[InvisibleInk]

Ok probably not the best for my usage then. The Zeus is slightly outside of my price range looking at USD to CAD + shipping & duty.

How are the 58x Jubilee for a nice mellow/chill headphone vs the 560s being very detailed? Or are they similar and just more of a side grade to the 599? Thanks!

Yeah, the HD58X are significantly darker than the HD560. I kind of like dark sometimes, but I found the HD58X not to my liking, so I gifted them. The ones I had were also a creaky mess of a build.

 

[goldark]

What is the consensus for using the HD560S for bass heavy genres? I've seen reviews that say it's fine for it and others saying the bass is not enough.

 

[PhazeCrive]

It's not that the bass is light. It's just that it is linear and the mids and treble scale up in volume. When you turn up the volume, you get an increase in the bass as you would expect, but you will definitely be in the hearing damage zone if you want a satisfying amount of bass.

Just by checking online frequency generators, they can bring the thunderous bass just as well as my closed back momentum 3's, which are known for their bass energy.

So yes and no. You'd have to use an EQ software. These are flat headphones and the human eardrum doesnt respond to lower frequencies as well as they do to higher ones.

 

[InvisibleInk]

What is the consensus for using the HD560S for bass heavy genres? I've seen reviews that say it's fine for it and others saying the bass is not enough.

Not going to speak for other people. I will say that, if you are coming from thunderous, chest-thumping bass coming from floor standing speakers, plus a sub woofer for good measure, then the headphone experience is difficult to replicate. Certainly the HD560s will never get close to that.

It's not impossible to get good over-ear bass levels, but not at the $200.00 mark. The EMU teak at $450.00 is more or less entry level for a bass-head. If you can't fork out at that level, then, surprisingly, there are IEMs that perform something like that, in some cases for basically peanuts.

To get to that speaker-like experience with headphones, IMO, something like the Campfire Audio Cascades, plus the sub-pac can get you there, but it is a very expensive proposition to do that.

 

[PhazeCrive]

The thing about earbuds or headphones in tandem with the new subpac x1 is that I wonder if the subpac's vibrations will start rattling the earbud inside your ear, adding way too much muddy bass to the music.

For example, when I walk around with earbuds in, I can suddenly hear the low frequency thuds from my footsteps you otherwise never hear because now there is something in your ear shaking from the footsteps traveling throughout your body. And shaking IS sound.

But take it with a grain of salt. The subpacs are on a hard delay, 4 months out so I can't do any tests.

 

[Evshrug]

I suppose it depends on what kind of basshead we’re talking about.

The most common kind is the bass addict... not just elevated bass relative to mids, but MOAR BASS where it dominates the signature and just feels like this big almost overwhelming experience. Sometimes, you just want dirty dirty bass fun. For some people, that bass emphasis is like the energy to tap straight into their soul and make them feel the music.

Of course no headphone will literally vibrate your chest (Subpac and Woojer may be options – I haven’t tried them but I’d like to), but among Sennheiser’s lineup you can hear impressive bass quantity with something like the Momentum Wireless 3 or the new IE 300, though the IE 300 may have some more sparkle up top and be more detailed. Both would have more bass than the HD 599, though the HD 599 sounds a little softer/more diffused.

The other kind of basshead is someone who keys into the bass response as an indicator of quality. Earbuds and many cheap headphones lack extension into the lower bass registers, so a more expensive headphone might allow someone to suddenly hear a bass guitar, and accompanying cello, or electronic bass note. This kind of basshead still pays the most attention to bass, but they’re looking for it to be as detailed and tight as possible.

The HD 560S is that kind of a basshead headphone, with superior extension into the lowest frequencies than almost any other open headphone, though the quantity above midrange emphasis is small. Overall the bass quantity is above “neutral/even with the midrange,” but it still may be less quantity than some people are used to.

