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 107

post #1591 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

Maybe they are just more picky with the source.

 

Maybe, although the SRH840 also improves quite with better sources and amps.

post #1592 of 3844

 

My SRH-940 listening.

 

Source: T51, max volume.

 

Music: classical and pop.

 

 

post #1593 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 


At the time I owned the Sony SA-5000, so I was comparing k701 to SA-5000.

 

 

I thought the k701 had a nice liquidy smooth sound, but the cast magnesium and real leather pads on the SA-5000 just made it look like crap piece of plastic with carpet ear muffs, and the SA-5000 offered slightly higher detail retrieval and clarity.



Ah, specifics!smily_headphones1.gif  I've always wondered just how the SA-5000 sounds, especially since it shares an appearance that is pretty similar to the Qualia's.  Which is not a bad thing at all.

post #1594 of 3844

The SA-5000 sounds like sapphire, silky and icy cold, clinical, detailed, excellent at vocals and pinpoint positioning, pretty upfront sound, not spaced out or laid back.

 

I listened to a lot of violin concertos and especially liked Celine Dion on it for some reason.

 

The SRH-940 from what I recall has more upfront vocals, is more involving, has higher resolution, and is closed-back of course.

 

 


Edited by kiteki - 9/16/11 at 6:25pm
post #1595 of 3844


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post



I'm sure there'll be lot of love & hate regarding this headphone. We'll read first the love, because after all it's the top of the line of shure closed headphone, and the people that spent 250$ or more, and have no experience with other headphone will feel forced to think they are great. Then logically the headphone will be recommended a lot, and then the haters will be less and less shy. Just like what happened to the k701.

I'd say if you were impressed first , then probably they are good for you. Use a good source.

 

 


I do not agree with this. To get to the SRH940 I've tried Beyer 990/880/AKG k701/Q701/AT W1000 and after 3 weeks I'm still enjoying the quality of the Shure.FYI I'm using them with the Centrance Dacport or Dacmini. I bought them knowing they were Bass shy but with great detail and to my surprise I'm not craving for more bass and appreciate the detail retrieval. They do not hit hard like the Denon W5000 but I have to say that I'm reaching for the 940 more than all my other can lately (excluding the DT1350 use at work).

 

Bottom line we all have different taste in music, different equipments, different ear canals so the variables are too great to not respect everybody personal opinions. IMHO  biggrin.gif

 

post #1596 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 

My SRH-940 listening.

 

Source: T51, max volume.

 

A "regular " mp3 player ? I'm wondering how big is the gap in sq of this T51  with the cowon  s9.  But it  can't be as good as from a xonax stx , isn't it ?

The sound is significantly "sharper" out of a xonar stx , than the  cowon s9.  I remind my ranking of sources for sq with sr940 : onboard realtek < sansa clip < cowon s9 < xonar stx


Edited by extrabigmehdi - 9/16/11 at 6:46pm
post #1597 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post



 

You might try the track Porcupine Tree - Trains, the clapping section. Brooko didn't like how it sounded there.

It's a good quality recording, but I wish the claps (beginning at 3:20?) were more isolated from the other instruments. Anyway, the Shure sounded like it was missing some highs there, upper harmonics for the clapping. This sounds to me like the Who example from the review, where the HD800 had the edge in the vocal harmonics. I am definitely not the person to offer any opinions about this difference, but I do wonder if the 800's soundstage design has anything to do with it. In any case this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, except that I would much like to have a reference bass example too. So just how big was the difference? Well, you can have fun discussing that here, but do give it a good listen if you get the chance.
post #1598 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

A "regular " mp3 player ? I'm wondering how big is the gap in sq of this T51  with the cowon  s9.  But it  can't be as good as from a xonax stx , isn't it ?

The sound is significantly "sharper" out of a xonar stx , than the  cowon s9.  I remind my ranking of sources for sq with sr940 : onboard realtek < sansa clip < cowon s9 < xonar stx


 

Sorrry no offense but I hated the S9 and sold it within a week.

