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 103

post #1531 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by baka1969 View Post

@oldshoe99. I predict you'll be banned very soon. I will stop responding to your drivel. I hope everyone else will also.
When someone like me does the hard work I've done on this matter, you call it drivel. That just points back to you, sir. And I think the others here would prefer to make up their own minds.
post #1532 of 3844

While it's true the HD 800 are better than the 940 from a technical standpoint, I find it perfectly legitimate the one could prefer the sonic presentation of the 940 over the HD 800.  Remember that this is quite a subjective hobby, where one's best could be another one's worst and everything in between.


Edited by Digital-Pride - 9/16/11 at 1:53pm
post #1533 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by electropop View Post

I don't find it completely justified that so many oldshoe's comments were erased. Can't recall everything, but with same reasoning many other's, including mine, should've been as well. 

 

I agree with R-audiohead about his objectivity though. Claiming his views as facts is lacking the option to be publicly/empirically evaluated/criticized. There is so little fact here that passes said conditions, even measurements. 

 

What tipped people off, I guess, was this slight form of elitism. Not that no one else is guilty of it here rolleyes.gif

I'm glad that the silly posts were left in. It's a good record of the posters' attitudes.
post #1534 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldshoe99 View Post


When someone like me does the hard work I've done on this matter, you call it drivel. That just points back to you, sir. And I think the others here would prefer to make up their own minds.


Don't mind the HD 800 fanboys too much oldshoe99.  It's like how DARE anyone compare the great HD 800 to a lowly mid-tier headphone like the 940.rolleyes.gif


Edited by Digital-Pride - 9/16/11 at 1:53pm
post #1535 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by R-Audiohead View Post

And that stuff is useful and much appreciated by at least me, and I am sure the same is true for most of the community!

 

Afterall, it is YOUR headphone and it was generous of you to open it up for us.

 

EDIT - Clarifying this was @baka


There are so many members of Head-Fi that contribute. That's what makes it so great. I've seen many headphones dissected and sacrificed. The various Grado threads are perfect examples. smily_headphones1.gif

Back to the subject. The 940 is a great value for a closed can under $300. I preferred it over the 840 because of the 840's mid bass hump even though the 940 is a bit bass shy and has a bass "hole" in it. Which I posted Headroom's charts of a couple of days ago. It's not in the same league as the HD800 or any of the other flagship cans. Why should it be?
post #1536 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital-Pride View Post




Don't mind the HD 800 fanboys too much oldshoe99.  It's like how DARE anyone compare the great HD 800 to a lowly mid-tier headphone like the 940.rolleyes.gif

I don't mind at all that people don't like it - it's definitely not perfect. But when someone posts - not once, but several times that it has a bass hole when it doesn't, or says it's bass light when there is no reference to a standard like the HD800, then I think they're doing a disservice to the readers here. The Amazon reviewer gave many clues to imperfections with the 940, and even clues to how it didn't quite equal the 800. But the reactions to the "compares favorably" comment got some people really hysterical. I would suggest people go back to the review, including where it talks about amping and not amping and when it's advantageous to the 800 or the 940, and learn from it. I think I benefitted from it. Not everyone needs to be chained to a desk to enjoy the HD800 or the Shure, nor should they feel like their sound is suffering seriously when using just an iPod.

The ability to get such wonderful sound for only $300 should be shouted out to every person on a budget, not closed off with such negativity as I've seen here.
post #1537 of 3844

Heya,

 

I have the HE-500, the SRH940, and a $30 Panasonic (amongst many other headphones). I don't care about the culture behind "high end" or any of the pseudo-science that gets brought up. What matters is how they sound. And I like to be fair and objective with that, not just geared towards one or another because of it's cultural status or cost.

I bought a second pair of SRH940's after I sold my first pair (because it was a $100 difference to return and rebuy). There was a time period between the return and buying my second SRH940 second hand for $100 less off the classifies here at Head-Fi. I loved it that much for acoustic & vocals. I use it over my HE-500 for those two genres. And especially for portable use when I'm moving around and want privacy (closed back). They're not an overall performer like a well rounded headphone for me, but they are for some. Do they compare to the HE-500? A high end? Yes. They do. They compare in aspects. I would put the SRH940 over the HE-500 for actual pleasure of listening to specifically female vocals and acoustic. Is it technologically better? No. But do I like the sound better for that specific use? Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with comparing the SRH940 to high ends. If the SRH940, which is a flag ship by the way, can perform at an equal or similar level as a high end in a particular category, there's no reason not to compare them. This kind of attitude is the elitist stuff and snobbiness that drives people away from conversations, away from the forum in general, and boils down to something that is not objective, but rather, simply sloppy like fighting over which toy is better or who's dad can beat up who's dad, and is embarrassing frankly (especially when someone makes arguments about a particular headphone that has not heard it, this blows my mind how ridiculous this is, this is Meerkat mentality).

