Sennheiser HD560S Review (Headphone)

[pk500]

Google's HiFiMan Edition XS lol

I apologize to your bank account. But the value provided by the $500 Edition XS is similar to that of the $150 HE-400se -- both perform FAR above their price.

 

[Chyżwar]

Would love to hear more opinions about Sennheiser HD560S vs. AKG K371 vs. HD580-650.

I think the HD650 are better than the HD560S in every aspect except bass. I don't want to write an "audiophile review", but that's what I hear.

 

[pk500]

I think the HD650 are better than the HD560S in every aspect except bass. I don't want to write an "audiophile review", but that's what I hear.

I prefer the HD 6XX -- almost the identical twin of the HD 650 -- over the HD 560s, too.

Different strokes for different folks ...

 

[aj625]

I don't think the Beats by Dre target the jazz listeners .

So do they say so on their website that it is not suitable for jazz and good only for pop and hip hop ? Please send the link of you found it anywhere !

 

[Adaboy4z]

I apologize to your bank account. But the value provided by the $500 Edition XS is similar to that of the $150 HE-400se -- both perform FAR above their price.

I'll wait until my dedicated Headphone amp arrives before another purchase. Ordered the H0200 to complete my SMSL Stack that I just purchased, A0200 and D0200. I'm listening right now with Fii0 KA3 dac dongle.

 

[Adaboy4z]

So do they say so on their website that it is not suitable for jazz and good only for pop and hip hop ? Please send the link of you found it anywhere !

I tell you my two boys have Beats wireless it's what they use in their age groups. I took a listen one day and said you guys like that sound. Of course my JVC over ear phones at that time cost $20 but better sound to me.

 

[Sombreuil]

So do they say so on their website that it is not suitable for jazz and good only for pop and hip hop ? Please send the link of you found it anywhere !

Let's say they didn't say it. Though, they kinda did.

 

[Robbo99999]

How do you think the 560(s) respond to the signal source? Is the phone enough to reveal all the resources?

I was gonna say that a phone should be fine for driving the HD560s because they're quite easy to drive vs my other headphones, (K702 & HD600 require more clockwise rotation of the volume knob) - but a couple of people here with experience using phones with HD560s say that it's not enough, and that's probably quite true especially if you use EQ at which point you're using a negative preamp, and also if you lower your negative preamp by a further say 2dB to account for intersample overs. I think if you use the headphones without EQ that it would be just alright with a phone.

I think the HD650 are better than the HD560S in every aspect except bass. I don't want to write an "audiophile review", but that's what I hear.

Is that after EQ'ing to the Harman Curve, or just used at stock? If you're talking after EQ, then that might be due to perhaps greater unit to unit variation of HD560s vs HD650 - thereby making the EQ less valid for the HD560s.

 

[Moonhead]

Anybody compared HD560S to X2HR, they seem somewhat similar.

 

[aj625]

Let's say they didn't say it. Though, they kinda did.

Exactly that's what I wanted to say. If they approach a country musician or classical musician just like they approached to pop or hip hop people, will they shoo away the boats people ?

 

[Bernd]

Anybody compared HD560S to X2HR, they seem somewhat similar.

Well I had both of them:

• the Philips makes a good first impression: warm, quite bass heavy and comfortable, but ultimately lacks detail and clarity, built quality is very nice
• the Sennheiser needs some time to get used to but ultimately it is far superior in sound quality: not as bass heavy but with a more detailed bass, very neutral, lots of detail and clarity. Comfort is an issue for me though: they are seriously more uncomfortable than the Philips (I found them clamping like way too much), on top of that the built quality is not 'shoddy' but le material are 'cheap
• tTo sum it up: I find the X2HR serious fun and the HD560s seriously good but not fun at all (they hurt my head)

 

[Moonhead]

Well I had both of them:

• the Philips makes a good first impression: warm, quite bass heavy and comfortable, but ultimately lacks detail and clarity, built quality is very nice
• the Sennheiser needs some time to get used to but ultimately it is far superior in sound quality: not as bass heavy but with a more detailed bass, very neutral, lots of detail and clarity. Comfort is an issue for me though: they are seriously more uncomfortable than the Philips (I found them clamping like way too much), on top of that the built quality is not 'shoddy' but le material are 'cheap
• tTo sum it up: I find the X2HR serious fun and the HD560s seriously good but not fun at all (they hurt my head)

Thanks mate.
I will wait for HD560S on Sennheiser outlet and get HD6XX if needed.