 

[Brushy]

How does the HD 560S compare to the GSP 500? I've been looking to replace these GSP 500 I have after this third pair seems to have the exact same issue as my previous two. The volume wheel on the right ear cup starts causing audio to cut in and out or become unbalanced, as in one ear louder than the other. I don't even touch the volume wheel as I use them specifically on a PC and control the volume there instead. Anyways, I've been through several other brands lately that have been glorified by reviewers everywhere only to find that they sound like garbage to me. I used to be a big AKG fan when it came to music and gaming headphones. Then I found Sennheiser and all that changed.

So basically after all that stuff I spewed above... I'm really just wondering how these 560S compare to the GSP 500. Mostly gaming and music for me. how does the sound stage and audio positioning compare? Are the GSP 500 warmer? Hopefully someone has experience and can give me a little feedback here.

Edit: Eh... screw it... just ordered a HD 560S. Hopefully I'll be comparing by this Tuesday

 

[Evshrug]

How does the HD 560S compare to the GSP 500? I've been looking to replace these GSP 500 I have after this third pair seems to have the exact same issue as my previous two. The volume wheel on the right ear cup starts causing audio to cut in and out or become unbalanced, as in one ear louder than the other. I don't even touch the volume wheel as I use them specifically on a PC and control the volume there instead. Anyways, I've been through several other brands lately that have been glorified by reviewers everywhere only to find that they sound like garbage to me. I used to be a big AKG fan when it came to music and gaming headphones. Then I found Sennheiser and all that changed.

So basically after all that stuff I spewed above... I'm really just wondering how these 560S compare to the GSP 500. Mostly gaming and music for me. how does the sound stage and audio positioning compare? Are the GSP 500 warmer? Hopefully someone has experience and can give me a little feedback here.

Edit: Eh... screw it... just ordered a HD 560S. Hopefully I'll be comparing by this Tuesday

Well, the GSP 500 is no longer a Sennheiser product, neither is the PC38X, but they do use Sennheiser drivers, and they are closer to the HD 560S than the HD 559 (and the HD 598 was pretty close to the Game One and PC37X). All of the gaming headsets have a bit more midbass than the HD 560S. The HD 560S is more open than the GSP 500. Lastly... there’s no volume dial on the HD 560S.

I’ve had an HD 599 for years and taken it on planes and things inside my backpack (clean backpack without food crumbs!), and it’s stood the test of time so far. The HD 560S is still new, but I expect it to also last a very long time as long as I don’t put undue wear & tear on it. I definitely do use it for gaming from time to time!

 

[Brushy]

Well, the GSP 500 is no longer a Sennheiser product, neither is the PC38X, but they do use Sennheiser drivers, and they are closer to the HD 560S than the HD 559 (and the HD 598 was pretty close to the Game One and PC37X). All of the gaming headsets have a bit more midbass than the HD 560S. The HD 560S is more open than the GSP 500. Lastly... there’s no volume dial on the HD 560S.

I’ve had an HD 599 for years and taken it on planes and things inside my backpack (clean backpack without food crumbs!), and it’s stood the test of time so far. The HD 560S is still new, but I expect it to also last a very long time as long as I don’t put undue wear & tear on it. I definitely do use it for gaming from time to time!

So they are more open than the GSP 500 but have a slightly reduced mid-bass? Interesting, and thanks for that input. I shall see if my take on them is similar next week when mine arrive. As for all the other info you gave me. I was just looking for a specific comparison. I've read through this thread and saw no real mention of the GSP 500 except by the REP when they talked about the Epos/Sennheiser parting. I'm honestly glad Sennheiser and Epos sort of split ways. The GSP 500 has had great sound for gaming but the volume wheel issue is big. That and the GSX1000 was nothing but expensive garbage. My older Sennheiser have all held up well over the years. So like I said, I'm glad they parted ways. Other than that I was wanting to know about positional queues. No biggie though. I'll soon find out for myself.

 

[Evshrug]

Oh, well I only demoed the GSP 500 for a short time (borrowed from Dekoni) in 2019, so I can’t fairly make a soundstage comparison, but the HD 560s is handy in CoD: Warzone where you have to creep around and predict your enemies. The sound is clear, so locational and distance cues seem focused. It takes to surround processing pretty well, if you’ve found a processing tech that fits your ear’s response pretty well (I cheat, I got a Smyth Realiser A16).

 

[Brushy]

(I cheat, I got a Smyth Realiser A16).

I'm jealous! Yeah that's why I went ahead and made the purchase. My ears like the Senn-Signature so I'm pretty sure I'm going to dig these for gaming and light music listening. I've been doing the competitive FPS thing since the 90's and with headphones I generally stick to Stereo although occasionally I'll kick in SBX with low level surround settings on the BlasterX G6. Sometimes virtual surround throws me off more than it helps. And I've tried many over the years, last was Redscape, which I did not like. On PC I tend to generally just run this G6 in direct mode with whichever headphone I'm using. I never EQ. That Smyth Realiser is nice though. Something I have yet to try.

 

[Jet Black]

Will a sennheiser HD 560s sound very good or the best on a ibasso dc03 3.5mm dongle?

 

[Brushy]

Oh, well I only demoed the GSP 500 for a short time (borrowed from Dekoni) in 2019, so I can’t fairly make a soundstage comparison, but the HD 560s is handy in CoD: Warzone where you have to creep around and predict your enemies. The sound is clear, so locational and distance cues seem focused. It takes to surround processing pretty well, if you’ve found a processing tech that fits your ear’s response pretty well (I cheat, I got a Smyth Realiser A16).

My initial impression compared to the GSP 500, (HD 560S straight out of the box comparison, no break-in), is that the 560S sounds much cleaner. They make my GSP 500 sound muddied. Even more so compared to the Game One. I've only listened to a few music tracks so far with no gaming. But like you said previously, they are very clear. So I'm sure they will work out perfectly for gaming. Great upgrade form the GSP 500. My only draw back so far in this initial usage. The headband is very narrow giving a huge amount of side clamp. Compared to my GameOne they just look smaller. The GSP 500 is more comfortable in that aspect. These HD 560S are so narrow at the headband that it is creating a gap between the velour and under my ears. I have to extend the earcups out almost all the way on each side, (which makes them too big to sit properly on my head), just to have the earcups seat around my ears properly. I'm pretty sure some headband stretching over the next week will prob fix this. But basically, the HD 560S is much more clear/cleaner than my GSP 500 without sacrificing any Bass. Exactly what I was looking for in an upgrade.

EDIT: No more clamping issue after an overnight stretch on the box. They fit great now.

 

[MayaTlab]

A few posts above I wrote about my experience with in-concha microphones as an interesting way to measure headphones' effective frequency response on someone in particular's head. I also mentioned how this approach is severely limited past 1khz and that other means are necessary to get an accurate picture of what is going on above that.

Well, there is a way. It costs several thousand of dollars and it's called "Etymotic ER-7C". Here's how that baby looks : https://www.etymotic.com/auditory-research/microphones/er-7c.html
It's a probe / tube microphone. Basically a silicone tube that is meant to be inserted in someone's ear canal, at the end of which there's a microphone and a lot of calibrating stuff happening after that.

Probe microphones were used in that study to measure the effective FR of 6 headphones on 6 subjects, for example : https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16877
In that thread Audeze mentions that they use them during the development phase : “We use in ear probes (Etymotic Research ER-7C Probe Mic System, series B) to get a sense of the frequency response at ear drum and it also turns out to be the best way to capture one's HRTF” (https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/...-lcd-4z-review/?do=findComment&comment=988783).
Basically, it’s mostly used for research purposes, or by at least a few companies to assist headphones development (I’d be surprised if Sennheiser isn’t using such a device at times).

There’s a good reason why it’s used so little : the tube has to be inserted at a specific depth into the ear canal and, in general, as close as possible to the eardrum (in the above study audiologists were tasked with positioning the tube’s orifice at around 2mm from the drum). Then, it has to stay put for the entirety of the test. The entire system has to be calibrated to compensate for the effect of the tube. In other words it’s a royal PITA apparently.