 

If measurement graphs are important to you, I don't think you should like it either, it does not provide a clean and pure signal - at all, so the sound quality you're getting from you Xonar on the SRH-940 is a better reference for how the 940 sounds, I'm not very familiar with the Xonar STX but yes that seems like your best source.

 

The T51 has dual wolfson DAC chips, one for left and one for right channel, it has a smooth HO and vivid, clear LO, it's a very good "reference" DAP, please read my diary if you're interested in further details.

 

 

 

post #1599 of 3844

 

I'm skipping the SRH-940 everyone my quest has continued.

 

 

SA-5000 -> STAX SR-404 -> A2000X -> TESLA

 

 

post #1600 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinster View Post


I do not agree with this. To get to the SRH940 I've tried Beyer 990/880/AKG k701/Q701/AT W1000 and after 3 weeks I'm still enjoying the quality of the Shure.FYI I'm using them with the Centrance Dacport or Dacmini. I bought them knowing they were Bass shy but with great detail and to my surprise I'm not craving for more bass and appreciate the detail retrieval. They do not hit hard like the Denon W5000 but I have to say that I'm reaching for the 940 more than all my other can lately (excluding the DT1350 use at work).

 

Bottom line we all have different taste in music, different equipments, different ear canals so the variables are too great to not respect everybody personal opinions. IMHO  biggrin.gif

 


Me either. I've been into "hi-fi" seriously for 7 years? and headphones for 3 or so and been listening to better than the average big box store stuff most households have all my life. I've heard gear from all price ranges (EXCEPT with headphones as most audio nuts I meet and have listening sessions with regard headphones as toys they need not spend more than $500 on and I don't trust hearing gear for brief pressured sessions in hi-fi stores as accurate nor even those at meets and at sessions at others homes...that's just the beginning, one needs weeks with gear privately in all sorts of moods and listening material to truly get a feel for how it sounds) from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of dollars. I at least have a good idea of the sound signature I like from the devices that matter: speakers and headphones (all the rest is about the same tested blind no matter what price range/hype/pseudo audio science and voodoo math). 

 

I'm Shure (haha) the 940's are not the best headphones ever. But they are the best "hi-fi speaker like" I've yet heard in terms of refinement and accuracy and am willing to pay for (I listen to speakers 80% of the time and that's where my money is for audio gear). I'm interested in a few other headphones around $500 or below retail (my personal limit for small plastic/metal driver devices...too much as it is and I've kept it under $300 so far) but am totally satisfied with these for $250 and have been for the few months I've had them.

 

As for all the price differences with headphones and headphone SQ well, it's the same as everything else: the "get what you paid for" unexamined platitude is at least misleading and usually downright false after a certain low entry level. I'd like to have some good blind tests done between cans ranging from under $100 to thousands and see just how much better (or even if) the most expensive ones rate to those who have no idea of the price of the cans they are listening to. Take unjustified expectation (and dishonest hype) out of the equation and the results would be surprising, just as it is with speakers ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands that others have tested blind side by side and I have as well within my own audio group (and of course dacs, amps, cdp, etc. have little to no difference when tested blind in widely ranging prices) and listeners have sometimes picked the cheaper, sometimes the more expensive, but NEVER the more expensive after a certain price point where it just doesn't get better or at LEAST not better enough for the huge gap in price range. I'm Shure it is the same with cans. :)

 

post #1601 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by gelocks View Post

I find nothing "sterile" about the 940s!

Don't know what kind of music are you listening to but just played:

 

Mastodon - The Czar: Usurper/Escape/Martyr/Spiral

Karis - Manecumbe

Jon Cleary & the Absolute Monster Gentlemen - When you get Back

My Chemical Romance - Planetary (GO!)

Circa Survive - Dyed in the Wool (acoustic)
Kaskade and Martina of Dragonette - Fire in your New Shows (Innerpartysystem)

 

everything is so lively and tasty with, of course, the emphasis on the lovely mids and

highs (love the trumpets/trombone in the Karis track)... bass extension is great (especially on the Kaskade track)

that I don't know where you guys get that these cans are NOT musical or sterile.

