Not a wood worker, Yes I do like the look of it. Sure, when you compare with mdf in cabinet construction it is less inert probably, All woods? Maybe, you tell me, not all have the same resonant characteristic is what I would think. But If you want to talk “cabinet construction” Have you seen a cabinet made of thin plastic that sound great? Still the vast majority of headphones are made of that so I have doubts that an outer ring made of hard would would only be used cause it’s cheap. Maybe in very low volume, it’s cheaper. In the end I heard some really great sounding headphones made of wood, and even more wood as this one. I do believe it’s a bit of a shortcut to go for wood=bad. I have no douubt acoustic are tought out, in parralel with estetics and price yes, but not just one of the three, I also think that it would take a bit more analysis to straight up associate this odd distortion spike as it would magically dissapear if an othe matherial was used for the outer ring.
-
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!
OLLO S5X Headphone Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
ROOSKIE
Major Contributor
Well, ultimately I don't think wood is a bad choice.
Like I said I like the look myself.
Plastic and resins can run the gamut from really crappy to ultra well engineered.
The nice thing about them is they are completely consistent.
In terms of hardwoods being 'cheap', I am thinking in terms of other materials perceived by the buyer as 'luxury'. Hardwood is likley a good choice in this price range.
The luxury alternative would be milled aluminum or some very well engineered resin(allowing for very exotic cup designs), both of which would cost a small company far more than wood does. A large company might be able to do exotic resin or even aluminum for a relatively comparable price to wood.
In any case I don't remeber myself or @lewdish saying wood=bad, neither of us said that at all.
Just saying it could be the source of some inconsistency or that resonace/spike and wondering if the material is used in headphones for perceived value or actual performative value to the customer.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
They aren't an audiophile brand. Rok as just annoyed by the sound quality of most headphones as most did not sound like studio monitors.
He therefore decided to make his own. That became the S4. T.b.h. not a great attempt. Then improved them and made the S4X and S4R (open and closed) and made them better again in the 1.1 version.
He became better known in the studio circles, not in the audiophile world though. Now he improved the sound yet again with the S5X which is a bit in between S4X(1.2) and S4R(1.2).
Personally I think he should improve on the headband/swivel/tilt system a bit more and maybe do something about the microphony of the cable but it works decent enough as it is now.
Is it the perfect headphone ? No. It is following Harman and thus catered for most home users ? No. Is it a viable alternative for nearfield monitors (in a studio) ? Yes, IMO it is.
It does, at least the ones that do not have the weird 2nd harmonic only distortion peaks around 250Hz. This headphone sounds very clean to me even at impressive levels.
wood has no influence on the sound of the headphone. It is not an enclosure like a speaker or an instrument. In the latter it is the shape, wall thickness and other aspects that make use of (thin) wood.
In case of the headphone it is just another material to hold the driver and headband in place. It is relatively VERY thick/dense to the driver material.
The distortion is not caused by the material for sure as mine does not have it. It is weird that it is at a very narrow band and 2nd harmonic only.
It needs to be investigated. I can't do that because mine does not.
OLLO should investigate for sure.
I agree and Rok does too.
Yep, the price is on the high side. It is handmade in EU. In small batches, they only sell 3 models. It is all made to be 'sustainable'. One can buy each and every component of the headphone and replace them yourself if needed (when one is handy enough) and they aren't even expensive.
When applied on the recording side as well I kind of agree.
I do agree that on both the recording side and playback side the response should not have dips and peaks and low in distortion with a wide enough bandwidth and no 'coloration'.
For that the circle of confusion is correct.
The bass shelf and treble level I agree. When you 'correct' for that in the studio environment people at home the majoity of peeople will turn up the bass and treble again simply because most people like a bit of boom-tizz (not most music reproduction quality aficionados) and not all living rooms (and headphones) will create a Harman alike tonality.
Thought experiment: Record something with 'flat' mics and instruments. Mix it using monitors with +20dB in the bass and call this a 'standard'. You end up with a recording lacking bass in the recorded signal.
When you reproduce it with speakers with the same bass boost (in the same studio environment at studio levels) it will sound fine. Circle of confusion works like a treat.
The whole 'flat speaker in a good living room' situation will yield a bass boost and subdue the treble a bit (a bit Harman-ish).
When you 'compensate' for this, by altering the FR of nearfield studios in a similar-ish fashion as 'a standard living room' does then the recording should sound 'as good as the real sound was' in 'your average living room'. Technically 'perfect' at studio SPL.
The thing is... not all studios adhere to this. That's where it should start. Then they should start to mix at 'normal' home listening levels too (which would mean an slight bass boost would be needed).
