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 132

post #1966 of 3844

Hey Baka I did the Blue Tak mod in the SRH-940 and notice some improvement with the Bass but just slightly. How would you explain the phenomenon? More bass due to smaller volume in the cup? Normally to get bass we would have to let the driver breathe more by opening the port on the front baffle.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by baka1969 View Post

Just curious, has anyone tried the mod yet? Please report your impressions.


 

 

post #1967 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinster View Post

Hey Baka I did the Blue Tak mod in the SRH-940 and notice some improvement with the Bass but just slightly. How would you explain the phenomenon? More bass due to smaller volume in the cup? Normally to get bass we would have to let the driver breathe more by opening the port on the front baffle.

 



I wish I could explain it. I've noticed the bass gets about 25% closer to the bass of the 840. Note I didn't say the bass was 25% better overall but closer to the 840.
post #1968 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post


There's one user on head-fi with a lot of high-end headphones and multi-thousand speakers and he thinks the SRH-940 and T5p are the best portable headphones there are, he compiled a list and those two are in the top.

 

I'm not really into full-size headphones, but I also think the T5p and SRH-940 are in the cream of the crop of what I've heard.

 

I'd happily use the SRH-940 instead of my previous STAX SR-404 Signature, for example.

 

 

Yeah, I don't know about them being "poor sounding". I'd like to know what that was about, I'm sure there's something to it. I guess I can see where he's coming from if he's looking for the most natural sound possible instead of something detail oriented or with a hifi flavor, but they sounded pretty good to me.

I prefered the 840 in the end, but there was a lot to like about the 940... clearer upper mids and treble, better imaging, better extension on both ends were the big things.


 

 

post #1969 of 3844
I think I've come to the conclusion that despite what some have claimed, the 940 isn't in the same league as flagship headphones like the HD800. If anyone thinks they are then good for you. You're lucky. The thing is, however, the Shure 940, although a very good headphone and worth the typical street prices are not in competition with the $1k high-end flagship offerings. Suggesting that the 940 does compete with them is misleading and I truly believe a disservice to the community.
post #1970 of 3844

Frankly I  found that using frequency response from headroom as a help for eq-ing the hd595 & srh940, makes the gap between the two headphone, much smaller (at least while using xonar stx as source). Remain that the hd595 are just more smooth/ relaxing for me, while the srh940 are attention grabbing on the percussions , background noises, transients, which can be sometimes fatiguing or great depending if you want to focus your attention on music, or do an other activity and listen to music at the same time  . Now listening some Buddah Bar while browsing/ working on pc , and I  prefer the hd595 in this case.

post #1971 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by baka1969 View Post

I think I've come to the conclusion that despite what some have claimed, the 940 isn't in the same league as flagship headphones like the HD800. If anyone thinks they are then good for you. You're lucky. The thing is, however, the Shure 940, although a very good headphone and worth the typical street prices are not in competition with the $1k high-end flagship offerings. Suggesting that the 940 does compete with them is misleading and I truly believe a disservice to the community.


I agree partly, in that those that cost 4 times as much as the 940 had better sound that much better!

 

But...

 

Although I haven't heard any cans over $500 retail, I've had, have, and have heard speakers from $300 to thousands to 10k+ (as I mentioned earlier itt) and the cost to performance ratio is largely over exaggerated, especially when tested blind.

 

On the whole, the more expensive the speaker the better...but only to a point. After a few thousand or 5k tops, they just don't get much if even any better and there are some that cost thousands even 10k+ that just don't sound very good. Some that I (and my audio group) even preferred good $300 to $700 speakers better than. There is great stuff at low prices and real crap at high prices and at a low/mid point it's pretty much as good as it gets.

 

So it would be dishonest to not let people know when very expensive gear just doesn't sound good or at least any better than gear that cost 1/4 to 1/3 of the price. I'm not saying that's the case with the 940's (it would be interesting to have them tested blind with a group of much more expensive cans though), but it is the case with dozens of speakers and I'm sure holds true with a least some cans. There is at least a point in which it just doesn't get any better, not even in the sense of just a little bit better for a lot more, but in the sense of we've reached the ceiling no matter how much more is spent.

 

Jmo.


Edited by Pratt - 11/2/11 at 11:30am
post #1972 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratt View Post

So it would be dishonest to not let people know when very expensive gear just doesn't sound good or at least any better than gear that cost 1/4 to 1/3 of the price.[...]There is at least a point in which it just doesn't get any better, not even in the sense of just a little bit better for a lot more, but in the sense of we've reached the ceiling no matter how much more is spent.

