Sennheiser HD 490 Pro Headphone Review

[johny_2000]

LCD X

This is rightly noted in terms of frequency response. But most complain about weight. Discomfort comes too quickly, compared to these (almost not noticeable on the head) HD 490 or the old HD650.

@MacClintock, I've read that they respond very well to EQ in this frequency range, and have huge headroom with minimal distortion.

 

[MacClintock]

I now have them both, and I can say that the new HD 490 Pro is not a reinvention of the wheel, but rather a careful correction of some of the shortcomings of the decades-old HD650. Bass (and sub-bass) is more pronounced, lower mids are tuned down to suit consumer desires, and mids and highs remain virtually unchanged. From an ergonomic point of view, they seem to me more comfortable (and compact) on the head than the HD 650. Plus, a reliable metal headband, and the ability to connect a balanced cable on one side.

Ok, granted, might be all true. But if you have one of them, you basically don't need the other.

 

[Dazerdoreal]

This is rightly noted in terms of frequency response. But most complain about weight. Discomfort comes too quickly, compared to these (almost not noticeable on the head) HD 490 or the old HD650.

In terms of requency response? No, it is not, no offense.

Audeze LCD-X (2021 revision).pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[johny_2000]

But if you have one of them, you basically don't need the other.

To a large extent, yes

 

[MacClintock]

This is rightly noted in terms of frequency response. But most complain about weight. Discomfort comes too quickly, compared to these (almost not noticeable on the head) HD 490 or the old HD650.

@MacClintock, I've read that they respond very well to EQ in this frequency range, and have huge headroom with minimal distortion.

Yes, the LCD-X has basically 0 distortion and can be EQed at will (and must be so, to get good FR). Weight, as you noted, and price need to be considered "heavily", though.

 

[DanTheMan]

This graphs like the smoothest HiFiMan ever made.

 

[johny_2000]

In terms of requency response? No, it is not, no offense.

No problem. I've never owned Audeze headphones, but I've read a lot of recommendations for those looking for open-back headphones with great bass extension to look at the LCD-X and LCD-2 (or 2C?) models. Personally, I am not happy with the refund policy of this company, so I will not trust them with my money.

 

[johny_2000]

This graphs like the smoothest HiFiMan ever made.

Which one you are referring to?

 

[Somafunk]

Some headphones came pretty close but "Harman bass" on an open back is still a challenge, especially if you cannot pay a few grands for an Expanse.

DMS has come close to Harman levels of bass with his new project below

Thread 'DMS Project Omega - Now Available for Pre-Order'
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/dms-project-omega-now-available-for-pre-order.972443/

 

[DanTheMan]

Which one you are referring to?

Pretty much all of them minus 1 or maybe 2.

 

[DanTheMan]

DMS has come close to Harman levels of bass with his new project below

Thread 'DMS Project Omega - Now Available for Pre-Order'
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/dms-project-omega-now-available-for-pre-order.972443/

That look is unfortunate, but the graphs look pretty. It's the Millennium Falcon of headphones.

FWIW, I'm glad these 490 measure the way they do. I'm sticking to my 650.

 

[Dazerdoreal]

DMS has come close to Harman levels of bass with his new project below

Thread 'DMS Project Omega - Now Available for Pre-Order'
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/dms-project-omega-now-available-for-pre-order.972443/

Close for an open back, but not particularly close. I'd say this is a similarly close as the 560s.

In-Ear Fidelity – Headphone Graph Comparison Tool

Easily compare industry-standard frequency response measurements of hundreds and hundreds of headphones.

crinacle.com

By the way, my point is not that an open back urgently needs Harman Bass.
I just wanted to point out that if you take Harman bass as a benchmark like Amirs reviews regularly do, there is not a single mid-price open-back headphone which did "pass" this challenge yet (even though a few came close).

 

[Graph Feppar]

Put Amir's distortion measurements into context using:

1. Distortion audibility thresholds:
View attachment 365173

2. Music spectra:
View attachment 365174

3. Actual listening volumes:

How loud do you like your music?

I'm interested in how loud you enjoy your music. For this purpose I propose A weighted, slow SPL measuring. I'm also proposing a clean, well produced song that is not bass heavy to avoid subjective impressions of low frequencies (Hey Nineteen - Steely Dan). Since music material varies in dB, I...

www.audiosciencereview.com

..and all of a sudden the distortion alarmism becomes a bit silly.

The distortion audibility threshold graph you posted only applies to single sine waves. The moment there are two or more sine waves that occupy inharmonic frequencies, you get intermodulation distortion.

