• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Sennheiser HD560s Owner's Thread.

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
12,605
Likes
28,258
Location
The Neitherlands
Sennheiser sells HD559 pads and HD400Pro pads (different order codes for some reason)
 

DarrylG

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
482
Likes
368
Sennheiser sells HD559 pads and HD400Pro pads (different order codes for some reason)
I guess that's because the HD 400 Pro is part of their pro line, even though it's all but identical to the HD 560s.
 

Robbo99999

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,724
Likes
4,406
Location
UK
Sennheiser sells HD559 pads and HD400Pro pads (different order codes for some reason)
And just to add to the information, on Sennheiser UK website the HD559 pads are advertised as the proper replacement pads for the HD560s. HD400 Pro pads "should" be the same, but might be safer to get the ones that Sennheiser say are specific for the HD560s, ie the HD559 pads.
 
OP
_theLaughingman

_theLaughingman

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Messages
1,090
Likes
1,559
Location
Ohio
If anybody wants to hear a good instrument separation, sound stage and bass on these headphones, listen to the track that I've attached. With Oratory EQ, the bass on the kick drum just hits different and the guitar riffs are just so accurate. BTW, the sound engineering and mastering of this track is simply delicious.

 

ishmeister

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
90
Likes
87
Location
England
I picked up the 560S about a month ago and I have to say that with EQ (I use the AutoEQ settings) these headphones just sound very natural and "right". I've owned some high end headphones in the past, and currently own an HD800 as well, where it has been a struggle to EQ them to sound correct in the high/upper treble. I don't have this problem with the 560S and found that I can use the AutoEQ settings without any tweaking and be satisfied with the results.
 

01890jp

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
25
Likes
16
Coming from HD598 (which are quite close to HD599 as far as I know) and now owning HD560s and HE400se, I can say that from those three the 598 were easily the most comfortable. 560s clamp is still way too strong for my liking, but I'm hoping it will ease the more I use them. HE400se cups are definitely a step down for me from the Sennheisers and the overall weight of the headphones is way more noticeable compared to 598 and 560s

I cannot comment on the upgrade aspect much yet as I am still struggling to get my brains used to the high treble on the 560s. On the other hand the HE400se sound pleased me from the get go.
Try dropping 5500 hz by a few db. That's what I do on brighter tracks with good results
 

Galz

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2021
Messages
408
Likes
182
After using the HD560S for a few months, I had to use my Logitech G35 which I used to consider very comfortable, but compared to the HD560S the comfort is a completely different level. Although not as great of a difference as the difference in sound quality and power.
 

bpaz

New Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
3
Likes
0
filter-in-cup.jpg
Hi. Would this work the same if it was before the amp, on the RCA input?
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
12,605
Likes
28,258
Location
The Neitherlands
It won't as the load impedance will be different and is an integral part of the filter circuit.
Besides it makes more sense to use it in the headphone or its cable because not all headphone outs are from a separate amplifier.

Before an amp a parametric equalizer would make the most sense.
 

ishmeister

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
90
Likes
87
Location
England
I picked up the 560S about a month ago and I have to say that with EQ (I use the AutoEQ settings) these headphones just sound very natural and "right". I've owned some high end headphones in the past, and currently own an HD800 as well, where it has been a struggle to EQ them to sound correct in the high/upper treble. I don't have this problem with the 560S and found that I can use the AutoEQ settings without any tweaking and be satisfied with the results.

I got a tip for a good EQ on reddit - this one. IEF with bass. Sounds great and is now the one I'm using. My mind is still blown how good this is for the price.
 

Spitfire93

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2022
Messages
11
Likes
2
I'm thinking to upgrade to 560S, and i have read a lot off reviews where some considers those a tad bright, i was wondering how those compare in terms of brightness to SHP9500 and M40x which both look to have an elevation in the highs area. Also are 560S less bassy than SHP9500 ?
 

HarmonicTHD

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
1,205
Likes
1,453
I'm thinking to upgrade to 560S, and i have read a lot off reviews where some considers those a tad bright, i was wondering how those compare in terms of brightness to SHP9500 and M40x which both look to have an elevation in the highs area. Also are 560S less bassy than SHP9500 ?
You can EQ the 560S to whatever preference curve you like (within reasonable limits). Sorry can’t tell you anything about the other headphones you mentioned.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
12,605
Likes
28,258
Location
The Neitherlands
Also are 560S less bassy than SHP9500 ?

No, the HD560S have better bass extension and are closer to 'neutral'. SHP9500 is slightly 'warmer' but also emphasized in the treble. Even more so than HD560S.
HD560S vs SHP9500.png
 
Last edited:

01890jp

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Messages
25
Likes
16
I'm thinking to upgrade to 560S, and i have read a lot off reviews where some considers those a tad bright, i was wondering how those compare in terms of brightness to SHP9500 and M40x which both look to have an elevation in the highs area. Also are 560S less bassy than SHP9500 ?
Just reduce 5k by 3-4 db with a Q of 2 and they'll sound great.
 

