or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Shure SRH 940 impression and support thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shure SRH 940 impression and support thread - Page 72

post #1066 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by electropop View Post

Heh, yes Ultrasone are even worse :)

 from which I concluded you like more bass and less treble.

You know, having a "punchy" bass with a headphone, doesn't mean it won't be good for classical too.

My previous can was a hd595, and I  found both the high and the low frustrating on them.

Yeah, the srh940 are bright (burning helps a bit), and with "stronger" bass they would be perfect.

 

post #1067 of 3844

All the phones with "punchy bass" I've tried, have not made it easy to distinguish notes. Regardless of genre, this is what I'm after...

 

How was the 595 frustrating to you? I've no real experience with the phone so I can't guess what you mean...

post #1068 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

Has anyone found a source for replacement pads? It seems they're impossible to find! Guess I can try to call Shure directly.

Google results in nothing...


http://www.shure.com/americas/where-to-buy/index.htm
 

 

:-p

 

I didn't find any retailer carrying HPAEC940... (at least not in the US...) but there seems to be a couple

outside the US.

 

post #1069 of 3844
you can always use leather pads from 840 and listen by your ears:) Heres beyerdynamic like:)))

500

BTW if you want detail presentation with better bass why dont you look at beyerdynamic dt880/600ohm for example? Anyone heard both and can share opinion? It could be nice comparision:)
post #1070 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by electropop View Post

Bumping!

 

So, with quite a few owners and nothing new to report, are people still enjoying them fully? Have they found a place for anyone in everyday use, or fallen back as a back-up can? Despite being a bit, dare I say "bright", do they deliver in a musical and holistic fashion? 



Yep! I don't use my other cans much any more, the 940's do everything I ask for every genre better than any of them (with the exception of the 225i's for poorly recorded rock/metal) with less coloration. They are the most "speaker-like" cans I've heard in terms of overall refinement, sophistication, and neutrality.

 

The bass is just fine btw. I don't understand complaints about it, it makes me wonder if those who find it lacking have ever heard a decent 2.0 speaker setup without sub or low-fi boomy bass found in cheapo or overcolored setups. When I listen to bass heavy music or a movie soundtrack the bass is there and plentiful...even surprisingly so. When I don't, it isn't as it's not supposed to be. Just like on any decent to superb 2.0 speaker setup I've had or have heard. 

 

My only complaint about these, and they have not changed at all in sound since the first day I got them, is that they can sound somewhat "dry". That is hard to describe but I find it there nonetheless. But they are not overly bright (and I can hear at least up to 19k as tested by a medical lab not even a year ago) or anything else.

 

I also really like the way they look and the construction is just fine. The comfort isn't as good as my 702's, but it is still fine for hours on end, only a little clampy after awhile.

 

Really great cans at least and there is no need for me to look to "upgrade" for a long while, if even ever imo (I do listen to speakers about 80% of the time, but even if I didn't I think I could be quite satisfied with these for years without needing to look for "better").

 

PS: The 940's have been compared to the BD 880/600's briefly here http://www.headfonia.com/shure-srh-940-detail-monster/ (and in the comments more I think) and the 940's are said to have better mids/vocals. I've never heard the 880's but having the 940's I have no desire to.


Edited by Pratt - 8/30/11 at 12:59pm
post #1071 of 3844

I'm never quite sure what they mean when people describe headphones as "dry". Can't help but think that the people might be biased to some bass-, mid-bass bloom.. Dunno. Whatever it means, I shall restrain my imagination..

 

Anytime someone says "dry", however, I tend to become intrigued in a positive way. The adjective has been used to describe headphones I actually find really good. 

post #1072 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

What's funny is that everyone seemed to complain about the SRH-840's "lack of bass" too.

I never understand that one...

 

Seriously, why do people bother with studio monitors if they want tons of bass? I guess these days anything can be labeled a studio monitor...

Unlike most, Shure and KRK make studio monitors that actually SOUND like studio monitors..amazing. More companies should try this.

 

I'm glad Shure didn't try to please everyone..

 

 


If people seriously think they lack bass they are either obsessed with thump thump thump, or deaf. Personally I find the SRH840 to be very bass heavy. To much bass even for me to a certain extent. Looking at the frequency graph for the SRH940 it looks ideal for me. Boasted treble and neutral bass. I will eventually order these.

 

PS: Why do you consider the treble boasted on these? The graph shows it is rather flat. Likewise the SRH840 is very lacking in treble.

 

post #1073 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

 

PS: Why do you consider the treble boasted on these? The graph shows it is rather flat. Likewise the SRH840 is very lacking in treble.

 



Likely the same reason why some consider their bass lacking. ;)

post #1074 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

PS: Why do you consider the treble boasted on these? The graph shows it is rather flat. Likewise the SRH840 is very lacking in treble.

 


It's prettttty hard to read "flat" in the treble portion of an FR graph.  There's a lot that needs to be taken into account. 

post #1075 of 3844

Anyone compare with DT-1350 ?

post #1076 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by electropop View Post

I'm never quite sure what they mean when people describe headphones as "dry".


Well, when you look at a surface that looks flat with a miscroscope, you realise there's a lot of asperities, and it  doesn't look flat anymore.

Similar problem with srh940, especially while listenning to some string instrument, each notes doesn't appear so clean .

At least that's how I  interpret it.

Anyway, this "dryness" hurt less the ears, after some burning, and the sound becomes more realistic.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post




If people seriously think they lack bass they are either obsessed with thump thump thump, or deaf.

