XENNS Mangird Tea 2 Impressions
Configuration: 1DD/6BA
Price: $350
Unit provided for review courtesy of Linsoul.
The original Mangird Tea was most well-known as a Blessing 2 alternative. It never really picked up mainstream appeal; however, it did (still does) enjoy a small, almost cult-like following in certain circles. I can’t really remember what it sounded like at this point, so don’t expect in-depth comparisons to the Tea 2. I suppose the rough distinction would be that the Tea 2 sports more distinctive sub-bass, more treble extension, and a more refined tonality.
Speaking of bass…the bass response of the Tea 2 is generally pretty good; it doesn’t hurt that it’s almost tonally spot-on with my preference curve. Of course, I find myself more dissatisfied when it comes to the Tea 2’s bass transients. Oddly enough, it sounds like there’s a BA tokening some parts of the bass response not unlike the ThieAudio Monarch and Clairvoyance. These are IEMs, mind you, that I criticized for having plasticky bass responses. In any case, the Tea 2’s bass texture and slam are somewhat below-average, at least in A/B comparison with a benchmark like the Moondrop B2. The midrange of the Tea 2 is good again wherein I don’t have much to complain about tonally. I’d say it’s upper-midrange leaning but with the pinna compensation sloped by a couple dB off of my perceived neutral. This is a midrange tuning similar to the qdc Anole VX, a tried-and-true heavy-hitter in the flagship arena. Like the Anole VX, things fall back a bit transitioning into the lower-treble (~5-6kHz), but the treble tonality of the Tea 2 is fairly good otherwise. Extension could be better; that’s almost always the case for sub-$500 IEMs.
As you might infer, I think that the tuning of the Tea 2 is pretty solid and that the people at XENNS aren’t your usual, mud-slinging warriors. But technicalities are where the Tea 2 stumbles. The detailing on it is mostly just surface level. I’ve slung this term around liberally for far too long, so allow me to elucidate: “Surface level” detailing is indicative of when a transducer generally nails attack characteristics - it has good clarity - but doesn’t render decay as well. To this end, I find the Tea 2’s note texturing and ability to capture trailing ends of instruments is mediocre. It is fair to note that too much texture yields undesirable grain. But if you’re asking me, the Tea 2 has leaned too far in the opposite direction, and this lack of perceived detail probably isn’t aided by the recession in the lower-treble. Outside of this, the imaging and dynamics of the Tea 2 can best be summarized as “adequate” for $300, but nothing that really grabs my attention.
I suppose the question at this point is whether the Tea 2 is the Moondrop B2 alternative that its predecessor was purported to be. Mostly, I guess? The Tea 2 is certainly not a bad IEM. It does offer a more laidback presentation relative to the B2 thanks to a more desirable bass tonality, relaxed upper-midrange, and a foil to the B2’s 6kHz peak. But even if the IEMs mostly trade blows for raw tuning, I do feel that the B2 comes out on-top by a decent margin for technical performance, especially in terms of raw detail retrieval. So while I think the Tea 2 is worth a listen, the bias score will reflect my general feelings: I want to like this IEM, but it’s missing something for me.
Score: 5/10