Robbo99999

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,724
Likes
4,406
Location
UK
I don't think I've posted this info up in this thread already, even though I did these measurements back in March! I've got 3 units of HD560s, I measured them on my miniDSP EARS to see unit to unit variation, as well as to see channel balance - so that I could do a channel matching EQ to balance the channels if necessary.

Unit to unit variation for frequency response seems very low between the 3 units of HD560s which I bought over a period spanning more than a year from a couple of different retailers so perhaps they were from different production runs or batches (I don't know how their production works).....yes there's actually 3 units of HD560s plotted in the following graph (each one averaged from 10 measurements of left & right channel):
(note: as this is measured on a miniDSP EARS and not the GRAS that Amir & Oratory & Crinacle & Resolve use, then the frequency response will look different to what you expect to see above 1kHz, but it's still totally fine & valid to use for comparing unit to unit variation and channel balance.)
HD560s all units AVG of left & right channel.jpg



Channel Balance was also good between the 3 units I own & measured, see following graphs:
(note there is a small 1dB hump in the right channel of each measurement at 150Hz which is an error in the miniDSP EARS calibration file, which I noticed as an aberration when I measured all my different models of headphones, and I hadn't corrected that calibration file error for the following graphs, so ignore that small hump in the right channel at 150Hz as it does make channel balance appear worse in that area, when in reality it's not there)
HD560s Unit 1 Channel Balance.jpg HD560s Unit 2 Channel Balance.jpg HD560s Unit 3 Channel Balance.jpg

So very little variation seen between these 3 units I measured, I know there have been one or two people who have posted up bad experiences re channel matching & frequency response variation, but these are my results.
 
Last edited:

fluffychicken

New Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2022
Messages
1
Likes
0
Would it be bad to apply a strong preamp (-12), but keep the stock sound? I find that my DAC (an audioengine d1) is too powerful for these headphones, and as a result I barely have to turn the knob on my DAC before it gets way too loud. At -12 preamp there's more breathing room but I'm not sure if it will impact audio quality.
 

MachOne

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2021
Messages
38
Likes
42
Would it be bad to apply a strong preamp (-12), but keep the stock sound? I find that my DAC (an audioengine d1) is too powerful for these headphones, and as a result I barely have to turn the knob on my DAC before it gets way too loud. At -12 preamp there's more breathing room but I'm not sure if it will impact audio quality.

That shouldn't cause any problems at all.
 

Fregly

Active Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
291
Likes
201
These eq'd with the 4-7khz tamed some are just about perfect. I had them in a box mostly unused with Etys as my number ones, and got them out recently because the Ety fit was getting to me. Well geez are they ever good! There is something really relaxed/natural about the tonality.
 

Robbo99999

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,724
Likes
4,406
Location
UK
Would it be bad to apply a strong preamp (-12), but keep the stock sound? I find that my DAC (an audioengine d1) is too powerful for these headphones, and as a result I barely have to turn the knob on my DAC before it gets way too loud. At -12 preamp there's more breathing room but I'm not sure if it will impact audio quality.
Yeah, there's nothing really wrong with doing that, the only problem with digitally reducing the volume is that you're decrease SNR and losing a bit of dynamic range. To compensate for the lack of dynamic range, or in other words to make loss of dynamic range virtually close to zero, then you can just set your soundcard to be in 32bit mode in Windows or whatever OS you're using, that way you're not losing any real dynamic range. The SNR reduction still exists though if you're digitally reducing volume, which you can prevent by hooking up your DAC to a headphone amp with an analog volume pot - this way you can run your DAC at it's optimal high output to preserve SNR & indeed SINAD and then you reduce the volume using the analog volume pot. The problem with analog volume pots is that they can potentially have some channel imbalance. If you have a very good measuring DAC with a high SINAD and SNR then using digital volume control whilst in 32bit mode is fine because your DAC already has the SINAD & SNR extra headroom that your experience won't be negatively affected by worsening those 2 variables through digital volume control, and of course the 32bit mode means you preserve enough dynamic range as previously said.

TLDR, if you've got a pretty good measuring DAC then -12dB digital negative preamp is not gonna cause any problems.

EDIT: just researched your Audioengine D1 - well it's got the analog headphone amp already included. As long as you're not running the volume pot close to zero volume then channel balance should be fine (normally), because channel balance on volume pots is often bad when it's close to it's lowest volume level position. So assuming that 6 o'clock was your volume pot zero position, then you might want to ensure you're running at least at 9 o'clock with the volume knob. And in fact I'd rather do that and keep the negative preamp as close to zero as possible - or infact keeping the Negative Preamp at -2dB will ensure that you account for intersample overs, which is another topic......so I'd run a negative digital preamp of -2dB (maybe up to a max of -5dB) and then twiddle the volume knob on your DAC.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom