By aspect — in detail
Tonality
Contested · 9 srcThe whole debate in one aspect. Every source agrees on the direction of travel — warmer, fuller and less bright than the SHP9500, with a measurable dip through the upper mids. They split hard on the verdict. One camp hears a balanced, easy, slightly mid-forward tuning that is finally free of the 9500's glare; the other hears the dip as a hole and calls the result dark and muffled. The community aggregate splits almost as evenly as the reviewers do.
Measured
Measured against the SHP9500: 'The SHP9600 has 4dB more bass, better extension but is less clear sounding (wider and deeper dip) and treble is not elevated anymore' (DIY-Audio-Heaven). The dip runs from about 300 Hz down roughly 10 dB by 5 kHz, though driver angle makes it some 5 dB shallower on a head than on the rig. RTINGS reads the balance as 'Balanced' with bass 1 dB and treble 2 dB under its target.
⚠ vs. listeners — Both readings are of the same curve. A dip through the presence region is exactly what removes fatigue and exactly what removes bite, so 'relaxed' and 'muffled' are the same measurement described by listeners with different priorities — and it fills in with EQ: 'With some EQ, filling in the upper mids by about 7dB, the sound quality is improved a lot but without EQ the sound is too ‘relaxed/muffled’' (DIY-Audio-Heaven).
Where it splits
Balanced and pleasantly warm — the retune the 9500 needed.69%
“Their balanced sound profile delivers a somewhat mid-forward tuning with ample boom and mostly clear treble that mostly follows our target, except in the bass.”
RTINGS
The clearest, most agreed-on change from the SHP9500: there is meaningfully more of it, and it goes deeper. Sub-bass still rolls off, as open-backs do, but the roll-off starts lower and is gentler than the 9500's. What sources argue about is a narrow mid-bass lift sitting on top — most describe it as welcome body, several as a source of bloat on already-bassy or busy tracks, and a couple say they hear no bleed at all.
“The bass has gotten a bit of an uptick since the SHP9500, but it’s just enough to make itself known and not overwhelm.”
TechRadar (Nick Pino)
“Bass is present, unfortunately it also bleeds into the mids so the bass is a bit bloated.”
DIY-Audio-Heaven (solderdude)
“It has strong impact and good timbre. It digs deep when it has to and it never bleeds into the midrange”
Head-Fi (hodgjy)
Measured
About 4 dB more bass than the SHP9500 with better extension (DIY-Audio-Heaven), which RTINGS still scores as 'Slightly Underemphasized (-1 dB)' against its target — 'The SHP9500 have a flatter bass and mid-range, while the SHP9600 sound boomier to offset the expected roll-off in the low bass that comes with most open-backs.' Chrono localises the lift near 130 Hz and Home Studio Basics reads it as roughly 5 dB of mid-bass rise. Distortion is the usual open-back story: 10% second harmonic at 30 Hz at 92 dB, dropping to just over 1% by 100 Hz.
⚠ vs. listeners — The lift is narrow, which is why reports of 'bleed' conflict: Chrono notes 'it did occasionally make the bass in certain tracks come across as swollen, or one-note-sounding' yet still finds a clean transition into the lower mids, so whether you hear bloat depends heavily on the track.
Where the retune's cost shows up. Every source that measures or graphs it sees the same broad recession through the upper mids, and no one disputes it exists. The split is over consequence: several listeners report that vocals and leads still come through natural and un-hollowed despite the dip, while others hear the midrange as congested, dulled or muddied — especially on dense material.
Measured
A substantial dip centred near 3 kHz — around 10 dB down by 5 kHz on an un-smoothed flatbed rig, though the angled driver makes it roughly 5 dB shallower in use (DIY-Audio-Heaven), and visible as a 'hole in the upper mids' on the waterfall plot. Head-Fi's hodgjy names the same region from listening alone: 'It is a little recessed as indicative of the 1k-5k scoop, but they don't sound hollow at all.'
⚠ vs. listeners — Both camps are describing a real, well-corroborated dip, so the disagreement is about audibility rather than existence — and the rig overstates it. Home Studio Basics splits the difference from the listening chair: 'You may notice a bit of a dip in the presence regions, but it doesn’t feel scooped out when you’re listening to it.'
Where it splits
Recessed on the graph, natural in practice — vocals hold up.57%
“Voices and leads sound mostly natural”
RTINGS
Universally agreed to be calmer than the SHP9500's — the piercing peak that defined the predecessor is gone. Beyond that, sources describe two different treble responses. One camp finds it genuinely smoothed, non-fatiguing, even a little short on energy; the other finds a surviving lift around 5–6 kHz that still puts glare and grit on cymbals and can tire treble-sensitive listeners over long sessions.
Measured
The elevation the SHP9500 was known for is gone — treble 'is not elevated anymore' (DIY-Audio-Heaven), and RTINGS reads the band as 'Slightly Underemphasized (-2 dB)' against its target while still noting that 'cymbals still sound bright'.
⚠ vs. listeners — Two independent measurers disagree about a peak. DIY-Audio-Heaven's un-smoothed rig finds no sibilance or sharpness at all, while SBAF's Philimon measures the 5–6 kHz region as live enough to matter — 'Extra treble energies 5-6kHz can be good or bad depending on music' — which is exactly where Chrono localises the glare by ear. Rigs, compensation and pad seating all shift how that band reads, so treat 'tamed' as directional, not absolute.
Where it splits
Genuinely tamed — smooth, non-fatiguing, arguably too polite.66%
“Treble is present and of decent quality but lacks ‘energy’.”
DIY-Audio-Heaven (solderdude)
A 5–6 kHz lift survives — glare and grit on cymbals.34%
“The main elevation in the treble sounded to me as though it was centered at 6K, which introduced some noticeable glare, a bit of sibilance, and made cymbal crashes in particular come through with just a little added grit and harshness to them.”
Chrono (headphones.com)
Soundstage
Strong consensus · 8 srcThe most consistent praise in the set, and the trait that carries the headphone. Sources across every class call the presentation open, spacious and larger than the price suggests, with several singling it out for gaming and film. The dissent is mild and comparative: it's spacious rather than record-breakingly wide, and a few listeners think the SHP9500 stages slightly bigger.
“As you’d expect from a pair of open-back headphones, the SHP9600 have a detailed and spacious sound quality.”
TechRadar (Nick Pino)
“Above average staging for the price”
Head-Fi (Hablmet)
Measured
A large open-back shell with angled 50 mm drivers and roomy 73 × 50 mm pads. Chrono places it carefully — not wider than an HD 58X or HD 600, but 'a little more spacious' — while RTINGS notes the ear-shape response 'can cause sounds to seem a bit artificially wide.'
Good, with one notable dissenter. Positioning and directionality land well enough that gamers and film watchers repeatedly recommend it, and instrument separation draws the single strongest technical compliment any source pays the headphone. Against that, one owner finds placement and separation slightly below average, and most agree it isn't pinpoint next to dedicated competitive-FPS picks.
“for instrument separation the SHP9600 really impressed me, as all the different elements that composed the music I listened to were exceptionally well-defined and distinguished within the soundscape”
Chrono (headphones.com)
“Imaging is mildly below average, so is the instrument separation”
Head-Fi (Hablmet)
Measured
RTINGS finds 'The L/R drivers create a stable stereo image', and channel matching above 100 Hz measures excellent (DIY-Audio-Heaven) — so the raw stereo behaviour is sound, and the spread of opinion is about perceived precision rather than driver matching.
The headphone's most consistent mild criticism, and one where independent listeners converge on the same word: grain. Resolution is fine for the money and treble texture even draws praise, but next to better headphones the presentation is described as slightly coarse and short of clarity — an impression the upper-midrange dip makes worse, since it removes exactly the band that reads as 'clear'.
“Philips treble/mids resolution nowhere near Senn and may sound a bit grainy in comparison.”
SBAF (Philimon)
“Considerable grain is not improved over the original by a significant enough margin”
Head-Fi (Hablmet)
“Midrange resolution, however, is where I find that the SHP9600 can be a little lacking.”
Chrono (headphones.com)
Measured
Nothing in the data points at a driver fault — the driver is well damped with no deal-breaking resonances above 3 kHz (DIY-Audio-Heaven) and RTINGS finds 'the drivers reproduce audio with no audible harmonic distortion'. The clarity complaint tracks the tuning, not distortion.
Dynamics
Contested · 5 srcGenuinely split, and the split runs along price expectations. Sources measuring it against $200-and-under open-backs find real punch and slam; those comparing it to more accurate headphones hear it as soft, slow and short of impact. The reduced upper midrange plausibly feeds the second impression, since transient bite lives in the band that got cut.
Measured
The step response 'does not reach 0dB and even drops back to –12dB indicating the lack of upper midrange/bite/forwardness' (DIY-Audio-Heaven), which is the objective version of the 'soft' complaint; RTINGS nonetheless hears that 'kick drums play back with a solid punch.' SBAF's Philimon splits it: 'Both headphones are a bit weak on bass impact/speed but the warmth and energetic guitar is enjoyable.'