 

Very best,


Edited by MalVeauX - 9/16/11 at 2:11pm
post #1538 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by electropop View Post



 

people just don't sit down and listen to some damn music and appreciate what they have normal_smile%20.gif
 

 



wait, people don't listen to music? no way! also thanks for reminding me, i need to buy a new cable and since it's 500 bucks i have to listen to that instead and compare it to my 15 dollar monoprice cable. who cares about the music if you want to become professional at this. audiophilia is serious business.
post #1539 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexAeterna View Post




wait, people don't listen to music? no way! also thanks for reminding me, i need to buy a new cable and since it's 500 bucks i have to listen to that instead and compare it to my 15 dollar monoprice cable. who cares about the music if you want to become professional at this. audiophilia is serious business.

 

Haha, it sprsrsly is. :)
 

 

post #1540 of 3844

Mal - I agree with your post - but at the same time, everyone has a different opinion on what sounds good.  The problem is that what I'm reading does not sound the least bit like elitism.  It more sounds like different opinions.  The problem is that Oldshoe seems to have a chip on his shoulder and can't appreciate that some people have a different opinion.

 

I haven't heard anywhere near the same number of headphones as you have (or Baka, Mac, Tyl, or many others here) - but I have heard both the SRH840 and SRH940 and spent considerable time with both.  In my opinion, what lets the SRH840 down slightly is the mid-bass hump.  For me it made the bass a bit 'bloomy' and sometimes overpowered the other frequencies.

 

On the other hand while I really liked the SRH940 mids (to me they sound as though they are coming from a nice tube amp), and the lower bass extension is really good, they do have a mid-bass dip.  You can see it clearly on the freq charts, and I can hear it.  others have commented on the fact too - so I know it's not just me.  Unfortunately for my ears - while they're great on female vocals, I personally find them completely un-natural sounding for other genres (esp rock/alt-rock).

 

What I would love to see Shure do is make their next headphone somewhere between the two (840/940) - I think that could be quite the headphone.

 

Oh and Oldshoe - I for one find a lot of your posts very condescending and quite rude.  You make snide comments dismissing others opinions because they differ with yours, and keep asking for "proof" when subjectively there cannot be any.  You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that - but don't belittle others because they don't share the same opinion.  I'm happy that for you and any others the SRH940 and HD800 can sound so alike.  If they do - then I'd be a tad disappointed, as I would be expecting a lot more from the Sennheiser flagship - and quite frankly the complete sound of the Shure940 is something I couldn't live with (of the two I'd also pick the 840).  But I'll wait until I can demo the HD800 (one of these days for sure) and make up my mind.  Maybe I wouldn't like the HD800 either.

 

For the record - without listening myself, I'd be more inclined to believe guys like Baka, Mac and Tyll - who have also heard both - and who have generated a lot of respect for their opinions over a lot of years.  Oldshoe - you may be right in the long-run, but until I hear for myself I'll remain skeptical.  That is my opinion - please respect that.

post #1541 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalVeauX View Post

Heya,

 

Well, I thought the AKG K701 was a poor sounding headphone.

 

It's all relative. Everyone has their opinion.

 

Very best,

 

MalVeauX, the problem here is with blanket statements such as poor or phrases like "it sucks" which puts unnecessarily negative connotations on whatever headphone is in question.  They imply that said headphone has no positive attributes and is all around bad which is not usually not the case.  It is not really helpful for someone who is not familiar with that headphone or headphones in general, as it might scare them away from what could be just the headphone they're looking for.

 

Describing why one doesn't like said headphone would be much more helpful, such as why didn't you like the K701?  Was it too bright for you, or did you not find the instrument timbre natural enough for your liking, or perhaps the bass response was not strong enough for your tastes?  Those are more helpful descriptions rather than "it's simply poor" or "it sucks".

 

Not trying to pick on you Mal as I very much enjoy your posts as they have a lot of insight, it's just something I see on Head-Fi more often than I'd like.

post #1542 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 

 

I'm disappointed that there's people saying the 840 is better than the 940.

 

 

Now I feel like avoiding the 940, and it was the only Shure product I've heard that really impressed me.

 


Why do you feel dissapointed?!?

IF YOU LIKE THE 940s OVER the 840s, then that will be it.

Just because Tyll or whoever says otherwise, you should let YOUR judgement make the decisions!!!

 

I've seen this a lot on the boards, one or two mention some negative remarks

about x or y headphones, then people look over them. Why don't they get them and make/form

their own opinion? If they don't like it, return them/sell them. If you do, more power to you and inform

everyone else what you liked or didn't like... ...
 

 

post #1543 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

Mal - I agree with your post - but at the same time, everyone has a different opinion on what sounds good.  The problem is that what I'm reading does not sound the least bit like elitism.  It more sounds like different opinions.  The problem is that Oldshoe seems to have a chip on his shoulder and can't appreciate that some people have a different opinion.

