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 73

post #1081 of 3844

Hello Brooko. Nice to read you here. (How's those Alu Cups on the MS1?) on the topic Do you find the SRH940 more musical then the DT880? also how much less is the SRH940 Bass compare to the DT880?  I owned the 880/600 and found them boring a bit like the K701 so I'm hoping the SRH940 will be more Alive.

Cheer
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

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 #1082 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

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.

 

I listened to your example just to figure out what you were meaning.  I'd say that on the section you are talking, besides the clapping hands,   there's three instruments : guitar, a mandolin-banjo thingy, and maracas.  The guitar is too much in the background , you barely notice it, while the maracas sound a bit overwhelming. I  think adding a little reverb helps to fix this (or perhaps some internal foam like in the hd555), even the "over compressed" sound in youtube seems more balanced , than when I  listen to a lossless version.

I think that the srh940 is just lacking some kind of reverb to sound more natural, unlike sennheiser with his famous "veil". The sound is nude, just apply any affect you wish on it.


Edited by extrabigmehdi - 8/30/11 at 6:36pm
post #1083 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinster View Post

so I'm hoping the SRH940 will be more Alive.


Alive if you are listening to some music with screaming guitars , and lot of percussion, just like in the music from Rammstein  (see Amerika title). I  don't say it won't work with other musical genres, but it can't be more alive, than with this kind of music.

 

post #1084 of 3844


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinster View Post

Hello Brooko. Nice to read you here. (How's those Alu Cups on the MS1?) on the topic Do you find the SRH940 more musical then the DT880? also how much less is the SRH940 Bass compare to the DT880?  I owned the 880/600 and found them boring a bit like the K701 so I'm hoping the SRH940 will be more Alive.

Cheer
 


 

Hi Simon - MS1s going beautifully.  Their mids (after all the mods) almost as good as the SRH940 to these old ears - especially through the GoVibe PortaTube.  There is something about that tube/mid sound - bliss.

 

DT880 vs SRH940 very dependent on genre IMO.  The SRH940 is definitely more "musical" than the DT880 to me for music that relies on mid-range focus - esp female vocals / jazz.  The SRH940 mids trump the DT880's mids in every way - they are very forward, and just breathtakingly beautiful.  The DT880 on the other hand is more balanced, and probably more analytical than the SRH940.  For me, I can use it over a far wider genre range.  Also - because I have the PortaTube - it really does add to the mids on the DT880, and while still not as good as the Shures, at least they become more enjoyable.

 

The Shures are definitely more alive.  Perhaps a tube amp was what you were missing with your old DT880?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

 

I listened to your example just to figure out what you were meaning.  I'd say that on the section you are talking, besides the clapping hands,   there's three instruments : guitar, a mandolin-banjo thingy, and maracas.  The guitar is too much in the background , you barely notice it, while the maracas sound a bit overwhelming. I  think adding a little reverb helps to fix this, even the "over compressed" sound in youtube seems more balanced , than when I  listen to a lossless version.

I think that the srh940 is just lacking some reverb to sound more natural, unlike sennheiser with his famous "veil". The sound is nude, just apply any affect you wish on it.


Yes - I know what you mean - but for my ears, the entire mid-bass sounds too analytical and recessed compared to the forwardness and sweetness of the mids.  It just doesn't gel for me.

post #1085 of 3844
I like how the 940 sounds with the dampening on the drivers, the bass mod and using the 840 pleather pads. It adds some meat on the bass.
post #1086 of 3844

Ah nice! that what I wanted to hear. I actually have a tube amplifier (MAD EAR+ HD) that I've used with the DT880 but it was not enough to bring them to life IMO. I'm patiently waiting for my SRH940  bought here last week. My intention is to used them for vocal / acoustic / Jazz / Classical genre and for the rest that need more humfff (something like that) I'll keep using the Denon D5000.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post


 


 

Hi Simon - MS1s going beautifully.  Their mids (after all the mods) almost as good as the SRH940 to these old ears - especially through the GoVibe PortaTube.  There is something about that tube/mid sound - bliss.

 

DT880 vs SRH940 very dependent on genre IMO.  The SRH940 is definitely more "musical" than the DT880 to me for music that relies on mid-range focus - esp female vocals / jazz.  The SRH940 mids trump the DT880's mids in every way - they are very forward, and just breathtakingly beautiful.  The DT880 on the other hand is more balanced, and probably more analytical than the SRH940.  For me, I can use it over a far wider genre range.  Also - because I have the PortaTube - it really does add to the mids on the DT880, and while still not as good as the Shures, at least they become more enjoyable.

 

The Shures are definitely more alive.  Perhaps a tube amp was what you were missing with your old DT880?
 


Yes - I know what you mean - but for my ears, the entire mid-bass sounds too analytical and recessed compared to the forwardness and sweetness of the mids.  It just doesn't gel for me.



 

Hey Baka, I'm also getting the leather pads with the 940 (part of the deal) so I'll looking to do your mod later to experiment the extra bass mod.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by baka1969 View Post

I like how the 940 sounds with the dampening on the drivers, the bass mod and using the 840 pleather pads. It adds some meat on the bass.


 


Edited by Twinster - 8/30/11 at 6:50pm
post #1087 of 3844


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by antikryst View Post

ive been quite busy re-ripping my favorite music to 320 kbps. :) love the 940s.



Maybe you should try lossless... You might be impressed. Compare a 320kbps MP3 with a lossless file, the same song, a few replays. I was blown away by the difference and I have the SRH440, with the 940 the difference should be ever more impressive.