Where it splits
Soft and undynamic — weak on impact and speed.60%
“The sound is too muffled and lacking dynamics to be of any interest for people who prefer a more accurate sound.”
DIY-Audio-Heaven (solderdude)
Punchy for the class — it slams enough.40%
“Low notes have an enjoyable sense of punch slam that hits with authority and delivers a satisfying physical impact in low notes.”
Chrono (headphones.com)
Comfort
Strong consensus · 9 srcThe one thing nobody argues about. At around 300 g with large cloth-covered pads, deep cups that clear the ears and a wide padded headband, it draws all-day praise from measurers, reviewers and owners alike. Two footnotes: the clamp reads differently to different people — some find it light to the point of sliding off, others find it slightly firm — and the mesh pad fabric can catch on glasses arms or facial hair.
“The SHP9600 is extremely light weight (330g), and low clamp force makes it one of the easiest headphones to wear in day-long listening sessions.”
Chrono (headphones.com)
“It’s as close to “air” as headphones can get I think.”
Home Studio Basics (Stuart Charles Black)
“Comfiest headphones i have ever worn hands down.”
r/headphones (braincelloffline), via RedditRecs
Measured
'Weighing just 300 gram this is a lightweight over-ear headphone' with pads 73 mm tall and 50 mm wide, so ears clear the driver (DIY-Audio-Heaven). The clamp measures 4.5 N — 'Clamping force is a bit higher than average (4.5N).' — which is why reports differ: Chrono calls it low, Head-Fi's Hablmet wants more because they 'fall off very easily', and the measured figure sits between the two.
The most evenly divided aspect after tonality. It's a steel-reinforced headband wrapped in mostly plastic, and reviewers reach opposite conclusions about the same object: one camp calls it solid, rattle-free and above its price; the other calls it cheap, flimsy and the headphone's defining weakness. Owner reports include at least one outright failure, and the cups' swivel and a faint rattle come up more than once. On one point everyone agrees: the 3.1 m cable is far too long — but it's a standard 3.5 mm plug at both ends, so replacing it is trivial.
Measured
Plastic cups and yokes on a steel headband under a cloth-covered cushion, with replaceable cloth pads on a clipped plastic ring and a non-locking 3.5 mm TRS socket in the left cup; the 3.1 m cable terminates in 3.5 mm at both ends with a 6.3 mm adapter (DIY-Audio-Heaven). SBAF's teardown reports 'Cheap-ish plastic construction. Does not creak.', and spare parts are reported easy to find.
Where it splits
Solid for the money — steel-reinforced, doesn't creak.44%
“this design feels very stable and well put together”
Chrono (headphones.com)
Cheap, rattly plastic — the weak point of the design.56%
“The Philips keep costs down with a cheaper and more plasticky build”
RTINGS
Isolation
Strong consensus · 5 srcNone, by design, and every source says so plainly. It leaks freely in both directions, so it's a quiet-room headphone — no commuting, no shared office, and awkward with a boom mic in a noisy space. The one nuance worth having: RTINGS finds it leaks slightly less than the SHP9500 did.
“That said, due to their open-back design, they leak a lot of sound and don't isolate a lot of ambient noise, so they aren't ideal for outdoor use.”
RTINGS
“Drawback for open backs are you leak sound, people near you can hear whats playing (music or games) and when in a loud and noisy environment, you can hear them.”
Reddit (tantalus0779), via RedditRecs
Measured
Open-back with a semi-open front baffle; DIY-Audio-Heaven files usage as 'home' and notes it is not suited to portable or outdoor use. Breaking the seal barely changes the response, which is the flip side of isolating nothing.
Less a matter of taste than of price, and the sources make that unusually explicit. At the $129.99 launch — nearly double the SHP9500 — the verdict was close to unanimous rejection, including from reviewers who liked the sound. At the $60–80 it fell to, the same people recommend it, and the community aggregate turns firmly positive. What complicates the picture now is not the price but the field: the HD 560S, HD 58X and a wave of budget planars sit right on top of it, and Philips has discontinued the SHP9600 outright.
“If you manage to get these under $70, they're worth a try. Around the $120-150 mark they should not be considered.”
Head-Fi (Hablmet)
“there’s no place for the 9600 in my opinion”
Home Studio Basics (Stuart Charles Black)
“I think at those prices it finally has come down to sound preference.”
YouTube comment (@redeye259) on Joshua Valour's review
Measured
Launched August 2020 at $129.99 / €129 against an SHP9500 selling around $80; street had fallen to roughly €50 by mid-2022 (DIY-Audio-Heaven) and about $60 by 2024 (Home Studio Basics). Philips' own product page now reads 'Discontinued'.