 

Have compared these SAME tracks on my Senns HD600s and most of them I prefer to listen

to them on the Shures. So... maybe you are choosing "sterile" tracks to test these...

 

 

P.S. Archos 7 --> JDSLabs Cmoy (bass boost NOT active) --> 940s


 

Thanks for helping me discover some new music. That's what is important: the music.

 

I agree with your comments. After listening to the 940s for some weeks I have realised that I had been listening to bad reproduction of bass all my life. The definition I get from the Shures is exceptional. These are source sensitive phones, and the sound will reflect the quality of the recording. 

 

I do not think these are very different from the HD 800, except for soundstage. I preferred these to the HD650, though those sound warmer. I heard some reverb with the HD 650. All listened to off a Schitt Valhalla. I listen to almost everything, with emphasis on Blues and Jazz of all kinds.

 

 

Sterile? NEVER!!

Truthful? Yes.

Enjoyable? Very. 

 

 

post #1602 of 3844
I did feel that the SRH840s were warmer and more lively without amplification..

However, since I connected my 940s to my E7/E9 DAC/amp combo, they sound better than they did without.

However, at a $100 price difference.. the improved comfort, internalization of wires (I was afraid of damaging them on the 840s), the rubberized shell case and the additional cable were worth the difference in price. As a bonus, I like the sound better, too.. particularly when used with my amp.

I'm definitely feeling the "source" problem, though.. I'm finding that some recordings in particular.. like Oasis - What's the Story Morning Glory are particularly harsh.. probably due to the distortion effects that they use..

I can also hear static in some recordings that previously sounded fine on lesser headphones.
Edited by Robobandit - 9/17/11 at 2:13am
post #1603 of 3844

This is kind of out of the blue considering all of the HD 800 vs SRH 940 posts, but how do the 940's sound with an amp? I don't have an amp right now and I find that the 940's sound a bit odd with some rock music I have (maybe the bass guitars aren't noticeable enough or the cymbals/drums are too loud with respect to other instruments). Or can some one suggest a rock track that does sound good with the 940's?

 

I'm using my Macbook with FLAC files at the moment.

 

Referring back to oldshoe99's comment about why people prefer to listen to female vocals on the 940's, I like how the 940's present the vocals upfront and how clear/realistic they sound to my ears. I admit that it does cause some fatiguing over time, but I don't listen to music for more than an hour at once (I like to take breaks). I don't find bassy music (chiptune or electronic for example) to be the 940's strong point because they don't have enough 'oomph' or bass punch for my ears. It's certainly there, but it's almost as if I have to listen exclusively to those sounds, which shouldn't be the case for those genres of music in my opinion seeing as they are bass oriented. Just because the 940's have more forward highs and upper-mids does not necessarily mean that bass heavy music sounds more balanced or better sounding. I still apply a bass bump EQ to my Ladytron music despite more burn-in time (though the bass has improved slightly).


Edited by miceblue - 9/17/11 at 2:44am
post #1604 of 3844
What's a rock track that you found to be somewhat off on the 940s without an amp?

I'll give it a listen and let you know if I feel the same way with and without an amp.

I'm also using a macbook (pro) currently.
post #1605 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robobandit View Post

What's a rock track that you found to be somewhat off on the 940s without an amp?

I'll give it a listen and let you know if I feel the same way with and without an amp.

I'm also using a macbook (pro) currently.


They probably aren't too big here but "Ulysses" - Franz Ferdinand and "届カナイ愛ト知ッテイタノニ抑エキレズニ愛シ続ケタ..." (todokanai ai to ****teita) - Gackt come to mind since I recently listened to them. "Here There & Everywhere" - Deems Tsutakawa (it's a jazz cover of the song, but I find the bass guitar hard to hear at the moment).

 

EDIT: it censored the Romaji translation todoka nai ai to shi-te

 


Edited by miceblue - 9/17/11 at 3:15am
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