Well I’m dumb enough that this wasn’t going to deter me . I’ve started on the path to make my own DIY probe microphone.
DIY probe microphones are nothing new : David Griesinger (http://www.davidgriesinger.com) already made quite a few of those and I’m indebted to him having done most of the preliminary leg work. More on that here :

IMPORTANT NOTE : if you’re ever interested in trying your hand at it, GO SEE AN AUDIOLOGIST FIRST TO EXAMINE YOUR EARS. It’s very important to make sure that inserting tubes in your ears is not going to cause detrimental problems. They can also assist with helping you determining the length of your ear canal and place markers on the insert tubes to help you hit the mark.

For now I’ve focused on a “proof of concept” probe (meaning that it’s a quick and dirty work - by quick and dirty I mean that it’s already taken me quite a few dozen hours, as I'm not making a straight copy of David's work as my ultimate goals are quite different) with one simple objective : if I select headphones which, once mounted on my own head (and it will be different for you), exhibit, according to my ears, peaks past 4khz or so that are sufficiently audible and constant across multiple reseats that I can confidently note down their location when manually running sweeps, can I get FR measurements that will accurately locate these peaks ?

In other words, if I note down “peak at 7300hz”, can I get measurements that will show a peak there ?

This is where the HD560S comes in (*drum rolls* tadaaa !). It has a lot of qualities for that task, for me :

• On my head, it produces a number of very easily audible peaks past 4khz that are very constant across multiple reseats, for both of my ears. I can note them down with a lot of confidence.
• It’s a Sennheiser open HP, ie channel matching can be presumed to be very decent - and so far the limited measurements I’ve made seem to bear that presumption. Same applies for sample to sample variation, we can presume that it's decently low.
• None of the measurements I’ve seen of the HD560S, regardless of the test rig, locate peaks past 4khz in a way that’s consistent with what I hear (and therefore that makes all of them not that useful to EQ the trebles), with one exception (the 4300hz peak, which seems to be an intrinsic resonance of the HD560S), which could possibly make for an interesting “anchor”.

Unlike my previous post I’m not going to bore everyone with the methodology, because, well, unlike the in-concha mics where it’s an easily obtainable, off-the-shelf device, requiring only a few validation and calibration steps to fully characterise them and make sure that I’m not over-interpreting the graphs, this DIY probe is very much a work in progress. I’m also quite far from reducing tolerances to a level I’m satisfied with.

But today I’ve arrived at a point where I’m starting to see measurements that are starting to reflect what my ears are actually hearing, and learnt / confirmed a few interesting things, so why not share ?

So, here’s the location of the (obvious) peaks or dips I’m hearing from the HD560S, while manually running sweeps, as I noted them down (give or take a hundred hz or so) :

• Peak at 4200-4400hz
• Peak at 7200-7400hz
• Dip at 8000hz or so
• Peak at 9100-9400hz
• Dip somewhere around 10000hz
• Peak somewhere around 11000-11500hz

And here’s a few quick “proof of concept” measurements I’ve taken with my DIY probe wearing the HD560S, on the right ear, progressively pushing the probe deeper into my ear canal (while not moving the headphones - the probe I'm making is meant to that effect).

IMPORTANT NOTE : just like with in-concha mics, THESE RESULTS ARE NOT VALID FOR YOU. They’re just my attempt at illustrating how the HD560S actually interact with my own anatomy and the resulting FR curve.

It's important to note that the relative calibration of the probe isn't as good as I'd like it to be. I'm not happy with the current results vs. some of my other mics, but I think that the most egregious peaks / dips have been neutered.

The brown trace is quite close to the entrance of the ear canal. The pattern that emerges is not too dissimilar from the sort of measurements you can do with in-ear mics albeit with more energy around the ear canal gain area (2000-4000hz).
The red trace is deeper into the ear canal. I don’t know exactly at which distance it was from the eardrum, but I suspect : not close enough . I stopped after a while as I was getting tired and didn’t want to risk going further for now.

