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 128

post #1906 of 3844

Yep - agree with Pratt here.  The highs aren't forward and not harsh.  Just emphasised (probably more apparent becuase of missing mid-bass).  I was really surprised how detailed they were without being sibilant or harsh.  And if anything is forward, it's the mids - forward, very warm and very nice.

 

Add some mid-bass and for me they would be a pretty good closed can.  Sadly without it, they still sound 'off' / unatural.

post #1907 of 3844

Well,  I  didn't say exactly that the high of shr940  were harsh, I  said they grab your attention on anything a bit harsh on the recordings;   at least much more than speakers, or the hd595. My  current interpretation of this is , that the highs are not smoother on the speakers or the hd595, they are just much forward on the srh940.  Also , the issue I'm talking about is much worse when listening from a realtek onboard soundcard, than with a xonar stx. There was a track almost unlistenable while using my onboard soundcard, that is at least enjoyable  when using my xonar stx.

The hd595 is perhaps an anomaly compared to other "hi fi" headphone, but i believe they shine  with  ambient music.
Try Brian Eno or whatever.

post #1908 of 3844

Here's a "smoothness" test, listen at this track on youtube (Imam Baildi - De Thelo Pia Na Xanarthis)
, things are getting worse near the first minute:

 


If I  listen to the same music with a hd595 , the hd595 just seems much more smoother and natural to me.

It's the just the percussion that are "naturally" not smooth (cymbals, maracas or whatever) , but  the srh940 brings too much of your attention on this. And in the case of youtube, you'll add the poor encoding.


Edited by extrabigmehdi - 10/26/11 at 7:54pm
post #1909 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

The issue I  got with the "harsh high" is I  realize because they are too much forward , and often recordings are naturally not completely "smooth" even if in lossless.

 

 

Not nitpicking - but here's your post from previous page.  And I read that as you saying the highs are harsh.  I still say they're not - it's just that they're a very revealing headphone.  If your source is not good (youtube) - the 940's won't hide it.

post #1910 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

 

Not nitpicking - but here's your post from previous page.  And I read that as you saying the highs are harsh.  I still say they're not - it's just that they're a very revealing headphone.  If your source is not good (youtube) - the 940's won't hide it.


Well, I  said before that  the high were harsh , but then I revised after this statement by saying that anything a bit harsh on a recording  is put forward by the srh940; sorry if that was confusing.  It's not only a problem of a "good  source", even when listening to some buddah bar compilations for instance, in lossless, I  notice from times to times,  that's it's not as smooth as you could hope. Not because the srh940 add new harsh materials, but because it makes anything not smooth obvious.

 

post #1911 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John In Cali View Post

Second the 940 doesn't lack bass like i thought it would, when i first auditioned it at Samash i agreed with the lack of bass, but now that i have them myself and MalVeauX said their was 36 hours of burn-in they seem to have proper amounts of bass even beating my K240 in amount, and this is coming from a XB500 owner. And very detailed and extensive bass.

 

I've been listening to my 940 for a couple of weeks and I totally agree with them not being bass-light. I think they have the proper amount of bass (at least for me)

Previously I thought I was a basshead, but when I compare the 940 to my Ultrasone Pro 750 I think the Ultrasones sounds a bit bloated, and I actually prefer the bass of the 940s. Maybe I'm just getting older... but for me the Shure 940 is simply the best headphone I've owned (yet).

post #1912 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by medic View Post

 

 

I've been listening to my 940 for a couple of weeks and I totally agree with them not being bass-light. I think they have the proper amount of bass (at least for me)

Previously I thought I was a basshead, but when I compare the 940 to my Ultrasone Pro 750 I think the Ultrasones sounds a bit bloated, and I actually prefer the bass of the 940s. Maybe I'm just getting older... but for me the Shure 940 is simply the best headphone I've owned (yet).


I also have the Ultrasone Pro 750.  I agree that the bass, actually the mid and upper bass, is bloated.  But I use parametric equalizer software to de-bloat the bass, boost the very low bass, remove the 7.5kHz spike, and make a number of other changes in the midrange and high end.  I now think the Ultrasone Pro 750 sound is wonderful.  Actually, I haven't heard any phones that cannot be subtantially improved with EQ.  I will probably buy the Shure 940 given the favorable comments about them.  From the comments, the 940 seems to have the sound balance that I prefer.  And the clamping force of the Shure 940 may be softer than that of the Ultrasones.  Because I wear glasses, strong clamping force can be uncomfortable after a while.
 

