Fit and Comfort

Seen above is the black silicone size M ear tip that come with the Mangird Tea installed on the right ear bud and inserted into an artificial ear mold. I have averagely sized ears, and the ear mold seen above about perfectly represents my own experiences. Size M silicone tips are my go-to for testing since foam tips are not included by some, and given my struggles with the foam tips here, inclinations to use them further were slim anyway. Both size M silicone tips produced similar fits to where the image above can represent both. The size of the ear buds is a touch larger than average, but the design is fantastic for most people I imagine, courtesy the soft curves gently caressing the concha and antritragus. Smaller ears will still have comfort issues, though, and the lighter weight compared to the size doesn't do much for those. At ~7 g each, these are lower in density to where if you have a good fit and seal, they can remain in place for a while before you notice them again. I had no need for random removals and re-inserts.

Audio Performance

Audio Hardware

If you are like me, you had barely heard of the Mangird (now XENNS) brand to begin with. Knowing about the Mangird Ten, the brand's first set of earphones, will make you a unicorn among people. The Mangird Ten came and went without much fanfare, and the Mangird Tea is meant to be an update of it with the name to indicate details and notes reflected while you enjoy a cup of tea. Sure, why not! The relevant section to me is the hybrid driver system. The Mangird Ten uses a single dynamic driver (DD) and four balanced armature (BA) setup. XENNS went with a 1+4+2 setup employing a single "bio-titanium" DD for the bass and lower mids, which hand it over to the quad Sonion 2600 BAs for the mids and then the two Knowles RAD-33518 BA drivers for the highs. I'd like to see more about the dynamic driver since that description is quite useless in its current form!

Driving the hardware takes more than your average IEMs with a rated impedance of 18 Ω, which in itself is not the problem as much as the high sensitivity of 112 (+/-2) dB/mW. You need to be careful here since any clipping can cause hearing issues leading to potential tinnitus. Keep volume and gain low and slowly increase volume as needed, but a poor source can lead to a poor listening experience more than is usually the case with IEMs. A DAC/amp intended for high sensitivity earphones is not a bad idea thus, especially considering the price range the Mangird Tea operates in. Also, the lack of a 3.5 mm audio jack for most phones these days is another reason to consider a DAC/amp that takes digital input and provides a 3.5 mm jack since you will otherwise have to use an adapter anyway, or even a dedicated DAP with balanced outputs if you go with the 2.5/4.4 mm cable options. If not on the go, space is less of an issue, but the short cable might be a potential handicap if connecting to a PC as the audio source.

Frequency Measurement and Listening

I will mention that I have a general preference for a warm neutral signature, emphasizing a slightly elevated bass and smooth trebles with detailed mids and good tonal separation. I also generally prefer instrumental music over vocals, with favored genres include jazz and classical music.


Our reproducible testing methodology begins with a calibrated IEC711 audio coupler/artificial ear that ear buds can feed into to where you have decent isolation similar to real ears. The audio coupler feeds into a USB sound card, which in turn goes to a laptop that has ARTA and REW running and the earphones connected to the laptop through the sound card. I begin with an impulse measurement to test for signal fidelity, calibrate the sound card and channel output, account for floor noise, and finally test the frequency response of each channel separately. Octave smoothing is at the 1/6th setting, which nets a good balance of detail and noise not being identified as useful data. Also, the default tuning was used for testing, and no app-based settings were chosen unless specifically mentioned. Each sample of interest is tested thrice with separate mounts to account for any fit issues, and an average is taken of the three individual measurements for statistical accuracy. For IEMs, I am also using the ear mold that fits to the audio coupler for a separate test to compare how the IEMs fare when installed in an ear geometry and not just the audio coupler by itself. The raw data is then exported from REW and plotted in OriginPro for easier comparison.


The IEC711 is such that you can't really compare these results with most other test setups, just within our own library of measurements. This is also why I am trialing out just omitting the raw dB numbers altogether, noting instead that I had set the SPL to 75 dB in REW and each tick in the Y-axis is 5 dB (I've since updated the testing further in subsequent reviews to have the numbers again with a proper calibration having been done). What is more useful information is how the left and right channels work across the rated frequency response in the Mangird Tea, or at least the useful part of it. The left earbud was separately tested from the right one, and colored differently for contrast. I did my best to ensure an identical fit for both inside the IEC711 orifice, so note how the two are similar in the bass and mids with the right channel only just off by under 1 dB. Once you get to the expected hump at around 2 kHz to account for the inner ear resonances, things start to deviate further. This is one of those times where the right channel measurement is more indicative of the true listening experience too, but I can't say the left channel felt different. So the IEC711 measurement may be at fault here, and I won't fault the Mangird Tea given the reasonable doubt.