What I like to see however, is a pattern that corresponds pretty well to what I was expecting, even if not all peaks and dips manifested themselves quite as sharply as I’d like (but I think I know why).

The reason probe microphones have to be inserted deep into the ear canal is, I believe, because of standing waves inside the canal. I’m not sure but I believe that the reason you see wild swings in the response the deeper you go, and not a consistent, smooth progression of the FR curves, is because of them. This is why, for example, while four of the five traces show the 9100-9400hz peak quite accurately, one of them suddenly shows a dip in that area (blue color). It’s also possibly why only the red trace starts to show an accurately located hint of the (normally very audible) 7200-7400hz peak (or maybe it's the perfectible probe calibration, at least to some degree).

Another positive and surprising aspect is how decently representative the probe is below 2khz or so, compared to my in-concha mics. I was expecting plenty of troubles in that area and a poor match, similar to the one experienced by that user with the ER-7C : https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://sonove.angry.jp/ER7Ctest.html&sandbox=1
It's probably not accurate, but it's good enough that it shows similar features as the in-concha mics (for example the small kink in the FR curve of my HD560S on my head around 630-750hz).

To make sure that this wasn’t a fluke I’ve also made quick measurements on other headphones. So far, not quite right, but not so bad either.

So what’s next ? Well, either going shallow, or going deeper .

The “near ear canal entrance” measurements seem to show quite a few peaks accurately located, particularly past 8000hz or so. This is quite consistent with some of the papers I’ve read about such measurements. But they also don’t represent well what happens in the 4000-8000hz range, and I’m not sure that a simple, constant transfer function can really work (this will be an interesting thing to investigate - there's a reason I'm designing the probe to be slide-able).

So, I’m going deep. But it will take months to refine the probe and the methodology to ensure decent repeatability, decent positioning accuracy, and effective relative comparisons.

What's the end goal ? Well, I'd like to learn a bit more about the way my own ears modulate the FR curve and find a way to get a guiding hand for equalisation past a few kHz, something I nearly always want to do as it's quite obvious that most headphones don't interact with my ears in a way that's similar to speakers, at all. I find third party measurements not superbly useful in that range to help me EQ headphones (as said in my previous post, even after EQing headphones to the same target, they still show easily audible differences in FR, and still vary in very inconsistent ways - particularly past a few kHz), EQing by ear is a b*tch, and I'm not fully convinced that microphones placed at the entrance of my ear canal will suffice. Let's see where it goes .

In any which way, the HD560S now officially are my favourite headphones for experiments !

 

[goodyfresh]

A few posts above I wrote about my experience with in-concha microphones as an interesting way to measure headphones' effective frequency response on someone in particular's head. I also mentioned how this approach is severely limited past 1khz and that other means are necessary to get an accurate picture of what is going on above that.

Well, there is a way. It costs several thousand of dollars and it's called "Etymotic ER-7C". Here's how that baby looks : https://www.etymotic.com/auditory-research/microphones/er-7c.html
It's a probe / tube microphone. Basically a silicone tube that is meant to be inserted in someone's ear canal, at the end of which there's a microphone and a lot of calibrating stuff happening after that.

Probe microphones were used in that study to measure the effective FR of 6 headphones on 6 subjects, for example : https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=16877
In that thread Audeze mentions that they use them during the development phase : “We use in ear probes (Etymotic Research ER-7C Probe Mic System, series B) to get a sense of the frequency response at ear drum and it also turns out to be the best way to capture one's HRTF” (https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/...-lcd-4z-review/?do=findComment&comment=988783).
Basically, it’s mostly used for research purposes, or by at least a few companies to assist headphones development (I’d be surprised if Sennheiser isn’t using such a device at times).

There’s a good reason why it’s used so little : the tube has to be inserted at a specific depth into the ear canal and, in general, as close as possible to the eardrum (in the above study audiologists were tasked with positioning the tube’s orifice at around 2mm from the drum). Then, it has to stay put for the entirety of the test. The entire system has to be calibrated to compensate for the effect of the tube. In other words it’s a royal PITA apparently.

