• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Sennheiser HD560S Review (Headphone)

Rate this headphone:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 4 0.9%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 25 5.9%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 169 39.9%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 226 53.3%

  • Total voters
    424

Moonhead

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2021
Messages
311
Likes
377
Location
Denmark
That does not look promising for Hifiman, Ananada where one of the few headphones on my want list, as they could be plugged straight into a laptop without amp hassle.
 

ishouldbeking

Active Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
119
Likes
179
Location
DC-adjacent
That's not Oratory's EQ, that's AutoEQ's purely algorithmically generated EQ, using Oratory's measurements, which, as can be seen from the 'Equalized' curve on the graph in your link, in this case has produced an EQ that erroneously boosts the 8-10 kHz region by around 5 dB. This is Oratory's actual EQ for the HD560S. I would only use AutoEQ's EQs if he hasn't made his own one for a particular headphone, due to the potential for such robo-errors as seen in this case.
It's amazing how often AutoEQ settings get discussed without context; this is exactly why I find them nearly useless in practice, at least without further corrections. I don't have a good enough ear to EQ without guidance, but whenever I'm testing new cans I like to collect multiple EQ profiles from all the usual sources and swap between them. Eventually I'll settle on whatever sounds most pleasing to my ear and typically make a few minor tweaks to taste (usually slight adjustments to bass and a softer hand with treble adjustments). The AutoEQ profiles are fascinating as they almost always sound insane, but sometimes produce entertaining effects, like exaggerated dead spots alongside intense treble spikes. Makes life a bit spicy!

But it's distressing that these profiles are often shared without that necessary context. The Qudelix app (which is otherwise phenomenally well designed and feature rich) now has them searchable by default. At first blush, it seems amazing - saves the effort of having to manually enter profiles and it's a wealth of information at your fingertips... until you actually listen to the presets.
 

staticV3

Master Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
7,540
Likes
12,011
It's amazing how often AutoEQ settings get discussed without context; this is exactly why I find them nearly useless in practice, at least without further corrections. I don't have a good enough ear to EQ without guidance, but whenever I'm testing new cans I like to collect multiple EQ profiles from all the usual sources and swap between them. Eventually I'll settle on whatever sounds most pleasing to my ear and typically make a few minor tweaks to taste (usually slight adjustments to bass and a softer hand with treble adjustments). The AutoEQ profiles are fascinating as they almost always sound insane, but sometimes produce entertaining effects, like exaggerated dead spots alongside intense treble spikes. Makes life a bit spicy!

But it's distressing that these profiles are often shared without that necessary context. The Qudelix app (which is otherwise phenomenally well designed and feature rich) now has them searchable by default. At first blush, it seems amazing - saves the effort of having to manually enter profiles and it's a wealth of information at your fingertips... until you actually listen to the presets.
I'm pretty experienced with EQing headphones and have A/Bed numerous PEQ presets with 10 or more headphones and eight IEMs or so.
In my experience, oratory's presets that he creates himself sound comically bad about as often as any preset you may find on AutoEQ.
For me at least, the only reliable way to find that one PEQ which genuinely improves sound quality is to A/B every preset and measurement from reliable sources that you can find.
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,875
Likes
6,673
Location
UK
I'm pretty experienced with EQing headphones and have A/Bed numerous PEQ presets with 10 or more headphones and eight IEMs or so.
In my experience, oratory's presets that he creates himself sound comically bad about as often as any preset you may find on AutoEQ.
For me at least, the only reliable way to find that one PEQ which genuinely improves sound quality is to A/B every preset and measurement from reliable sources that you can find.
I suppose some of the problems with not liking certain Oratory EQ's is unit to unit variation (some models of headphones good other bad in this regard), because then it makes the EQ less valid and less accurate, but of course that's the same with EQ's from any source. But I'd say Oratory makes good decisions re how he EQ's his measurement, whereas with AutoEQ in the case that GaryH brought up in the following link the 8-10kHz notch was boosted, which is a mistake on the part of AutoEQ: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...er-hd560s-review-headphone.29603/post-1040898
But I do think you're right about trialing different EQ presets out there as long as it's from a GRAS headphone measurement device, because you might land on a preset that has been created from a unit that mirrors the frequency response of your own unit closer - assuming they're all done to the Harman Curve if that's what you prefer.....it helps to know on average what Target Curve you prefer, ("on average" because different models of headphones behave a bit differently on your own head vs GRAS, and also because of the unit to unit variation, so unfortunately not all headphones sound quite the same when EQ'd to the Target Curve.)
 