In fact, the same continues with the test using the ear mold to represent an ear and cheek simulator and an example set of ear canals. As expected with the ear canal in the way, there is a similar drop in the lows and mids with the frequency response, and the treble response does get a bit more jumpy to where that 8 kHz peak is a minor annoyance I would probably EQ out for more consistency. I will also mention that there was no discernible break-in period or effect, which results in overall good reproducibility and consistency, also as the average response for each channel is basically the same across the three repeated tests.

XENNS writes that the aim with the Mangird Tea was to produce "an overall flexible, natural and balanced sound signature," and I have to say I agree with that statement most of the time. The Mangird Tea is extremely competent technically too, with a two-way active crossover involving three sets of drivers on each ear bud that take careful tuning to get right. The so-called German bio-titanium dynamic driver may be short on its own details, but the details imparted to the sub-bass and mid-bass are not to be scoffed at. There is plenty of punch here for most listeners, with control over the output that is far beyond pure brute force and again a great example of the balance at play. There is no specific peak here, with a gentle elevation giving way to the four Sonion 2600 balanced armatures that do one of the best jobs of handling the mids I have ever experienced, certainly for this price range. The transition itself is so smooth I can barely tell when we go through the cross-over, with lower mids so energetic it feels like an extension of a full-range dynamic driver.

There is the expected decrease in warmth as we get more neutral a response here, which is flat enough for sufficient range with vocals and some instruments. It's no ThieAudio Monarch or Etymotic Evo, but it is the Mangird Tea that itself will get to be a point of reference for this tuning. The Harmon target curve is at play here, with vocals sounding crystal clear with great tonal separation and clarity. Male vocals in particular benefit a lot, so much so that pop, jazz, country music, and even hip-hop are absolutely incredible. The distinctive timbre helps separate vocals from instruments, but also some instrument classes from others to where imaging is spot on, which helps points out the source of the music should you visualize yourself in the recording room itself. The soundstage is equally impressive, but one I would classify as taller and deeper than wider. There is the sense of music being drawn in somewhat, with that imaginary room narrower than the other dimensions would otherwise indicate.

This is clearly closer to my specific preferences and not the typical V-shaped tuning you see with most hybrid IEMs, either. There is plenty of energy with the 2-5 kHz peak too, which accounts for the ear canal resonance compensation and results in another accurate response for female vocals in addition to more classical and opera music. It is also around this point where I think the second cross-over to the Knowles 33518 balanced armatures is not as strong. There is still clarity, as well as continued tonal separation with good detail, but the brighter tuning that lends itself favorably to the mids can be quite polarizing in the highs. The transient response is also somewhat weaker than I would have liked, with irregular feedback as you go from string instruments to cymbals and triangles. I would go as far as to say some notes sound harsh, but not to where they are shrill. Perhaps this is where the XENNS UP with its tribrid design will end up more favorably, having electrostatic tweeter drivers to handle the true highs.

Comparison to other IEMs

There are not too many other IEMs in my current possession that operate in the price range the Mangird Tea finds itself in, so I decided to stick to the $250–$300 range with other hybrids for comparison. This means we have to look at the ThieAudio Legacy 5, which got re-tested in my newer testing procedure, as well as the FiiO FH5s I left in the default balanced mode as it would otherwise occupy most of the graph above. The Campfire Audio Honeydew is in the same price range, but uses a full-range dynamic driver and comes with a tuning that is not what I would call balanced.

Speaking of balanced, the Mangird Tea is certainly more balanced than the FiiO FH5s in balanced mode, but loses out to the tuning of the ThieAudio Legacy 5. The sub-bass section in particular has a lot more ooomph with the FH5s, with the Mangird Tea more energetic than the L5. I prefer the Mangird Tea for a good balance of energy and clarity without any lost details. The same goes for the mids where I once again prefer the Mangird Tea owing to the longer range and more neutral response allowing vocals and instruments to shine more. The FH5s is more V-shaped than the others, so if that is your jam, you may prefer it over the others. In the treble region, the increased brightness of the Mangird Tea is a love-it or hate-it affair for me, with good synergy for some music genres I really like, jazz in particular, while bested by the others for consistency. That dip at 6 kHz is not a measurement artificat, and while it perhaps is only my sample, I still feel there is definite room for improvement here.