Then one would need to educate a lot of recording guys, ensure studios are up to snuff, get the commercial guys out of the decision, ensure the target audience is not your average phone speaker or car speaker or even BT speaker. Educate people and whatnot.
It is fine a have a standard. Not fine if the majority of users does not understand and the majority of manufacturers does not adhere to them and the majority of rooms where speakers are used do not adhere to 'the Harman listening room'. This includes the studio mixing rooms and personnel.
Yeah... the circle of confusion is clear.
Too bad there is so much wrong with practice that remains unsolvable no matter how much research has been done. This is the most confusing part of the circle of confusion.
If room acoustics were perfect, people were 'trained' listeners, and speaker setups were fine, listening levels pre-determined and fixed then one would be fine with 'flat'.
Last edited:
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Rok (from OLLO) is going to investigate the findings from both Amir (on his fixture) and Marvin (SBAF) who is using EARS + own target and is going to book some lab time.
Rok also looked into his own measurements, and like mine it did not show even hints of the distortion.
I hope he can find one showing this behavior.
Rok also looked into his own measurements, and like mine it did not show even hints of the distortion.
I hope he can find one showing this behavior.
I am not sure I agree, It is goal number one for the mastering engineers out there to craft something that will translate to as many situation as possible, and it should be rule number one for the hifi manufacturers to not compromise what these engineers wanted the listeners to hear. They are more than well aware of in room characteristics of most settings, but what you describe is utopic. You don't "make sure your target audience is not listening on Iphone", because that is not going to change and if you don't take into account these situations, at least in Pop music, your label lose money, and the label is the one paying you, and they won't hire you on their next project.
Bottom line, music as been mixed and mastered for speakers for ages. The goal for speakers have been to measure flat when anechoically measured, and submitted to a slight decay proportional to frequency in room. This is the root, there is a certain level of control and predictability. If some studios don't succeed at that, it's not they don't "adhere" to that, it's that they are bad at what they do and there will always be.
Now let's say we just put aside all crappy situations like 1 cm full range speakers, OK, nothing is ever sound good on that. Now the new reality, is for HIFI enthusiaths, and it's a tiny part of their market, but let's assume for a second they are the most important to maintain the greatest standards of audiophile experience. Well the new reality is that for this, headphone is now becoming equally important than speakers. The question lies there, Is it to the headphone manufacturers to build something that was made to be listened on speakers for maximum enjoyment equally as enjoyable, or is this for the studios to try to fit the headphones that are popular. It's quite obvious for me that the responsibility is more to the former.
Now the question can be raised, Is it true that boosting the bass by that much on headphones helps in getting a higher fidelity experience and experience the bass region in a way that is closer to what it would sound on speakers, or there is still too much flaws in these research to assume that.
Headphone designers, use the recorded content that is out there and at least the ones that are conscious about hifi, try to make what sounds best. If there is indeed modification needed to the FR in headphone situations for the music to be "perceived" as balanced, well headphone manufacturers have to do it as simple as that, and Studios will make sure to stay in check that their mixes work for this, as for BT speakers, as for Phone speakers. They are there to talk to everybody.
Last edited:
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Yep, that is the sad part and conflicts with high fidelity recordings which was one of my points. You can't please everyone yet they have to as the market demands it. That was my point from a high fidelity standpoint. It conflicts with music for the masses. Some productions indeed find a reasonable compromise others don't.
It is not just caused by crappy monitors and rooms only it is determined by many factors. Just having perfect monitors alone won't solve crappy productions.
It may help a bit.. sure.
Yes, what I stated was utopic and will never happen because the vast majority of produced music is for the masses. The masses want boom-tizz. Audio afficionados want well produced (sounding) recordings. Those surely exist but are not mainstream.
To get the topic back on track... the S5X, at least the one I have, sounds good and 'nearfield monitor that is not Harman corrected' alike to me and that means it could be used as a monitor for cases when speakers are not an option/desirable and can still create good content without having to resort to EQ for the headphones.
Is it an ideal headphone... no but neither are others. The S5X are intended to be used in a studio and for that they work fine, as do some other headphones in higher and lower price classes.
When you are into 'the right to repair' and 'using sustainable materials' this might be a good choice when running a studio. It is good enough for hifi as well (not all pro headphones are) but don't expect Harman response from it.
Last edited:
What is the conflict isn't that large? Maybe the adaptations made by the mixing engineer for max translatability aren't compromises, but simply doing what's right for the song. "Boom tizz" can be achevied in mutliple ways, EQ is one way. Another, cleaner, way is giving kick an hats more prominence and subdue other elements in a mix. That's usually the appropach taken in chart music.