 

[pk500]

Thanks mate.
I will wait for HD560S on Sennheiser outlet and get HD6XX if needed.

Those two cans would complement each other well.

The HD 560s is a more intense, direct listen, with treble that can get fatiguing. But a ton of clarity and strong detail. HD 6XX are smooth, warm, easy to listen to, with solid mids, present bass and decent detail.

I owned both. Sold the 560s, kept the HD 6XX.

 

[Mangi]

Longtime reader here, hi all. I have compared 560s, 600 and x2hr as i had all these at the same time, new. and here are my thoughts:
-560s are (the) best for gaming, really my no. 1 now. i was literally able to point each sound in FPS game
-560s scene width is close to perfect for me, wide, but not too much; but a bit shallow when comapred to 600 (but way wider!)
-560s tonality is close to perfect (in its price range) but:
-560s miss a bit of 600s mids accuracy and
-560s are a bit brighter than 600 (not saying it is wrong, just be prepared heights are definitely more pronouced)
-560s bass is obviously deeper than 600 (i wish 600 could have such bass, EQ doesn't catch that excactly) and tight when compared to x2hr
-560s are most comfortable, especially when compared to x2hr but
-560s are a bit "cheap in touch" when compared to both above
-my 560s were bass-rattling when at high voulmes (occasional mechanical rattle, seems like an issue of my piece)

in the end i stayed with 600, cause of perfect mids and sturdy build. but since then i'm looking for some promo to catch 560s cheap (well now after reading above i may also look for He400se)
in my opinion 560s are worth 2x price of x2hr (as this is the difference when compared amazon sale of x2hr vs 560s price which never dropped here below 170€. If 600 are worth half the price of 560s more, can't say really. most likely no, but i bought 600 anyway.
560s are definitely worth a try.

 

[_thelaughingman]

Those two cans would complement each other well.

The HD 560s is a more intense, direct listen, with treble that can get fatiguing. But a ton of clarity and strong detail. HD 6XX are smooth, warm, easy to listen to, with solid mids, present bass and decent detail.

I owned both. Sold the 560s, kept the HD 6XX.

I think I'm weighing up getting a pair of the HD6xx since they are well renowned and it has been on my wish list of things.

 

[pk500]

I think I'm weighing up getting a pair of the HD6xx since they are well renowned and it has been on my wish list of things.

They're my favorite headphone for relaxed, non-critical listening. The sound signature is so easy to hear. You're not going to extract heaps of detail, but you're also not going to get a headache from piercing treble spikes or shouty mids.

 

[usern]

Problem with Drop stuff is that most of the world needs to import it and has no easy access to warranty process. 560S is more easily available and has great performance and great sound when equalized.

 

[GaryH]

I have these headphones too. I use them with oratory1990's Harman Target Curve EQ settings and found sibilance on both male and female vocals.

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.

Not the same drivers, no. Definitely different from the HD6-- series drivers *(38mm vs 40mm), and given its different impedance rating + measurements from the HD58X drivers, while being aligned in an angled configuration, that should make it different enough in its own right

Not the same drivers, not the same angle, not the same impedance, not the same group delay, not the same distortion, not the same sound. Claims that these measurement differences are small, and just down to unit/positional variation are even more absurd than when the same thing was said about the HD600/HD650. Oh and talking of group delay, the thing that's 'messy' is not the HD560S's time-domain behaviour, but a measurement set-up that allows open-back headphone measurements to be polluted by uncontrolled environmental noise, which has nothing to do with the performance of the headphone. This is quite obvious when you notice that open-back headphone group delay measurements on here commonly exhibit 'mess' above 1 kHz, none more so than the least isolating headphones as measured by Rtings e.g. the (very) open-back HifiMan Arya, whereas closed-back headphones commonly don't have this mess in their group delay, e.g. one of the most passively isolating closed-back Rtings measured, the Drop + THX Panda. Note that Rtings' own group delay measurements of e.g. the Arya do not show any of this mess, because they actually control for this environmental noise by measuring within an acoustic isolation chamber. Also note that this pollution of the measurements on here by environmental noise is not confined only to the group delay measurements, but also shows up in the frequency response plots as 'fine grass' roughness in the same region above 1 kHz (that can also be seen in the HD560S FR, to a lesser extent due to them being more isolating), which again has nothing to do with the acoustic output of the headphones. And even if it wasn't polluted by noise, the group delay plot would still not be fit for purpose, as it's excess group delay that matters for audibility.