It reminds me of the myth of warm tube sound second order harmonic distortion. Yes, tube distortion is warm and pleasant when used in production as added effect on single instruments where all the sinusoids are harmonics, then the tube distortion tones are in harmony with the overtone of lets say guitar. The moment anything inharmonic steps into the mix, like lets say a vocals without auto tune, the warm even order harmonic distortion gets replaced by sea of inharmonic intermodulations tones.

Distortion performance matters. The headphones/speakers are the weakest link in chain, distortion matters especially to producers which these headphones are aimed at. Sure, there are great headphones with mediocore or even subpar distortion levels, but anybody who tried Stax omega headphones will attest to valuability of ultra low distortion.

 

[Maiky76]

This is a review, detailed measurements, listening tests and equalization of Sennheiser HD 490 Pro open back headphone. It was kindly drop shipped to me and costs US $399.
View attachment 365151
The headphone is ultra light courtesy of plastic composite that manage to also feel extremely solid. The included cord feels like premium silicone material. It even has a little coil next to the connection to the headphone as to offer some slack in case of hard pull. Overall there the look and feel matches the "Pro" designation at its price point.

A set of velour pads came installed on the headphone. Another set of thinner, gray tweed pad is also included. The box nicely shows the frequency response of each but sadly, misses to label them anywhere. I had to measure them to figure out that the velour pad is the "producer" one with more bass and the tweed, "Mixing."

If you are not familiar with my headphone measurements, please watch this tutorial on how to interpret them and my method of testing:

Sennheiser HD 490 Pro Headphone Measurements
I started with the velour pad as stated above:
View attachment 365153
We have deficiencies in lower bass and lower treble but otherwise good compliance. Seeing the bass droop, I thought this was the mixing pad and the other would fill that hole better. I was wrong:

View attachment 365154
Note that I had to compensate a bit (half a dB) for volume as the tweed pads are thinner and hence closer to the test fixture microphone. There is impact in other regions of response but some of this could be due to repositioning of the headphone. Notice though the ultra close response of both earphones. They may be doing a better job of matching the drivers than some other headphones.

Swapping pads can be a pain in the neck. While still not quite intuitive here, I found it easier to do that with this headphone than some of the others I have tested.

Staying with "mixing pads," distortion is kept quite low at 94 dBSPL but naturally rises in bass as levels increase:
View attachment 365155

Seeing that we have to boost the bass, you are probably looking at the red response than blue which still is not bad. Here is the distortion in absolute:
View attachment 365156

Group delay indicates less than usual level of internal reflections and diffractions:
View attachment 365157

Impedance is middle of the road but rises in bass to over 200 ohm (where you need most power)
View attachment 365158

While sensitivity is good, you still need a decent headphone amplifier to drive it properly:
View attachment 365160

Sennheiser HD 490 Pro Listening Tests and Equalization
I was listening to my everyday Dan Clark E3 headphone when I paused and switched to HD490 Pro. There was a rather dramatic difference with good few steps drop in fidelity. I won't try to explain the difference other than showing that with EQ, a lot of that gap can be reduced:
View attachment 365161

I started with bass and initially put in a PEQ as to not boost infrasonic spectrum. While the sound was much warmer and fuller now, the bass lacked the impact I get when I listen to Sennheiser HD 650 with EQ for example. So I changed that to a shelving filter but it made little difference in that regard. Expect bass to be "tight" but not deep and substantial.

The boost centered around 2500 Hz brought the needed energy that is responsible for spatial effect. It worked very well creating "B+" rating in my book in that regard in how instruments were separating around my ears.

I usually don't go above 5 kHz in my EQ as my level of trust in measurements starts to drop from that point on. Lately I have been experimenting and think I could safely go higher. In this case, I EQed at 7.3 kHz bringing that peak down. While the effect is quite subtle, it counteracted some of the brightness that the lower treble boost provides. I call this filter optional.

Overall, it was pretty easy to develop the EQ and result was a very nice transformation of the headphone. While I missed my deep bass per above, overall fidelity felt neutral and at the same time, fairly exciting. I cranked up the volume and I could detect no hard limit setting in which is good.

Conclusions
A lot of the headphone industry is till sticking to deviating from our target curve. This is especially so in bass. I could sort of understand having flat bass response but don't understand the droop even lower. Many also have the deficiency in lower treble which I guess goes with the lower bass level. But we need that region to give the spatial qualities to a headphone as otherwise, the experience can be quite sub-par compared to speakers.

Anyway, while we have familiar frequency response deviations, other aspects of the HD 490 Pro are pretty good from fit and finish to level of distortion.

