• 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

Rate this headphone:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 33 25.4%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 60 46.2%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 26 20.0%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 11 8.5%

  • Total voters
    130
That's a really good question, but my advice everytime now is HD560s with EQ. To me it's the most reliable headphone that I keep coming back to, it's reliable in so many ways - unit to unit variation, bass response when seal is broken, you can set the headband in notches so you're always wearing it the same way, plenty of room for your ears (& comfortable & light), the stock frequency response is good before even doing EQ, the distortion is low, the channel matching is good, the imaging & soundstage are good, it's only £139 here in the UK at the moment, etc! The bass is really impressive in the HD560s for an open backed dynamic headphone, really very good and also when EQ'd, lots of detail & definition in the bass which is one of the reasons why it's my most often favourite vs my other open backs.
Own the Senn 599, super light, comfortable, decent sound, etc. The 560s do sound interesting, but I'd be really surprised if indeed they sounded better than the Hifiman Edition XS, Ollo S5X, etc., But yeah, I mean, my uneducated, biased, etc., opinion, not fact based (haven't heard them). The only 6XX line I've heard was the 650, and disappointment would be putting it lightly... I liked the Senn Orpheus though, just tiny bit above budget...

In my experience, cheaper products; (ex; senn 599) where they don't sound wrong per se, seem to miss that 'natural sound' or 'refinement' (don't want to get into audiophile jargon); they sound ok; but not as life-like as they should; missing critical detail/information. Like a blurry image vs sharp image, or 640x480 image vs 1024x768 resolution. Not offensively bad in any stretch; but missing probably low distortion/transients/I don't know what. And they just sound kinda bland and boring listening to because they're missing that detail / transparency.. (sorry lol) Something not be super easily noticed just by measurements. (hard to directly correlate measurements to real sound)

But case in point for forming opinion by looking at measurements vs listening... From someone owning both 560 & S5X... There's a clear disconnect between recommendation based on measurements, vs owning and listening to both owned products...

I have done so already, also listened to the S5X at loud levels and plays fine. I have no explanation for the distortion and cannot re-create it here either nor measure it.
I can tell you that it does not sound better than HD800 but it is a lot better than K702, NAD VISO and even dare to say better than my HD560S, even at higher SPL.
The HD660S2 is slightly better in some aspects (but not bass extension) but both HD660S2 and HD800 are more expensive but lack the clarity and bass extension of the S5X.

I find the explanation from Rok a bit 'weird' too b.t.w.
Maybe it is because the video was done a bit 'on the fly' too much.
 
Own the Senn 599, super light, comfortable, decent sound, etc. The 560s do sound interesting, but I'd be really surprised if indeed they sounded better than the Hifiman Edition XS, Ollo S5X, etc., But yeah, I mean, my uneducated, biased, etc., opinion, not fact based (haven't heard them). The only 6XX line I've heard was the 650, and disappointment would be putting it lightly... I liked the Senn Orpheus though, just tiny bit above budget...

In my experience, cheaper products; (ex; senn 599) where they don't sound wrong per se, seem to miss that 'natural sound' or 'refinement' (don't want to get into audiophile jargon); they sound ok; but not as life-like as they should; missing critical detail/information. Like a blurry image vs sharp image, or 640x480 image vs 1024x768 resolution. Not offensively bad in any stretch; but missing probably low distortion/transients/I don't know what. And they just sound kinda bland and boring listening to because they're missing that detail / transparency.. (sorry lol) Something not be super easily noticed just by measurements. (hard to directly correlate measurements to real sound)