_thelaughingman

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
1,324
Likes
1,943
I'm pretty experienced with EQing headphones and have A/Bed numerous PEQ presets with 10 or more headphones and eight IEMs or so.
In my experience, oratory's presets that he creates himself sound comically bad about as often as any preset you may find on AutoEQ.
For me at least, the only reliable way to find that one PEQ which genuinely improves sound quality is to A/B every preset and measurement from reliable sources that you can find.
This is where I personally think we need a standardized database of presets, i.e.: Harman research utilizing their measurements of various headphones and providing a PEQ based on their measurements. The reality of it is if the majority of users are using any form of EQ to conform to Harman Curve, then there should be a standard set of PEQ' they should be using to minimize uncertainty and variances based on testing methodologies.
 
Last edited:

staticV3

Master Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
7,540
Likes
12,011
which is a mistake on the part of AutoEQ
How is that a mistake on part of AutoEQ? The raw response that oratory provided to Jaakko was (after smoothing HF) deficient in that area compared to the target, so the python script boosted it.
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,875
Likes
6,673
Location
UK
How is that a mistake on part of AutoEQ? The raw response that oratory provided to Jaakko was (after smoothing HF) deficient in that area compared to the target, so the python script boosted it.
Taking a look at the graph showing the raw & equalised, the following graph, if I'm not mistaken:
HD560s AutoEQ.png

I think it was a mistake to boost 8kHz so that it now peaks there above the Harman Curve (annotated as #1 in the pic). And the annotated part labelled #2 at around 9500-12000Hz, I think it was wrong to boost that 10000Hz notch. I agree you might want a High Shelf at say 11000Hz to manipulate the treble above 10000Hz depending on where you initially align the target curve on the measurement, but targetted EQ of the 10000Hz notch is not right as there's supposed to be a dip there. Not to mention the fact that the blue target line is not the Harman Curve, it's underrepresented in the bass - but that's fine as long as people are aware of that before they use it. I don't think it's very intelligent EQ in the case of this headphone.
 

staticV3

Master Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
7,540
Likes
12,011
I think it was a mistake to boost 8kHz so that it now peaks there above the Harman Curve
You can read about why AutoEQ uses heavy smoothing above 6kHz here, which will result in slight over-/undershoot of the target: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq#technical-challenges

I think it was wrong to boost that 10000Hz notch [...] as there's supposed to be a dip there
That's you criticizing the Harman target curve, not AutoEQ.

Not to mention the fact that the blue target line is not the Harman Curve, it's underrepresented in the bass
Yes. AutoEQ uses a modified version of the AE/OE2018 target with 2dB less bass, akin to the Harman target from 2013.
People like Andrew Park aka Resolve Reviews argue that the vanilla Harman target favors preference across a diverse target group over neutrality and that a 2013-style bass response is a closer fit for audiophiles looking for faithful reproduction.
 

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,875
Likes
6,673
Location
UK
You can read about why AutoEQ uses heavy smoothing above 6kHz here, which will result in slight over-/undershoot of the target: https://github.com/jaakkopasanen/AutoEq#technical-challenges


That's you criticizing the Harman target curve, not AutoEQ.


Yes. AutoEQ uses a modified version of the AE/OE2018 target with 2dB less bass, akin to the Harman target from 2013.
People like Andrew Park aka Resolve Reviews argue that the vanilla Harman target favors preference across a diverse target group over neutrality and that a 2013-style bass response is a closer fit for audiophiles looking for faithful reproduction.
I see those more of the limitations of the AutoEQ system being used. Smoothing is already applied in the Oratory measurement, by definition that the published measurement is an average of very many different measurements, both within one headphone itself being measured, but also of multiple headphone units if more than one example of that model is measured, so the published measurement aims to have peaks & dips showing which are consistent from unit to unit & on-head placement position to on-head placement position - so best not to ignore peaks & troughs in the published measurement (apart from the 10kHz notch of course which is what we discussed & above 10kHz it's unreliable and you should use either very broad peak filters (say Q1) or High Shelf Filters). Further to the 10kHz point, blindly EQ'ing up the 10kHz notch and then saying that's a "Harman Problem" is naive - most people who know about headphone measurements know that there is a natural dip at 10kHz that should not be EQ'd up, so if you or Auto EQ ignores that bit of wisdom then that's really not optimal. I'm sure that AutoEQ can produce some decent results for some headphones, but the HD560s example here is certainly not optimal.