 

Because some music just doesn't work without thump. Because the value of many songs, especially commercial and mainstream,  rely on the  thump.

Let's illustrate this with this song:

 

 

post #1077 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post




Well, when you look at a surface that looks flat with a miscroscope, you realise there's a lot of asperities, and it  doesn't look flat anymore.

Similar problem with srh940, especially while listenning to some string instrument, each notes doesn't appear so clean .

At least that's how I  interpret it.

Anyway, this "dryness" hurt less the ears, after some burning, and the sound becomes more realistic.
 

 

Because some music just doesn't work without thump. Because the value of many songs, especially commercial and mainstream,  rely on the  thump.

Let's illustrate this with this song:

 

 



Well that was boring but point taken. It had the same repetitive beat though and I don't know how people don't get bored of it.

post #1078 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post



 It had the same repetitive beat though and I don't know how people don't get bored of it.


Bass is sometimes like a drug. You don't expect something very artistic, but at least something stimulating. If the bass is lacking, you are not stimulated.

It's just like sugar,  you might not appreciate your coffee without it. Some people will complain that too much sugar hide all the other tastes, I  guess it's a similar problem with bass.

post #1079 of 3844

Interesting comments - especially from those who haven't heard the SRH840, SRH940 or DT880.  I've been fortunate enough to own all three.

 

In my review of them (SRH940) - I did say that I wasn't happy with the bass - I'll expand on that a little.

 

I'm not a bass-head.  Never have been.  My criticism of the SRH840 was that although they were nicely balanced (to me), the mid-bass hump tended to make them slightly boomy, and the bass if anything was slightly over emphasised.  Mids were very good.  Highs were sparkly enough.

 

The SRH940 on the other hand has the most perfect mids I've ever heard.  Smooth, sweet rather than overly lush, and with vocals particularly brought to the front.  Listening to any female vocals on the 940 is pure pleasure.  The highs are good as well.  I don't think they're overdone at all - I haven't found any sibilance with them.  The detail is incredible.  The sub-bass is fine for what I want - it extends low, and it's not rumbly or dominant.  The mid-bass is where it's missing - and for me it makes the whole presentation seem slightly off.  Like I said in my review - take Porcupine Tree's "Trains" - at one point there is rhythmic clapping.  On the SRH940 the clapping sounds weak and dry and unrealistic.  It's because the mid-bass is just a little too recessed.  Everything else is great.  Track after track where I expect some bass impact - I get the bass, but it doesn't sound realistic.  That's my only complaint as far as SQ goes.  I agree with Pratt's comments about the dryness - I think it's the missing/recessed mid-bass.  I could fix it with bass boost to a certain extent, or better with EQ - but I'd rather continue my search for the ideal can - even if it means going further up the ladder.

 

For female vocals, for smooth jazz, even for classical - the SRH940 sound incredibly, wonderfully good.  The problem is that I listen to far more genres than these.  I already have the DT880s, and although they do not have the same detail, or the same sweet mids (the DT880 mids sound almost recessed in comparison to the SRH940), the one thing the DT880 has IMO is balance.  And when I look across all the genres I listen to - they are better all rounders to me.

 

Others will have their own opinions.  All I'd suggest is not to draw conclusions until you get a chance to hear them.  IMO if you crossed the DT880 with the SRH940 you'd have my ideal can ....

DT880 bass, SRH940 mids, somewhere between the two's highs, DT880 comfort, SRH940 design (replaceable cables, swivelling cups) - I'd never look for another headphone again.

post #1080 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratt View Post





Yep! I don't use my other cans much any more, the 940's do everything I ask for every genre better than any of them (with the exception of the 225i's for poorly recorded rock/metal) with less coloration. They are the most "speaker-like" cans I've heard in terms of overall refinement, sophistication, and neutrality.

 

The bass is just fine btw. I don't understand complaints about it, it makes me wonder if those who find it lacking have ever heard a decent 2.0 speaker setup without sub or low-fi boomy bass found in cheapo or overcolored setups. When I listen to bass heavy music or a movie soundtrack the bass is there and plentiful...even surprisingly so. When I don't, it isn't as it's not supposed to be. Just like on any decent to superb 2.0 speaker setup I've had or have heard. 

 

My only complaint about these, and they have not changed at all in sound since the first day I got them, is that they can sound somewhat "dry". That is hard to describe but I find it there nonetheless. But they are not overly bright (and I can hear at least up to 19k as tested by a medical lab not even a year ago) or anything else.

 

I also really like the way they look and the construction is just fine. The comfort isn't as good as my 702's, but it is still fine for hours on end, only a little clampy after awhile.

 

Really great cans at least and there is no need for me to look to "upgrade" for a long while, if even ever imo (I do listen to speakers about 80% of the time, but even if I didn't I think I could be quite satisfied with these for years without needing to look for "better").

 

PS: The 940's have been compared to the BD 880/600's briefly here http://www.headfonia.com/shure-srh-940-detail-monster/ (and in the comments more I think) and the 940's are said to have better mids/vocals. I've never heard the 880's but having the 940's I have no desire to.


I found the bass quite light...even compared to my HD800s (....and my T1s, HE-6s, LCD-2s, Ed. 8s, Westone 4s and Shure SE535s)....throw in a bit too much treble and they're not my cup of tea. YMMV.

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Shure SRH 940 impression and support thread