I don't think this is necessarily a Sennheiser thing, I think it has more to do with them being open backed. If you look at Amir's headphone measurements closed backs pretty much always outperform open backs in the low bass region.

It's the front volume 'openness'/'closedness' (degree of seal) that really matters when it comes to bass extension. See here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/drn9av/_/f6nuowj

Distortion measurements were also lower on my HD560s that Oratory measured, and I found my HD560s to have the cleanest most defined bass after EQ, at least as good as my planar HE4XX in that regard:
View attachment 176818
Could this be down to unit to unit variation.

This is a big difference in bass distortion, which I really can't imagine could be down to unit variation. Something's not right here. Even being generous and assuming the distortion SPL figures were at the non-standard 425 Hz, and so from the frequency response this corresponds to +2 dB higher at 1 kHz for each level, the figures don't match up at all. At 95.8 dBSPL @ 1 kHz Oratory measured 0.2% THD at 40 Hz, whereas here at 94 dBSPL @ 425 Hz ~ 96 dBSPL @ 1 kHz (so very close SPL) we have 0.6% at 40 Hz. At 104.8 dBSPL @ 1 kHz Oratory measured ~0.6% THD at 40 Hz, whereas here at 104 dBSPL @ 425 Hz ~ 106 dBSPL @ 1 kHz (around the same SPL) we have ~1.75% at 40 Hz. And at 113.8 dBSPL @ 1 kHz Oratory measured ~2.4% THD at 40 Hz, whereas here at 114 dBSPL @ 425 Hz ~ 116 dBSPL @ 1 kHz (comparable SPL) we have over 6% at 40 Hz. As the big discrepancies are largely confined to the bass region, the only explanation I can think of is that a proper seal was not achieved on here, which we've seen before with the HifiMan Ananda's erroneously high measured bass distortion due to lack of a good seal (as Crinacle demonstrated with a headphone of similar design, the HifiMan HE1000 V2). One caveat is these latter two are closed front-volume headphones, whereas I believe, like the HD600/650, the HD560S has an open front volume, so the seal-distortion behaviour may not be exactly the same, but I would think there would still be a dependence there.

Did you try measuring with some in-ear microphones how different headphones seal on a real head?

Rtings' measurements show excellent frequency response consistency for the HD560S on real heads using in-ear mics, with a maximum variation of just +/- 0.5 dB (ignore above ~350 Hz as that's the point they merge with positionally varied measurements on their non-industry standard rig). The overblown FUD repeated ad nauseum by some that professionally made, properly sealed industry standard ear simulator measurements don't translate to a good guide of on-head bass performance on real humans doesn't apply here.

perhaps reseating the cable in the headphone is what fixed it rather than the cable itself

Most likely. It probably just came loose at some point and so was only partially inserted, which can cause some weird effects.

 

[Robbo99999]

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.


Not the same drivers, not the same angle, not the same impedance, not the same group delay, not the same distortion, not the same sound. Claims that these measurement differences are small, and just down to unit/positional variation are even more absurd than when the same thing was said about the HD600/HD650. Oh and talking of group delay, the thing that's 'messy' is not the HD560S's time-domain behaviour, but a measurement set-up that allows open-back headphone measurements to be polluted by uncontrolled environmental noise, which has nothing to do with the performance of the headphone. This is quite obvious when you notice that open-back headphone group delay measurements on here commonly exhibit 'mess' above 1 kHz, none more so than the least isolating headphones as measured by Rtings e.g. the (very) open-back HifiMan Arya, whereas closed-back headphones commonly don't have this mess in their group delay, e.g. one of the most passively isolating closed-back Rtings measured, the Drop + THX Panda. Note that Rtings' own group delay measurements of e.g. the Arya do not show any of this mess, because they actually control for this environmental noise by measuring within an acoustic isolation chamber. Also note that this pollution of the measurements on here by environmental noise is not confined only to the group delay measurements, but also shows up in the frequency response plots as 'fine grass' roughness in the same region above 1 kHz (that can also be seen in the HD560S FR, to a lesser extent due to them being more isolating), which again has nothing to do with the acoustic output of the headphones. And even if it wasn't polluted by noise, the group delay plot would still not be fit for purpose, as it's excess group delay that matters for audibility.