About the bass level chosen for the AutoEQ project, I really don't have a problem with that as bass preference is individual, but people should know that it's not the Harman Curve bass pictured there. On average people are gonna prefer the proper Harman level of bass, as that's the most recent research (2018) - assuming the research is representative, and from what I know I think it is, it's good research. But no, I don't have a problem with AutoEQ using a different bass level - just as long as they make it really clear, I'm not sure if they do, I can't remember how I found out.

EDIT: you're right that the 2013 Harman bass level is theoretically the most neutral bass level....I did some work in REW once applying the speaker Harman Target to the flat in-room response measurement of the GRAS dummy head, and that basically produces the 2013 Harman Curve (which also has less treble as well as less bass compared to the 2018 curve). I personally prefer the 2018 Harman Curve, might be because you don't get the tactile bass feel that you would from speakers (so an element of compensation)...and I theorise that if the bass is boosted slightly above neutral then you'd probably want the treble slightly boosted to retain clarity.
 
Last edited:

usern

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2020
Messages
488
Likes
500
Looks alright but how does it really compare in this class? There are so many headphones in this price tier now.
I think i'ts at a point that instead of comparing sound quality, you decide on features. Especially when using equalizer. I wanted daily driver headphones that have good ventilation and not get hot so for me AKG K371 was not consideration because they are closed and HE400se seems heavy and has probably worse ventilation than HD560S due to planar drivers. All of them have good performance.
 

_thelaughingman

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
1,324
Likes
1,943
I think i'ts at a point that instead of comparing sound quality, you decide on features. Especially when using equalizer. I wanted daily driver headphones that have good ventilation and not get hot so for me AKG K371 was not consideration because they are closed and HE400se seems heavy and has probably worse ventilation than HD560S due to planar drivers. All of them have good performance.
You'd be surprised at the ventilation of the HE400se, the HD560s pads started to cause sweat on my earlobes
 

uwotm8

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2020
Messages
401
Likes
457
Nice to see so many reviews telling the same - it seems obvious to me that despite measurement differences 560S sound just can't compete with 600/650/6xx same as AKG 361/371 is obviously a lower grade compared to K7** lineup (yes, I dare to compare closed vs open). Again despite all 7** problems (which are perfectly EQable, I've done this). No miracle, you get what you've paid for in these cases.
 

_thelaughingman

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
1,324
Likes
1,943

Robbo99999

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
6,875
Likes
6,673
Location
UK
Nice to see so many reviews telling the same - it seems obvious to me that despite measurement differences 560S sound just can't compete with 600/650/6xx same as AKG 361/371 is obviously a lower grade compared to K7** lineup (yes, I dare to compare closed vs open). Again despite all 7** problems (which are perfectly EQable, I've done this). No miracle, you get what you've paid for in these cases.
HD560s certainly can compete with HD600, certainly for me, HD560s is a lot better once EQ'd, mainly soundstage related, but also re bass clarity. Also, you don't "get what you've paid for" when it comes to headphones, there's not a correlation between price & performance. I might make the leap of faith though that more expensive headphones probably on average have better driver matching & less unit to unit variation, which is an important consideration if you're using EQ's published on the net by people like Oratory, etc.
 

_thelaughingman

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
1,324
Likes
1,943
HD560s certainly can compete with HD600, certainly for me, HD560s is a lot better once EQ'd, mainly soundstage related, but also re bass clarity. Also, you don't "get what you've paid for" when it comes to headphones, there's not a correlation between price & performance. I might make the leap of faith though that more expensive headphones probably on average have better driver matching & less unit to unit variation, which is an important consideration if you're using EQ's published on the net by people like Oratory, etc.
I second this, the HD560s can compete with the 600s. This isn't a scenario of 'you get what you pay for', Sennheiser did a good job of tuning these to almost reference tuning, which many of their upper grade headphones don't have. These are still a good recommendation to have for entry level audiophile headphones before leaping to the upper echelons.
 
Top Bottom