I  thought before, that price increase exponentially with sound quality (or reverse:  sound quality increase logarithmically with price) , but even that is not obvious when I  see people unhappy with expensive options in the forum.
 

post #1973 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

I  thought before, that price increase exponentially with sound quality (or reverse:  sound quality increase logarithmically with price) , but even that is not obvious when I  see people unhappy with expensive options in the forum.

 


I think part of the "unhappiness" is just the nature of the beast. We're all chasing ghosts towards audio perfection. We all know it doesn't exist but we strive for it all the same.

That said, if the Shure 940 were priced at the same level as, say, the Senn HD800 it would be a disappointment IMHO. The HD800, HE500, LCD2 and the others are all being compared to each other in it's class. The 940, in it's price range I think does hold up and is a good value. I just think trying to compare the Shure to a headphone 4x it's price is not just. Even with diminishing returns taken into account.
Edited by baka1969 - 11/2/11 at 3:54pm
post #1974 of 3844


I  wanted to add, that I'm quite satisfied, with the last eq I   have posted posted. On my extensive listening, it works well.
 

29e35b2e_corrected-eq.jpeg

The only things I've changed, in the settings , is now I  use the mode "analog phase" instead of "linear phase" , I  prefer the one called analog.
Note: for optimal results, I  decrease  first volume in the dsp chain of  foobar,  to avoid any clipping.


Edited by extrabigmehdi - 11/2/11 at 4:51pm
post #1975 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratt View Post



I agree partly, in that those that cost 4 times as much as the 940 had better sound that much better!

 

But...

 

Although I haven't heard any cans over $500 retail, I've had, have, and have heard speakers from $300 to thousands to 10k+ (as I mentioned earlier itt) and the cost to performance ratio is largely over exaggerated, especially when tested blind.

 

On the whole, the more expensive the speaker the better...but only to a point. After a few thousand or 5k tops, they just don't get much if even any better and there are some that cost thousands even 10k+ that just don't sound very good. Some that I (and my audio group) even preferred good $300 to $700 speakers better than. There is great stuff at low prices and real crap at high prices and at a low/mid point it's pretty much as good as it gets.

 

So it would be dishonest to not let people know when very expensive gear just doesn't sound good or at least any better than gear that cost 1/4 to 1/3 of the price. I'm not saying that's the case with the 940's (it would be interesting to have them tested blind with a group of much more expensive cans though), but it is the case with dozens of speakers and I'm sure holds true with a least some cans. There is at least a point in which it just doesn't get any better, not even in the sense of just a little bit better for a lot more, but in the sense of we've reached the ceiling no matter how much more is spent.

 

Jmo.



Please listen for yourself before making such extrapolations. smile.gif

 

You might be surprised. evil_smiley.gif

post #1976 of 3844

This is a very informative thread.  I'm intrigued by these cans.

post #1977 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post

You might be surprised. evil_smiley.gif


           Or not biggrin.gif.

post #1978 of 3844

I was going to, but then my iPod's treble reducer plus the ALO Continental seem to have solved the problem.

 

I still might try the mod. Plugging the 940s into my BlackBerry reminds me how trebly and non-midbassy these cans can be. And I like trying new music before buying by streaming through the BB's Rdio app.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by baka1969 View Post

Just curious, has anyone tried the mod yet? Please report your impressions.


 

post #1979 of 3844

I've never heard the HD800s, but I have spent years with the HD650s and almost a year with the D7000s. I don't think that the 940s are in either's league.

 

The HD650s and D7000s simply have better frequency balances, first and foremost. If you reduce the treble and increase the midbass of the 940s, and get rid of the subtle dryness, they'd be close, maybe just as good. There's a lot that they do right, especially for a closed headphone, but I think they're priced correctly.

 

For me, the big advantage of the 940s is that they isolate so well. The D7000s basically do not isolate. Last I checked, for a closed headphone at work, my next step up from the 940s would be a W5000 or Ultrasone Ed8, but I'm not spending $1000+ for a work headphone. The 940s do their job well for me.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by baka1969 View Post

I think I've come to the conclusion that despite what some have claimed, the 940 isn't in the same league as flagship headphones like the HD800. If anyone thinks they are then good for you. You're lucky. The thing is, however, the Shure 940, although a very good headphone and worth the typical street prices are not in competition with the $1k high-end flagship offerings. Suggesting that the 940 does compete with them is misleading and I truly believe a disservice to the community.


 

post #1980 of 3844
I would not say that the 940 is in the same class as the HD800, but they sound very similar. The only two things that stand out to me after much comparison with desktop computer and headphone amp are:
The 800 has a bigger soundstage.
The 800 has better detail in the upper harmonics.

Other differences are there of course, but I don't hear them as very significant.
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