Well I’m dumb enough that this wasn’t going to deter me . I’ve started on the path to make my own DIY probe microphone.
DIY probe microphones are nothing new : David Griesinger (http://www.davidgriesinger.com) already made quite a few of those and I’m indebted to him having done most of the preliminary leg work. More on that here :

IMPORTANT NOTE : if you’re ever interested in trying your hand at it, GO SEE AN AUDIOLOGIST FIRST TO EXAMINE YOUR EARS. It’s very important to make sure that inserting tubes in your ears is not going to cause detrimental problems. They can also assist with helping you determining the length of your ear canal and place markers on the insert tubes to help you hit the mark.

For now I’ve focused on a “proof of concept” probe (meaning that it’s a quick and dirty work - by quick and dirty I mean that it’s already taken me quite a few dozen hours, as I'm not making a straight copy of David's work as my ultimate goals are quite different) with one simple objective : if I select headphones which, once mounted on my own head (and it will be different for you), exhibit, according to my ears, peaks past 4khz or so that are sufficiently audible and constant across multiple reseats that I can confidently note down their location when manually running sweeps, can I get FR measurements that will accurately locate these peaks ?

In other words, if I note down “peak at 7300hz”, can I get measurements that will show a peak there ?

This is where the HD560S comes in (*drum rolls* tadaaa !). It has a lot of qualities for that task, for me :

• On my head, it produces a number of very easily audible peaks past 4khz that are very constant across multiple reseats, for both of my ears. I can note them down with a lot of confidence.
• It’s a Sennheiser open HP, ie channel matching can be presumed to be very decent - and so far the limited measurements I’ve made seem to bear that presumption. Same applies for sample to sample variation, we can presume that it's decently low.
• None of the measurements I’ve seen of the HD560S, regardless of the test rig, locate peaks past 4khz in a way that’s consistent with what I hear (and therefore that makes all of them not that useful to EQ the trebles), with one exception (the 4300hz peak, which seems to be an intrinsic resonance of the HD560S), which could possibly make for an interesting “anchor”.

Unlike my previous post I’m not going to bore everyone with the methodology, because, well, unlike the in-concha mics where it’s an easily obtainable, off-the-shelf device, requiring only a few validation and calibration steps to fully characterise them and make sure that I’m not over-interpreting the graphs, this DIY probe is very much a work in progress. I’m also quite far from reducing tolerances to a level I’m satisfied with.

But today I’ve arrived at a point where I’m starting to see measurements that are starting to reflect what my ears are actually hearing, and learnt / confirmed a few interesting things, so why not share ?

So, here’s the location of the (obvious) peaks or dips I’m hearing from the HD560S, while manually running sweeps, as I noted them down (give or take a hundred hz or so) :

• Peak at 4200-4400hz
• Peak at 7200-7400hz
• Dip at 8000hz or so
• Peak at 9100-9400hz
• Dip somewhere around 10000hz
• Peak somewhere around 11000-11500hz

And here’s a few quick “proof of concept” measurements I’ve taken with my DIY probe wearing the HD560S, on the right ear, progressively pushing the probe deeper into my ear canal (while not moving the headphones - the probe I'm making is meant to that effect).



IMPORTANT NOTE : just like with in-concha mics, THESE RESULTS ARE NOT VALID FOR YOU. They’re just my attempt at illustrating how the HD560S actually interact with my own anatomy and the resulting FR curve.

It's important to note that the relative calibration of the probe isn't as good as I'd like it to be. I'm not happy with the current results vs. some of my other mics, but I think that the most egregious peaks / dips have been neutered.

The brown trace is quite close to the entrance of the ear canal. The pattern that emerges is not too dissimilar from the sort of measurements you can do with in-ear mics albeit with more energy around the ear canal gain area (2000-4000hz).
The red trace is deeper into the ear canal. I don’t know exactly at which distance it was from the eardrum, but I suspect : not close enough . I stopped after a while as I was getting tired and didn’t want to risk going further for now.