 

I haven't heard anywhere near the same number of headphones as you have (or Baka, Mac, Tyl, or many others here) - but I have heard both the SRH840 and SRH940 and spent considerable time with both.  In my opinion, what lets the SRH840 down slightly is the mid-bass hump.  For me it made the bass a bit 'bloomy' and sometimes overpowered the other frequencies.

 

On the other hand while I really liked the SRH940 mids (to me they sound as though they are coming from a nice tube amp), and the lower bass extension is really good, they do have a mid-bass dip.  You can see it clearly on the freq charts, and I can hear it.  others have commented on the fact too - so I know it's not just me.  Unfortunately for my ears - while they're great on female vocals, I personally find them completely un-natural sounding for other genres (esp rock/alt-rock).

 

What I would love to see Shure do is make their next headphone somewhere between the two (840/940) - I think that could be quite the headphone.

 

Oh and Oldshoe - I for one find a lot of your posts very condescending and quite rude.  You make snide comments dismissing others opinions because they differ with yours, and keep asking for "proof" when subjectively there cannot be any.  You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that - but don't belittle others because they don't share the same opinion.  I'm happy that for you and any others the SRH940 and HD800 can sound so alike.  If they do - then I'd be a tad disappointed, as I would be expecting a lot more from the Sennheiser flagship - and quite frankly the complete sound of the Shure940 is something I couldn't live with (of the two I'd also pick the 840).  But I'll wait until I can demo the HD800 (one of these days for sure) and make up my mind.  Maybe I wouldn't like the HD800 either.

 

For the record - without listening myself, I'd be more inclined to believe guys like Baka, Mac and Tyll - who have also heard both - and who have generated a lot of respect for their opinions over a lot of years.  Oldshoe - you may be right in the long-run, but until I hear for myself I'll remain skeptical.  That is my opinion - please respect that.

I never made fun of anyone with clown postings, nor did I say like Tyll said that anyone's obviously decent equipment was "poor", nor did I call anyone a troll, nor did I insinuate that they would be banned. I think you have to understand that many of these gear forums are top-heavy with frat-boy attitudes, which is a big part of the reason so few women are involved. My personality does clash with what I call the frat-boy crowd, because I think their main interest isn't discovering great new things in sound as much as it is participating in a virtual mosh-pit.

Edit: When you say you believe Tyll's opinion because of his position or reputation, I think you know like I do when he is teasing and when he's being serious. But not everyone else knows that, so it would be better to quality such trust as applying to serious opinions only, and not when he says a good piece of gear is "poor", or in one case, "wretched".
Edited by oldshoe99 - 9/16/11 at 3:13pm
post #1544 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by gelocks View Post




Why do you feel dissapointed?!?

IF YOU LIKE THE 940s OVER the 840s, then that will be it.

Just because Tyll or whoever says otherwise, you should let YOUR judgement make the decisions!!!

 

I've seen this a lot on the boards, one or two mention some negative remarks

about x or y headphones, then people look over them. Why don't they get them and make/form

their own opinion? If they don't like it, return them/sell them. If you do, more power to you and inform

everyone else what you liked or didn't like... ...
 

 


Agreed. I prefer the 940 over the 840. MacedonianHero is the opposite. Yet we're friends. lol. We have differing opinions on several issues. I don't take it personally.

I usually qualify all my statements and let me say now that earlier I gave my opinion on the HD800 vs the 940. It's just that. My opinion. I've used charts and pictures and examples throughout this thread to demonstrate what I was hearing. In the end though, it's still my opinion. Take from it what you may.
post #1545 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital-Pride View Post



 

MalVeauX, the problem here is with blanket statements such as poor or phrases like "it sucks" which puts unnecessarily negative connotations on whatever headphone is in question.  They imply that said headphone has no positive attributes and is all around bad which is not usually not the case.  It is not really helpful for someone who is not familiar with that headphone or headphones in general, as it might scare them away from what could be just the headphone they're looking for.

 

Describing why one doesn't like said headphone would be much more helpful, such as why didn't you like the K701?  Was it too bright for you, or did you not find the instrument timbre natural enough for your liking, or perhaps the bass response was not strong enough for your tastes?  Those are more helpful descriptions rather than "it's simply poor" or "it sucks".

 

Not trying to pick on you Mal as I very much enjoy your posts as they have a lot of insight, it's just something I see on Head-Fi more often than I'd like.


Heya,

 

Actually all my thoughts on the K701 and SRH940 are contained in my SRH940 thread on the second page, so instead of just quoting myself, it's linked in my sig for anyone interested in the K701 information. You're absolutely right that poor is a very strong word, I was using it to emphasize what people are doing in this thread right now, which is taking excellent headphones and making it seem like they're nearly junk by some of the language going on. I used poor to basically pick on the K701. It's not a poor headphone at all in the scheme of headphones, but it was indeed a poor match for music for my tastes (if that is a better use of the word poor in context).

 

Very best,

 


Edited by MalVeauX - 9/16/11 at 3:09pm
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