It's the front volume 'openness'/'closedness' (degree of seal) that really matters when it comes to bass extension. See here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/oratory1990/comments/drn9av/_/f6nuowj

This is a big difference in bass distortion, which I really can't imagine could be down to unit variation. Something's not right here. Even being generous and assuming the distortion SPL figures were at the non-standard 425 Hz, and so from the frequency response this corresponds to +2 dB higher at 1 kHz for each level, the figures don't match up at all. At 95.8 dBSPL @ 1 kHz Oratory measured 0.2% THD at 40 Hz, whereas here at 94 dBSPL @ 425 Hz ~ 96 dBSPL @ 1 kHz (so very close SPL) we have 0.6% at 40 Hz. At 104.8 dBSPL @ 1 kHz Oratory measured ~0.6% THD at 40 Hz, whereas here at 104 dBSPL @ 425 Hz ~ 106 dBSPL @ 1 kHz (approximately equal SPL) we have ~1.75% at 40 Hz. And at 113.8 dBSPL @ 1 kHz Oratory measured ~2.4% THD at 40 Hz, whereas here at 114 dBSPL @ 425 Hz ~ 116 dBSPL @ 1 kHz (comparable SPL) we have over 6% at 40 Hz. As the big discrepancies are largely confined to the bass region, the only explanation I can think of is that a proper seal was not achieved on here, which we've seen before with the HifiMan Ananda's erroneously high measured bass distortion due to lack of a good seal (as Crinacle demonstrated with a headphone of similar design, the HifiMan HE1000 V2). One caveat is these latter two are closed front-volume headphones, whereas I believe, like the HD600/650, the HD560S has an open front volume, so the seal-distortion behaviour may not be exactly the same, but I would think there would still be a dependence there.


Rtings' measurements show excellent frequency response consistency for the HD560S on real heads using in-ear mics, with a maximum variation of just +/- 0.5 dB (ignore above ~350 Hz as that's the point they merge with positionally varied measurements on their non-industry standard rig). The overblown FUD repeated ad nauseum by some that professionally made, properly sealed industry standard ear simulator measurements don't translate to a good guide of on-head bass performance on real humans doesn't apply here.


Most likely. It probably just came loose at some point and so was only partially inserted, which can cause some weird effects.

Would be interesting to see what @amirm thinks re the differences in distortion measurements between the two different units of headphone when comparing Oratory to Amir, because indeed they do seem like large differences in measured distortion. Having said that, I was surprised by the very low measured distortion of the HD560s by Oratory because if you compare it against a load of planar headphones measured by Amir the HD560s was showing even lower distortion that those, I did some comparisons at the end of the following post:

Sennheiser HD560s Owner's Thread.

Setup: E30 + L30 I've bought and returned 6 !!! of them because of channel imbalance. Left driver was in all 6 cases more sensible around 8k-13k making the sound image tilt to the left by 5-10% I've done mono tests, reverse test, reverse stereo image + reverse hp to rule out my ears being...

www.audiosciencereview.com

So perhaps there is something inherently different in the distortion measurement process/environment that is causing greater measured distortion during Amir's measurements vs that of Oratory's.

 

[solderdude]

Instead of assumptions some measurements.

HD560S on cheap home made pinnaless flatplate (rig + ADC below $ 50.-). Very easy to get good seal with, just like it will be on Amirs flatplate rig.
Good seal (very easy), seal broken with glasses, headphone completely lifted 5mm gap all around. 90dB SPL (+/- 1dB or so)

It is highly unlikely Amir had seal issues with the HD560S.

And below the Ananda. Good seal (pressed onto flatplate because of curved pads not sealing on flatplate) followed by Ananda simply placed on flatplate so leaving a small gap. That gap resulted in the same LF roll-off by Amir. Measured at approx. 90dB (can be a dB or 2 off)

The room the plot was taken in was not completely silent.
Distortion did increase, don't know how much as the one with good seal already hit my measurement limit.