But case in point for forming opinion by looking at measurements vs listening... From someone owning both 560 & S5X... There's a clear disconnect between recommendation based on measurements, vs owning and listening to both owned products...
It's obvious there will be large differences between headphones if you don't use EQ, but if you use EQ to a target of choice, probably Harman to start with, then that's the most optimal way to compare headphones, because of course headphones with different frequency responses will sound different - that's totally obvious. So, to get the best out of any headphone you EQ it to your target, I think that's the most interesting way to compare headphones because otherwise the difference is obvious. But, at the same time it is relevant to take into account what the stock frequency response is of the headphone, both for reasons of seeing how possible it is to accurately EQ to your target, but also on it's own merit as a headphone used at stock without EQ. It's a bit limiting to just base your headphone comparisons on stock (without EQ). There's no reason why the HD560s wouldn't sound better than the Ollo, they measure better at stock frequency response whilst also being lower distortion.
HD560s distortion (measured by Oratory):
HD560s Distortion.png
EDIT: but look, this is not an HD560s advertisment thread, I'm just saying there are headphones that measure better than the Ollo whilst also being cheaper to buy, that's my main point. Go off the measurements to start with.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. Regardless of opinions on the value for the money, Ollo has achieved what they set out to do: produce a high quality studio monitor headphone. It’s no surprise people will vote these poor for many reasons, not the least of which is non-adherence to Harman. As has been said numerous times (including by Rok), the S5X isn’t intended to be an “audiophile“ headphone.
I'd be less confident in making the statement that I outlined in bold in your post. It's a tough ask to start with, I mean what is that gonna be exactly, but the Ollo is not fitting that bill 100% - it doesn't fit the bill from a distortion standpoint and it doesn't fit the bill from an average stock frequency response standpoint (if you were to smooth it out), and it has some nasty high Q (sharp) peaks & dips above 3kHz, so I wouldn't really call this ideal or "high quality studio monitor headphone" that you mention - it's just really easy pickings to counteract your bold statement, so I'm being harsh on you!
 
I'd be less confident in making the statement that I outlined in bold in your post. It's a tough ask to start with, I mean what is that gonna be exactly, but the Ollo is not fitting that bill 100% - it doesn't fit the bill from a distortion standpoint and it doesn't fit the bill from an average stock frequency response standpoint (if you were to smooth it out), and it has some nasty high Q (sharp) peaks & dips above 3kHz, so I wouldn't really call this ideal or "high quality studio monitor headphone" that you mention - it's just really easy pickings to counteract your bold statement, so I'm being harsh on you!
I don’t disagree with you, but it begs the question, what do you consider to be a “high quality studio monitor headphone”? From what I’ve seen there seems to be no consensus on this at all, with top pros using everything from MDR-7506s to LCD-5s.
 
Last edited:
I don’t disagree with you, but it begs the question, what do you consider to be a “high quality studio monitor headphone”? From what I’ve seen there seems to be no consensus on this at all, with top pros using everything from MDR-7506s to LCD-5s.
It's a really good question. If I just base it on my own experience, I have anechoic flat studio monitors and sub down to 20Hz at my listening position, and for me the Harman bass of the Harman Headphone Curve is accurate to that (in general terms - some headphones I put a bit more bass in, but not much), and for sure I still notice differences between my various headphones when EQ'd to the Harman Curve. But for sure I know that EQ'd to Harman Headphone Curve is far more accurate to my Anechoic Flat Studio monitors + sub (with roomEQ) than just using all my headphones at stock. So for me, on average, the the Headphone Harman Curve is really coming close to an Anechoic Flat Studio Monitor experience. Therefore, in my experience headphones that deviate a lot from Harman Headphone Curve will not sound accurate to an Anechoic Flat speaker situation, so that's my judgement.
 
I'd be less confident in making the statement that I outlined in bold in your post. It's a tough ask to start with, I mean what is that gonna be exactly, but the Ollo is not fitting that bill 100% - it doesn't fit the bill from a distortion standpoint and it doesn't fit the bill from an average stock frequency response standpoint (if you were to smooth it out), and it has some nasty high Q (sharp) peaks & dips above 3kHz, so I wouldn't really call this ideal or "high quality studio monitor headphone" that you mention - it's just really easy pickings to counteract your bold statement, so I'm being harsh on you!
That's fair, to about the same extent as my bolded statement. You're basing judgment on measurements while I'm basing mine on listening. Distortion is not audible at typical listening levels. There is excess energy around 3k, which is intentional for their stated purpose (I dial that region down a few dB). Admittedly, I can't say much anything objective about the measured variations at higher frequencies. I don't hear anything egregious there.

I didn't specify that part of the reason for what I said goes beyond just sound. How many other headphones out there provide replacements for every part? Honestly, I don't know, but I gather that's not a common practice.
 
It's a really good question. If I just base it on my own experience, I have anechoic flat studio monitors and sub down to 20Hz at my listening position, and for me the Harman bass of the Harman Headphone Curve is accurate to that (in general terms - some headphones I put a bit more bass in, but not much), and for sure I still notice differences between my various headphones when EQ'd to the Harman Curve. But for sure I know that EQ'd to Harman Headphone Curve is far more accurate to my Anechoic Flat Studio monitors + sub (with roomEQ) than just using all my headphones at stock. So for me, on average, the the Headphone Harman Curve is really coming close to an Anechoic Flat Studio Monitor experience. Therefore, in my experience headphones that deviate a lot from Harman Headphone Curve will not sound accurate to an Anechoic Flat speaker situation, so that's my judgement.
What you described is essentially what I do. I use Sonarworks SoundID Reference to EQ my Genelecs flat at a listening distance of 85cm. For consistency, and to do what I can to minimize the circle of confusion, I also EQ my HD800S to the Sonarworks target, which is similar to Harman but with a lower bass shelf. This provides very good consistency and minimizes the issues when switching between the monitors and headphones.
 
I'm just saying there are headphones that measure better than the Ollo whilst also being cheaper to buy, that's my main point.
With that I agree.
That, however, does not mean always it will thus sound better or have more potential to sound better.

Measuring perfect acc. to a target on a specific test fixture and/or EQing to that measurement does not mean it will sound as close to perfect to all people.
The fact that such may work for you does not guarantee it does the same for others.

Your main concerns are distortion here and you claim the HD560S is superior.
index.php


index.php


I hope you can see that aside from the anomaly (which does not happen on my and some other fixtures but does on Amir's 45CA and Marvin's EARS the distortion, especially below 150Hz is much lower in the S5X. I don't know if you ever listened to 4kHz at 114dB even for a few ms but I can tell you if you did you would not know how far to throw the headphone of your head.
Not so at 30Hz where the S5X still sounds clean and even slightly louder than HD560S. As stated the peak at 250Hz is not showing on my fixture (also not at 100dB SPL) in fact distortion dips there (very narrow) so there is 'something' happening at that frequency (which Rok admits).

FR is something that can be EQ'ed to some extend.

The headstage of the S5X is about as 'wide' as HD660S2 so definitely not HD800 wide nor even HD560S wide but is closer to HD560S than HD600.
Bigger driver, different position, different angle, different pads, different baffle which all seem to affect headstage.
Imaging of the S5X is almost HD800 quality and slightly better than HD560S (to me, on my head)
Headstage and imaging are different things but do seem to go somewhat hand in hand.
Imaging of the HD660S2 is better than HD560S but headstage is better on HD560S (also my opinion, not a fact even though it could possibly be deduced here)


So aside from the unexplained H2 weird peak the distortion of the S5X is not as bad as it seems, even at high SPL in the bass.
This matches my experience and when comparing S5X to HD560S at higher (impressively loud) SPL the S5X sounds 'better' and with controlled bass and distortion free than HD560S. It can easily rival studio monitors at the same SPL. The sound still is 'clean' while the HD560S 'muddies' the sound a bit at the same SPL and strats to struggle with imaging at the same levels.

This is the problem when condemning a headphone based on distortion and FR following a target without even owning or listening to them. Same is true for HD660S2.
Tech has improved over the decades and HD600 is an almost unchanged decades old design after all.
 
In my experience, cheaper products; (ex; senn 599) where they don't sound wrong per se, seem to miss that 'natural sound' or 'refinement' (don't want to get into audiophile jargon); they sound ok; but not as life-like as they should; missing critical detail/information. Like a blurry image vs sharp image, or 640x480 image vs 1024x768 resolution. Not offensively bad in any stretch; but missing probably low distortion/transients/I don't know what. And they just sound kinda bland and boring listening to because they're missing that detail / transparency.. (sorry lol) Something not be super easily noticed just by measurements. (hard to directly correlate measurements to real sound)

I probably know what you are talking about. I have the HD600 for a long time just as a reference and I have been saying that while it is competent headphone it's still strictly in the low-mid priced, good value for money bracket with a truckload of other fan favorites. Reason being it lacks these certain technicalities that exist in phones in the +500€ range.

I'm in a process of changing my opinions though: having listened to mainly the HD600 this week I'm starting to doubt if these "technicalities" are really needed when just listening to music and not trying to pick up small details or impressions. It's like one day I'm so impressed of for example LCD-X:s mighty bass or the airy and detailed planar sound in general and some other day those feel just irritating and HD600 is just the ticket.

But anyways, if you are looking to have these technicalities then Ollo is clearly in the higher category. The treble, just a smidge too hot, but whatever. I'm actually comparing it right now to the HD560S and I think you'll get more of "not-blandness" from the Ollo although the 560S is still "less bland" than HD600. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GM3
The treble, just a smidge too hot

yes, use some felt or a single ply of a 3-ply piece of toilet paper between under the pad and that's sorted. Improves the treble quality as well.
Easy to do and change back.
 
With that I agree.
That, however, does not mean always it will thus sound better or have more potential to sound better.

Measuring perfect acc. to a target on a specific test fixture and/or EQing to that measurement does not mean it will sound as close to perfect to all people.
The fact that such may work for you does not guarantee it does the same for others.

Your main concerns are distortion here and you claim the HD560S is superior.
index.php


index.php


I hope you can see that aside from the anomaly (which does not happen on my and some other fixtures but does on Amir's 45CA and Marvin's EARS the distortion, especially below 150Hz is much lower in the S5X. I don't know if you ever listened to 4kHz at 114dB even for a few ms but I can tell you if you did you would not know how far to throw the headphone of your head.
Not so at 30Hz where the S5X still sounds clean and even slightly louder than HD560S. As stated the peak at 250Hz is not showing on my fixture (also not at 100dB SPL) in fact distortion dips there (very narrow) so there is 'something' happening at that frequency (which Rok admits).

FR is something that can be EQ'ed to some extend.

The headstage of the S5X is about as 'wide' as HD660S2 so definitely not HD800 wide nor even HD560S wide but is closer to HD560S than HD600.
Bigger driver, different position, different angle, different pads, different baffle which all seem to affect headstage.
Imaging of the S5X is almost HD800 quality and slightly better than HD560S (to me, on my head)
Headstage and imaging are different things but do seem to go somewhat hand in hand.
Imaging of the HD660S2 is better than HD560S but headstage is better on HD560S (also my opinion, not a fact even though it could possibly be deduced here)


So aside from the unexplained H2 weird peak the distortion of the S5X is not as bad as it seems, even at high SPL in the bass.
This matches my experience and when comparing S5X to HD560S at higher (impressively loud) SPL the S5X sounds 'better' and with controlled bass and distortion free than HD560S. It can easily rival studio monitors at the same SPL. The sound still is 'clean' while the HD560S 'muddies' the sound a bit at the same SPL and strats to struggle with imaging at the same levels.

This is the problem when condemning a headphone based on distortion and FR following a target without even owning or listening to them. Same is true for HD660S2.
Tech has improved over the decades and HD600 is an almost unchanged decades old design after all.
Yes, when comparing Amir's distortion measurements of the two headphones I can see that the Ollo is better from that point of view apart from the 240Hz distortion spike, which seems to be variable between units. Oratory's distortion measurements of my HD560s that I linked earlier measure better than Amir's HD560s though, and on balance better than Amir's Ollo. But ok, I'm not gonna keep going on a negative train of comments on the Ollo, as that would be silly and I'd just end up repeating myself.
 
yes, use some felt or a single ply of a 3-ply piece of toilet paper between under the pad and that's sorted. Improves the treble quality as well.
Easy to do and change back.