After the audio engineers work is done the reproduction doesn't have to do that much, other than replay truthfully. U-curves can occasionally be valid if listening att low SPL, per equal loudness contours.
OK but personally I Am not putting this headphone in the “luxury’ category In term of price, In term of what it looks like, I haven’t had it in my hands to judge the mechanics and construction, but It does look to me, and it’s personal, a bit more expensive that it’s price.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
That's the whole point isn't it.
You can't change anything but tonality on playback. An 'even' response, despite overall tonal tilt, is a requirement. I would even say an even response between 50Hz and 5kHz is important.
The tonal tilt variances and bass amount is personal. That is room or seal dependent, playback level, and circumstances and even genre dependent as well as 'reference' dependent within several dB's within that 'even response'.
All research ever done has shown there is no single 'correct' headphone, no single correct measurement method, no single correct 'target'.
There is extensive research that using a specific test fixture can predict if a headphone will be 'good sounding' to a majority of people.
The S5X is not intended for that majority and is something one has to keep in mind.
It was designed to kind of meet the 'Dolby Atmos Music curve' for production purposes which differs a bit from Harman which is based on preference of music reproduction for the majority of consumers.
I am sure both targets require an 'even' response (no big dips/peaks) but have a somewhat different tonal balance.
What Amir's measurements show is that A: it does not meet Harman target and B: there are issues with (some ?) copies in sound quality (distortion).
This is a good thing because it isn't a well documented headphone and those looking for 'Harman out of the box' may not want this headphone.
No disrespect to Rok, and he made what appears to be a good headset, but can't help but to have a giggle at reading that. This just happens to be the most overused marketing schtick of any startups out there, the opening line of 75% of all those Kick starter videos or elevator pitch 101. Apologies Rok, no offense, I've heard that so often, I was tired of not finding what I wanted so I made my own, while there may be some truth to this, there is this level of naiveness that i actually love. Of course, everybody who venture into such a crowded market need to genuinely believe he is bringing something to the table. It's basic psychology. but is he really? Sorry for my cynical input, couldn't help it...
Last edited:
Zensō
Major Contributor
The HD800S is the closest I’ve heard a headphone sound to a pair of studio monitors, particularly when used with a bit of cross feed and some EQ to bring the FR closer to neutral. If OLLO were able to do something similar at this price point that would be quite an accomplishment. Unfortunately, it seems this headphone didn’t quite hit the intended mark, though I may give it a try at some point just to satisfy my own curiosity.
I think that post is widely misrepresentative of the Harman Headphone Curve. It's initially based on measuring good speakers in a good listening room through a dummy head, so it has roots in good sound & anechoic flat speakers. Probably not the best idea to have a debate about Harman Curve in a headphone review thread, but thought I should put one comment in opposition to yours to balance it out at least.
I do own the x65, i havent tried any of the Ollo's yet but the X65 published measurments seem to steer toward a similar flat neutral target.
Nope. X65:
And flat measured headphone response (even just flat bass) is categorically not perceived as neutral.
And flat measured headphone response (even just flat bass) is categorically not perceived as neutral.
The "flat", AKA deficient quantity bass is just a limitation of open-back design. Needs EQ correction to fulfill the role of a good reproduction device. Calling this "neutral" is putting a positive spin on a incomplete stock response, AKA marketing speak.
They look like they share similar characteristics to me ~Def steered neutral flat.
If you mean those most general of characteristics being lacking bass and ear gain, sure.
That's what the nope was mostly for.
Its the kind of flat that youd see w/ most conventional mixing headphones since your rolling off the bass & subbass which is desired to EQ into the mix.
Tho I dont think open back is always the a limitation on bass as there are some Audeze open back headphones that will get you closer to pencil flat like mm-500 and LCD-5 (and the DCA expanse which is basically harman boosted) which might make for better mastering tools than mixing ones imo. You'd prob only want the bass reproduction to be pencil flat once you already dialed in the quality of bass into the mix.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Aside from the low bass levels below 150Hz (the familiar Harman boost) these are not that different from each other.
Small tilt from 250Hz to 4kHz. Dipping about -5dB at 4kHz. peaking at 6kHz. Slight under-reporting of treble up to 10kHz (ignore above 8kHz)
So aside from the Harman bass (which it is not designed for) it is tonally similar to the AEON RT. Channel matching is better even on S5X.
Sure.. they differ substantially in distortion levels.
Last edited:
Similar threads