For all my phones, I boost the low bass.  I usually begin the boost around 30-50Hz, depending on the phones, reaching a peak of around 5-15dB at 20Hz.  For my Ultrasones, the boost at 20Hz is about 12-13dB.  I am not a basshead.  I boost the low bass because, on well recorded material, the boost gives more air and realism to the mids and highs.  For example, the human voice becomes more real, more palpable, and more airy with the low boost.  I'm not sure why this is the case.  Neither the male nor female voice has frequency components this low.  And the lower audible frequencies of the human voice do not sound boosted--perhaps because there are no frequency components of the human voice in the low bass.  But the voice sounds more real, palpable, and airy with the low bass boost.  Violins and other instruments in the mid to high frequencies also sound more real, palpable, and airy with the low bass boost.  If I get the Shure 940s, I will try the low bass boost on them.

 

My taste in music is classical, Broadway, and folk.  I do not listen to music with huge low bass, except for organ music where I take care not to overdrive the phones.

post #1913 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

Here's a "smoothness" test, listen at this track on youtube (Imam Baildi - De Thelo Pia Na Xanarthis)
, things are getting worse near the first minute:

 


 



That video (music) is what the HM-601 sounds like, just FYI.

 

 

post #1914 of 3844

I just got my paycheck today for $400 and i want to buy the srh940. How good are they for metal? Hows the durability? Are they comfortable? Thanks

post #1915 of 3844

 

Hi bcasey.

 

I didn't listen to metal on them but I bet vocals will stand out well, and the guitars should have some nice bite... wish I had checked :( Oh well, I'd love to hear Versailles and stuff like that on the SRH-940, maybe later.

 

,Merry Christmas

post #1916 of 3844

I need more information if i am going to purchase them.

post #1917 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

Yep - agree with Pratt here.  The highs aren't forward and not harsh.  Just emphasised (probably more apparent becuase of missing mid-bass).  I was really surprised how detailed they were without being sibilant or harsh.  And if anything is forward, it's the mids - forward, very warm and very nice.

 

Add some mid-bass and for me they would be a pretty good closed can.  Sadly without it, they still sound 'off' / unatural

The main thing i dislike about the srh840 is the midbass and 9khz spike. I also hated the lack of treble. Looking at frequency graphs the srh940 looks perfect for me. They seem to have fixed the main issues.

post #1918 of 3844

 

840 is "???" 940 is "!!!"

post #1919 of 3844
I think the 940 is a fairly versatile closed can. It works well with many genres.
post #1920 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

I just got my paycheck today for $400 and i want to buy the srh940. How good are they for metal? Hows the durability? Are they comfortable? Thanks



I can't attest to their performance with metal, but I do find them to be incredibly comfortable, with a perfect clamp that prevents the sliding issue I had with my 840's without being too tight, like my Pro 750's.  They're also very light.  The durability isn't the best, though - the cable used across the SRH line is pretty rubbish, but they're replaceable and $15 on Sweetwater.  My SRH840 cable shorted out after about a year of use, which puts it a step above consumer-level headphone cables but still well below what I'd expect from something in its price range - it's the only high-end headphone cable I've actually had break on me.  Also, on that note, the 940 is the only high-end headphone I've ever had break on me; I was trying to get it around my neck quickly as someone was talking to me and the retractable bit of the headband snapped.  This happened a few weeks ago, but I just sent them off for repair today because I got Edition 8's and was feeling lazy about going to UPS.  I'm not anticipating any issues dealing with Shure.

 

For all these complaints, HOWEVER, if I were to get mugged for my Edition 8's, my 940's would be my go-to portable again.  They really are comfortable and quite detailed.  Shure's midrange also mates wonderfully with my HM601, I actually miss it sometimes while listening to my Edition 8's.

 

Do you have an amp?  I always felt my 940's needed one more than the 840's, lest they sound too clinical.

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