Well, color me surprised, that worked. I think I'm going to have to get some nice felt to replace the pieces of toiler paper though. Got to have some standards. :)
 
That is true for continous exposure.
When listening to music at impressively loud levels for say the duration of a song with deep bass one can easily reach 110dB peak SPL yet only reach 95 dBA average levels (depends on music).
So for the lowest frequencies 114dB is important, 104 for mids and 94 for the treble.
 
Yes.
That is true for continous exposure.
When listening to music at impressively loud levels for say the duration of a song with deep bass one can easily reach 110dB peak SPL yet only reach 95 dBA average levels (depends on music).
So for the lowest frequencies 114dB is important, 104 for mids and 94 for the treble.
Yes, but even at 80-85 db continuous sound pressure there is a risk of hearing damage, if you listen for more than 2 hours a day. One have to get under 80 db to be safe. At 94 db continuous sound pressure, there is a risk of damage within just under an hour.
 
Yep but that is pretty loud and something one does not do on a daily basis.
That said playing music loud quite often is definitely not recommended to say the least.

Was just mentioning why it is worth testing at those levels and why amplifiers should be able to reach those levels in a headphone. Fortunately the S5X is very sensitive so not much power is required to make it play loud.
 
Yes.
Yes, but even at 80-85 db continuous sound pressure there is a risk of hearing damage, if you listen for more than 2 hours a day. One have to get under 80 db to be safe. At 94 db continuous sound pressure, there is a risk of damage within just under an hour.
Agreed. In my experience perceived loudness is relative and we can train ourselves to listen at lower volumes without reducing enjoyment. When I was younger I listened at much higher levels, but over time I’ve acclimated myself to listening at lower levels to the point where now anything over 70-75 dB continuous feels quite loud. The nice side benefit of this is that distortion is rarely a concern.
 
Agreed. In my experience perceived loudness is relative and we can train ourselves to listen at lower volumes without reducing enjoyment. When I was younger I listened at much higher levels, but over time I’ve acclimated myself to listening at lower levels to the point where now anything over 70-75 dB continuous feels quite loud. The nice side benefit of this is that distortion is rarely a concern.
I agree. When I am listening to headphones on the tram (during dayly comuting) on trains or in nother places away from my home, I always use noise-canceling headphones just to bring down the overall level. It is easy to just rise the volume to conceal a noisy environment, but it is dangerous for hearing.
 
I tried my SX5 tonight with amirm's eq settings. With 6 db amplification in the low bass, the bass becomes more prominent of course. (I think it becomes too prominent, but it also depends a bit on the recordning. I think this becomes particularly clear to me in some jazz recordings with acoustic double bass. The bass becomes too forward in the sound image.) Some may like it, for others it will be excessive. I think the clarity of the bass is better without eq. I don't feel that the sound "opens up" with eq. Nor that there is any distortion that is eliminated or dampened. Those who consider the harman curve ideal will probably like these eq settings, but that's basically subjective. But then there are probably also better choices of headphones.
 
Last edited:
I tried my SX5 tonight with amirm's eq settings. With 6 db amplification in the low bass, the bass becomes more prominent of course. (I think it becomes too prominent, but it also depends a bit on the recordning. I think this becomes particularly clear to me in some jazz recordings with acoustic double bass. The bass becomes too forward in the sound image.) Some may like it, for others it will be excessive. I think the clarity of the bass is better without eq. I don't feel that the sound "opens up" with eq. Nor that there is any distortion that is eliminated or dampened. Those who consider the harman curve ideal will probably like these eq settings, but that's basically subjective. But then there are probably also better choices of headphones.
I tried Amir’s EQ as well, and came to the same conclusion. The only EQ I am applying is about a 3dB reduction around 3KHz as I’ve found them to be a tad shouty with some material.
 
Back
Top Bottom