What I like to see however, is a pattern that corresponds pretty well to what I was expecting, even if not all peaks and dips manifested themselves quite as sharply as I’d like (but I think I know why).

The reason probe microphones have to be inserted deep into the ear canal is, I believe, because of standing waves inside the canal. I’m not sure but I believe that the reason you see wild swings in the response the deeper you go, and not a consistent, smooth progression of the FR curves, is because of them. This is why, for example, while four of the five traces show the 9100-9400hz peak quite accurately, one of them suddenly shows a dip in that area (blue color). It’s also possibly why only the red trace starts to show an accurately located hint of the (normally very audible) 7200-7400hz peak (or maybe it's the perfectible probe calibration, at least to some degree).

Another positive and surprising aspect is how decently representative the probe is below 2khz or so, compared to my in-concha mics. I was expecting plenty of troubles in that area and a poor match, similar to the one experienced by that user with the ER-7C : https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://sonove.angry.jp/ER7Ctest.html&sandbox=1
It's probably not accurate, but it's good enough that it shows similar features as the in-concha mics (for example the small kink in the FR curve of my HD560S on my head around 630-750hz).

To make sure that this wasn’t a fluke I’ve also made quick measurements on other headphones. So far, not quite right, but not so bad either.

So what’s next ? Well, either going shallow, or going deeper .

The “near ear canal entrance” measurements seem to show quite a few peaks accurately located, particularly past 8000hz or so. This is quite consistent with some of the papers I’ve read about such measurements. But they also don’t represent well what happens in the 4000-8000hz range, and I’m not sure that a simple, constant transfer function can really work (this will be an interesting thing to investigate - there's a reason I'm designing the probe to be slide-able).

So, I’m going deep. But it will take months to refine the probe and the methodology to ensure decent repeatability, decent positioning accuracy, and effective relative comparisons.

What's the end goal ? Well, I'd like to learn a bit more about the way my own ears modulate the FR curve and find a way to get a guiding hand for equalisation past a few kHz, something I nearly always want to do as it's quite obvious that most headphones don't interact with my ears in a way that's similar to speakers, at all. I find third party measurements not superbly useful in that range to help me EQ headphones (as said in my previous post, even after EQing headphones to the same target, they still show easily audible differences in FR, and still vary in very inconsistent ways - particularly past a few kHz), EQing by ear is a b*tch, and I'm not fully convinced that microphones placed at the entrance of my ear canal will suffice. Let's see where it goes .

In any which way, the HD560S now officially are my favourite headphones for experiments !

This is incredibly fascinating, thank you for sharing the results of your experimentation with us! This is actually one of the most interesting and informative posts I've ever seen in a thread I follow on here for a product that I own, and I commend you for going to so much effort and sharing the fruits of your labor with the community. Your post is very enlightening.

Of course, I myself am not willing to go to the huge amount of effort that you have in order to figure out EQ settings for a headphone, haha. For me, the HD560s and X2HR both sound "pretty damn close to neutral" (my litmus test for that is to use sounds from everyday life like thunderstorms next to a window, ocean waves, wind in the trees, etc., to see how "natural" headphones sound) by using the AutoEQ presets based on Oratory1990's measurements, with just some slight tweaks I did by ear. Maybe I'm lucky, but I don't hear as many peaks or dips in the treble with the HD560s as you do (although I do get the 4 to 5Khz peak that everyone seems to hear) so it was pretty easy for me to set up EQ to make them sound more than close enough to my definition of neutral (with a bit of a lower-bass boost) to suit my tastes. But as I said, I commend you for going above and beyond with the effort you're putting into customizing your own EQ settings, and I look forward to seeing if you will share more with us as you continue upon this journey! I wish you happy listening, and I myself am gonna get back to listening to EDM by Knife Party on my EQ'd HD560s (they're such great all-rounders).