 

People can't find pads for the SRH940 in the USA? That's the first time I hear of a product that can't be found in the USA but is easy to find outside. I live in a small town in QC, Canada and I ordered a set of SRH940 pads at a local music instrument shop. They were BO, obviously, being a new product and all... but they could get them. I think there's actually two sets that comes with the package, so I might have one for sale if anyone is interested. We'll see when they arrive. I plan on trying them with my 440, see if it's an improvement comfort wise.

post #1088 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by KimLaroux View Post


 



Maybe you should try lossless... You might be impressed. Compare a 320kbps MP3 with a lossless file, the same song, a few replays. I was blown away by the difference and I have the SRH440, with the 940 the difference should be ever more impressive.

 

People can't find pads for the SRH940 in the USA? That's the first time I hear of a product that can't be found in the USA but is easy to find outside. I live in a small town in QC, Canada and I ordered a set of SRH940 pads at a local music instrument shop. They were BO, obviously, being a new product and all... but they could get them. I think there's actually two sets that comes with the package, so I might have one for sale if anyone is interested. We'll see when they arrive. I plan on trying them with my 440, see if it's an improvement comfort wise.



I have the 840s and I notice no difference with flac and 320kbps mp3.

post #1089 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post





I have the 840s and I notice no difference with flac and 320kbps mp3.


I hear the difference between 320kbps and FLAC in quite a few tracks on multiple headphones.

 

What's your point?

 

Very best,

 

post #1090 of 3844

I can't wait until the day I hear about someone who can tell the difference between 320kbps and FLAC, but doesn't believe cables make a difference in sound and burn-in also doesn't exist.

I think I heard once too that the UR-40 sounds exactly the same as the HD-650 and there is no point in getting the HD-650. No, I have no point, but Head-fi comments are always amusing for me.

 

I don't know if I can tell the difference between 320kbps mp3 and FLAC. I'd much rather compare cables normal_smile%20.gif

I think I decided that 320 was good enough for me, but once I actually got good headphones I re-ripped everything to lossless.

IMO saying the difference between 320kbps and FLAC is like night and day is crazy talk! Nobody has to agree with me.

 

Just for fun, I will compare 320kbps and FLAC tonight! I think the only change will be subtle background details and maybe a more compressed soundstage.

I bet my new Kicker headphones will make all my 320kbps MP3s sound like garbage!! Kidding, but maybe I could tell a difference with the K501 or KRK, who knows.

I haven't done this test in about 5 years.

 

Oh yeah, one thing I noticed is that it takes very specific music to tell the difference in bitrates. I like to use acoustic music with a huge soundstage.

With SOME songs, there will be ZERO difference between 320 and FLAC.


Edited by tdockweiler - 8/30/11 at 7:55pm
post #1091 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalVeauX View Post




I hear the difference between 320kbps and FLAC in quite a few tracks on multiple headphones.

 

What's your point?

 

Very best,

 


My point is I don't believe him/her as he/she has the 440 which is inferior to the 840s. I believe placebo plays a much bigger role then is expected here.

 

post #1092 of 3844

Actually you're all wrong. Bitrate doesn't matter! 128kbps is just as good as Lossless. Flac is pointless unless you have a T1 or HD-800.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(ok, sorry, I made that up)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #1093 of 3844
Quote:

Oh yeah, one thing I noticed is that it takes very specific music to tell the difference in bitrates. I like to use acoustic music with a huge soundstage.

With SOME songs, there will be ZERO difference between 320 and FLAC.


I find it often in electronic dance music (just as a funny example), the least place I'd ever expect to find it. I find it manifested as a scratchy sound in certain highs that the lossless version doesn't have. It made me double take and think there was something wrong with hardware some where. It's not like spilled grape juice on a wedding gown or anything, but I noticed it casually listening. Some headphones definitely matter when it comes to this.

 

Very best,

post #1094 of 3844

About the ONLY differences I've noticed between 320kkbps and lossless are the decay in treble percussion, and the overall dynamic range of the song-- pretty much no new detail or texture.  There are definitely cases of people overblowing the difference flac vs compressed mp3.  If someone was blown away between the two, then I definitely want to know which song it is.  It isn't the fact that certain people have golden ears either, it's a bit of trained hearing, which goes a long ways into different--esoteric-- opinions.

post #1095 of 3844

Personally I'd suggest to anyone that can "easily tell the difference" between properly ripped FLAC / Lossless and properly transcoded 320kbps MP3 using latest Lame - try it using Foobar and it's abx plugin tool (it automatically can normalise the volume as well).  If you use this tool, you don't know which track you're hearing - you just have to identify it (ie true double blind).  Do it 20-30 times to make it statistically relevant.  Foobar then gives you a report based on the results, and can basically tell you based on % whether you were guessing or not.  You can do it in your own home with your own gear in your own time.

 

I'd believe that with older or well mastered music (ie before the loudness wars took over) that there might be a chance on very high end gear for a trained ear to hear the difference.  For the average person though - with modern music - I've yet to see it.

 

I know we shouldn't be discussing dbx testing in this part of the forum - but this is the ONLY way to truly test without placebo.

 

I have taken the test a few times, and freely admit I couldn't tell the difference.  I also tried it with the SRH940s - earlier this week - still couldn't tell.  Of course it could be my 44yo hearing wink.gif

 

I remain sceptical about those who claim they can tell easily.

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