Overall, I can't recommend the HD 490 Pro without equalization. Like many headphones, it does take well to EQ and delivers a much better experience.

-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

no data?

The data hereafter is scanned so the presented scores are only (probably good) approximations


Here are some thoughts about the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

Notes about the EQ design:

• The average L/R is used to calculate the score.
• The resolution is 12 points per octave interpolated from the raw data (provided by @amirm)
• A Genetic Algorithm is used to optimize the EQ.
• The EQ Score is designed to MAXIMIZE the Score WHILE fitting the Harman target curve (and other constrains) with a fixed complexity.
  This will avoid weird results if one only optimizes for the Score, start your journey here or there.
  There is a presentation by S. Olive here.
  It will probably flatten the Error regression doing so, the tonal balance should be therefore more neutral.
• The EQs are starting point and may require tuning (certainly at LF and maybe at HF).
• The range around and above 10kHz is usually not EQed unless smooth enough to do so.
• I am using PEQ (PK) as from my experience the definition is more consistent across different DSP/platform implementations than shelves.
• With some HP/amp combo, the boosts and preamp gain (loss of Dynamic range) need to be carefully considered to avoid issues with, amongst other things, too low a Max SPL or damaging your device. You have beed warned.
• Not all units of the same product are made equal. The EQ is based on the measurements of a single unit. YMMV with regard to the very unit you are trying this EQ on.
• I sometimes use variations of the Harman curve for some reasons. See rational here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pro-review-headphone.28244/page-5#post-989169
• https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...pro-review-headphone.28244/page-6#post-992119
• NOTE: the score then calculated is not comparable to the scores derived from the default Harman target curve if not otherwise noted.

not stellar L/R match.
I have generated one EQ, the APO config file is attached.


Score no EQ: 73.5
Score Amirm: 82.5
Score with EQ: 93.7

Sennheiser HD490 Pro APO Score EQ Flat@HF 96000Hz
April222024-114004

Preamp: -6.6 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 20.06 Hz Gain 6.57 dB Q 0.77
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 229.31 Hz Gain -1.81 dB Q 0.77
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1063.51 Hz Gain -1.13 dB Q 2.27
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2237.26 Hz Gain 5.23 dB Q 1.13
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 4481.88 Hz Gain -3.09 dB Q 4.32
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 6534.79 Hz Gain -10.84 dB Q 3.44
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 7307.89 Hz Gain 7.77 dB Q 2.02

 

[JSmith]

This is a review, detailed measurements, listening tests and equalization of Sennheiser HD 490 Pro open back headphone.

You're on fire, another review the next day, cheers.

Some teardown pics of this model, Sennheiser HD490 Pro;

JSmith

 

[solderdude]

it's kind of at the low end of the Sennheiser line

Actually the 4** series is the TOTL for the pro line.
The 4** range of the consumer line is indeed at the lower end (2** series is the cheapest there).
No bass issues heard and no poor sound quality either.

The HD560S (>2022) is tonally between the mixer and producer pads. Same driver, different rear damping, baffle and driver location/position. Also the build quality and feel are better (to me) than that of HD560S.
The pads are (machine)washable at low temperatures.

It even has a little coil next to the connection to the headphone as to offer some slack in case of hard pull.

That's what I thought it was for when I first saw it. Its purpose, however, is to reduce microphonics. It even works. When you touch the cable above the coil it is much more audible than below the coil. Neat feature... no idea why they did not do the coil higher up in the cord.
A nice feature is that one can plug in the cable on the left or right (depending on where the used gear is)

 

[SeasButter]

The same driver as HD5** series. But higher price even than HD6** series. Those 38mm drivers are too small and are not located at a tilted angle, the sound stage performance is not worth expecting at all.

 

[solderdude]

The drivers are angled 6 degrees and also at a different position (lower on the baffle) and are the same size as HD6** series.
HD560S is angled at 9 degrees so angled a bit more.

One could consider that speakers in a room would be angled at 60 degrees comparatively.
Not many headphones can reach those angles and even if they did it would not be the same.

 

[pavuol]

The HD560S (>2022) is tonally between the mixer and producer pads. Same driver, different rear damping, baffle and driver location/position. Also the build quality and feel are better (to me) than that of HD560S.

"Same driver", so lower distortion than HD 560S is just due tu damping?

 

[solderdude]

Yes, same driver, different damping, different baffle (and acoustic resistors), different enclosure, different pads, same sensitivity, same impedance.... that is the current HD560S driver which differs somewhat from the old driver (Amir's HD560S measurement).
Same type number on the driver so same diaphragm and chassis.