring it otherwise), and like I said I have experience re relating frequency responses & EQ to my listening impressions. I've said all I have to say on this topic to you.

 

[Robbo99999]

When looking at plots I can reasonably guess its tonal balance under sealed conditions. When the measured differences are small (say a few dB here and there max.) I can make an educated guess of how they might tonally differ a bit. I sure as hell can NOT say which one sounds best to me, let alone for someone else. And I have measured and listened to > 150 headphones. I admit I used to think the same way as you do untill I found a few headphones that wouldn't play along.

The small wiggles in Amirs plots are too small an narrow to have a clear audible effect. It's the overall elevated level (at least acc. to my measurements and those from Oratory as well) that make it too bright on some pop recordings. On classical it might even be a blessing.

(I said I could tell whether I wouldn't like it from the frequency response, not whether I would like it, there's a subtle difference - I can rule out a headphone from a frequency response, but can't rule it in).

 

[Shike]

I am former owner of Grado. If anything like Grado, you will lose more than hair. Seem comfortable at first. After a few weeks your temporal lobes and mandibles will thin out due to bone loss. Sennheiser HD 598 and 599 are most comfortable headphones on earth. My teenage son has glued those on for years. He seems normal mentally and physically (at least for a teenager.)

Having a XXL head I actually find Sennheiser some of the least comfortable while Grado can be bent to shape. If I could get the sound of Senns with the fit of Grado I absolutely would . . .

 

[rxp]

I use these with impulcifer. Only open backs that go that low outside of the grado gw100 which are on ear so have comfort issues. Love them for that, can have them on my head for hours.

 

[MatteoS]

Hello.


I have Philips fidelio X1 and discovered that my long headphone cable has 1,5ohm to each contact when I measure with a tester Fluke. May you measure the impedence of Fidelio X2 cable ?

To change the original cable with one with lower impedence should have an impact on low frequencies when playing a song.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Sombreuil]

I am former owner of Grado. If anything like Grado, you will lose more than hair. Seem comfortable at first. After a few weeks your temporal lobes and mandibles will thin out due to bone loss. Sennheiser HD 598 and 599 are most comfortable headphones on earth. My teenage son has glued those on for years. He seems normal mentally and physically (at least for a teenager.)

Same here, I bought an SR80i 10 years ago and couldn't stand it more than 10 minutes. By far the most uncomfortable headphones I have.

 

[raistlin65]

Hello.


I have Philips fidelio X1 and discovered that my long headphone cable has 1,5ohm to each contact when I measure with a tester Fluke. May you measure the impedence of Fidelio X2 cable ?

To change the original cable with one with lower impedence should have an impact on low frequencies when playing a song.
Thanks in advance.

This is a known issue for the stock cable with the X1 that Tyll of Innerfidelity discussed
https://www.stereophile.com/content/big-bottom-and-lively-top-philips-fidelio-x1

He did not find the same issue with the X2 cable
https://www.stereophile.com/content/boss-philips-fidelio-x2

 

[Dreyfus]

@Robbo99999:
Sorry, I just don't like to fullqoute. That's why I choose snippets and reply to that, but also answer in context to the rest of the post which I think needs further commentary. That does not mean that I disagree with points that have not been mentioned btw. Take the 'high base THD = less clean when boosted to Harman' or 'high Q sounding worse than lower Q' aspects as an example.

Like already explained, there is nothing wrong with experience that shows certain correlations between measurements and practical listening per se. All I was trying to say is that you should not judge the whole thing without actual listening, just relying on sheer data or 3rd party experiences like you wrapped it up in post #5 or #54.

Saying that a headphone has no potential because it oscillates in the upper frequencies is just pure measurement bias without any profound pratical verification. As you probably know the plots themselves are always compositions that mix driver, cup and ear resonance together. All of that can change with seating and individual geometry. Resonances may or may not occur and change by manipulating those variables. Narrow peaks that appear in the plot (induced by the interaction between the driver, cup and ear) may or may not be an audible issue in practice because we are not talking about a fixed curve. Then there is psychoacoustic smoothing (masking) due to the dynamic filtering of our brain. So why should I take such a plot as sort of evidence that could replace my personal listening experience?

What I am trying to say is that the experience with your four samples is not neccessarily wrong. It is just too optimistic to take that as a holistic rule that can be applied with high certainty to every other headphone you are only reviewing by looking at someone's measurements.

If you don't trust me, listen to Solderdude's words at least who certainly has a lot of experience in both measuring and listening to headphones.

We should be very careful with the tendency to self-affirmation and -justification of such techniques. That's what ASR is often being accused for.

 

[amirm]

Saying that a headphone has no potential because it oscillates in the upper frequencies is just pure measurement bias without any profound pratical verification.

What kind of "profound practical verification" are you looking for? Where have you found such in any measurements or listening tests of headphones? There is no such concept.

What there is is what I doing: I apply equalization in an attempt to verify the problem at hand. Here we have multiple peaks which exceed the Harman target:

I EQed those and it certainly cured the issue with high frequency brightness.

Does it rise to "profound verification?" No. But nothing will in this business. That verification would have to come from the manufacturer who can test the driver itself and report. Or else they already know and thought having exaggerated highs this way sells better -- which it does.

Apply the EQ as I have provided and report back what you hear. Otherwise trying to hold an extremely high bar of proof and dismissing other people's conclusions is non-sequitur. It serves to create FUD around the work done to both subjective and objectively evaluate this headphone with no value add otherwise.

And yes, people can absolutely draw conclusions from my reviews as they do from reviews of others. There is no requirement whatsoever that members own such products in order to voice their conclusions. If their conclusions are not based on facts I have presented, then you can ask them about that. But not go outside of that and demand that they own the product before having an opinion about it. What is the point of my reviews if it is not for people to form an opinion about what is good or bad without owning them?