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 133

post #1981 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan S View Post

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. 

 


Yeah, but who would want to turn the clear, articulate SRH 940 into a muffled, warm, flattened dynamics type of can? I hear things on the 940 that are masked on other headphones. Am I not supposed to hear this stuff?

 

post #1982 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post


           Or not biggrin.gif.



True.

post #1983 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldshoe99 View Post

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.



Do you  mind me asking - which DAC you using from your computer, and which amp? 

 

post #1984 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle View Post


Yeah, but who would want to turn the clear, articulate SRH 940 into a muffled, warm, flattened dynamics type of can? I hear things on the 940 that are masked on other headphones. Am I not supposed to hear this stuff?

 

 

That was my impression.

 

Over the course of owning them my opinion went from

 

WOW I CAN HEAR EVERYTHING,

 

to

 

I really don't think I'm supposed to be hearing that!

 

Honestly I got the impression that I was hearing things that the recording engineer didn't a lot of the time. And it wasn't because they were super hi fidelity, but that the combination of forward upper mids and slightly laid back bass gave it a somewhat peculiar presentation towards music, for better or worse.


Edited by 200poundsofamp - 11/3/11 at 7:22pm
post #1985 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldshoe99 View Post

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.
 

 

What do you think the 940 does better than the Senn? Just curious, since I've heard both of them too, very limited listening but IIRC I didn't get any noteworthy sensation from vocals or layering on the HD800.

 

 

 

 

 

post #1986 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 

 

What do you think the 940 does better than the Senn? Just curious, since I've heard both of them too, very limited listening but IIRC I didn't get any noteworthy sensation from vocals or layering on the HD800.

 

 

 

 

 


I don't think the 940 does anything better than the Senn 800. I could have missed any number of things, but so far I haven't heard anything on the 940 that sounds better.

OTOH, I have heard some instrumental timbre here and there on the Grado PS-500 that sounds slightly more real than the 940 or 800, but of course that PS-500 comes with its own special, umm, characteristics, so I don't see it as comparable to the other headphones generally.
post #1987 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post


           Or not biggrin.gif.



Exactly. When it doesn't happen with speakers costing thousands to tens of thousands, it's not going to happen with the play toys that frankly, all cans/IEMs truly are (not that they don't have their place, but come on...I don't personally know any serious audiophiles who spend real money on them, hence one reason I haven't heard $500+ cans let alone 1k+ ones). They are for when you can't listen to speakers (like when you live in too small of a house or can't afford sound deadening for a listening room) and have to really compromise, which, luckily, I do not 80% of the time (hence another reason I have no need for "better" crazy expensive small drivers held together by plastic and metal...a few hundred for that is insane as it is, the profit margin is huge).

 

The speaker/can analogy holds, especially because the platitude that you "gets whats you pays for" is universally false/simplistic and only for those who don't know how to shop/research well, are irrational (too emotive/gullible/ignorant), and like to waste money no matter how much they have (it's still waste! send it to charity at least instead of just throwing it away!). There is no valid argument against this, let alone the petty fallacies of anecdotal/personal testimony (when tested blind the "quality differences due to price" with cans would disappear after a certain fairly low point, just like with the dozens of speakers I--and many others--have heard blind...not to mention all sorts of other gear from amps to dacs to cdp etc.), the end. cool.gif


Edited by Pratt - 11/3/11 at 9:36pm
post #1988 of 3844

Yeah, exactly. There's nothing wrong with the treble on the 940s -- it's very detailed and sounds nice -- it's just too strong compared to other frequencies. Ideally, the treble would sound exactly the same, but other frequencies would be louder than they are now.

 

That said, I still think these are better headphones than any full-sized, closed headphones in its price range. Just not open headphones.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 200poundsofamp View Post

 

That was my impression.

 

Over the course of owning them my opinion went from

 

WOW I CAN HEAR EVERYTHING,

 

to

 

I really don't think I'm supposed to be hearing that!

 

Honestly I got the impression that I was hearing things that the recording engineer didn't a lot of the time. And it wasn't because they were super hi fidelity, but that the combination of forward upper mids and slightly laid back bass gave it a somewhat peculiar presentation towards music, for better or worse.



 

post #1989 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post





Do you  mind me asking - which DAC you using from your computer, and which amp? 

 


Ooh - I didn't see this. I don't keep fancy stuff with me since I'm on the go all the time, but when I'm in the East I go to my brother's house (his mansion, actually) and do the serious tests there. But I don't think he has those DAC things because he uses a turntable. His turntable costs more than my truck, and that's saying something because my truck has those double back wheels. Amazing stuff. The analog really is revealing - I think that's the right word. Out West I go to my GF's place, and she has DAC's galore - so much wiring in the place it's like a rat's nest. I don't mess with that stuff - just plug it in. If you want my opinion, the digital stuff is more sterile sounding than analog, but the funny part is, whatever comparison I make at my bro's house (mansion), it still holds true at the digital house. Only more cold and sterile.
post #1990 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratt View Post

Exactly. When it doesn't happen with speakers costing thousands to tens of thousands, it's not going to happen with the play toys that frankly, all cans/IEMs truly are (not that they don't have their place, but come on...I don't personally know any serious audiophiles who spend real money on them, hence one reason I haven't heard $500+ cans let alone 1k+ ones). They are for when you can't listen to speakers (like when you live in too small of a house or can't afford sound deadening for a listening room) and have to really compromise, which, luckily, I do not 80% of the time (hence another reason I have no need for "better" crazy expensive small drivers held together by plastic and metal...a few hundred for that is insane as it is, the profit margin is huge).

 

The speaker/can analogy holds, especially because the platitude that you "gets whats you pays for" is universally false/simplistic and only for those who don't know how to shop/research well, are irrational (too emotive/gullible/ignorant), and like to waste money no matter how much they have (it's still waste! send it to charity at least instead of just throwing it away!). There is no valid argument against this, let alone the petty fallacies of anecdotal/personal testimony (when tested blind the "quality differences due to price" with cans would disappear after a certain fairly low point, just like with the dozens of speakers I--and many others--have heard blind...not to mention all sorts of other gear from amps to dacs to cdp etc.), the end. cool.gif



Interesting viewpoint... so what is your point? Are you saying the Shure SRH-940 + $1000 on a stereo receiver and speakers, is better than the HD800?

 

 

post #1991 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan S View Post

Yeah, exactly. There's nothing wrong with the treble on the 940s -- it's very detailed and sounds nice -- it's just too strong compared to other frequencies. Ideally, the treble would sound exactly the same, but other frequencies would be louder than they are now.

 

That said, I still think these are better headphones than any full-sized, closed headphones in its price range. Just not open headphones.

 



 

Are you sure?

graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=3101
Except for a spike at 9khz it still recesses by a good 5 db. Why do people on this site hate treble so much. Boosted treble would be above 0db. The treble on these look rather flat and neutral (TRUE NEUTRAL)

 

And guys there is still boasted midbass. By about 3db. There is no neutral to some people and colored to others. Neutral is a straight line.

 

This graph shows a recession in sub bass, flat mids, slightly boasted midbass, and recessed treble. I really need to question the merit of people on here about their knowledge on audio and how it should sound.

 

 

I would also like to point out that the shure srh840 is a colored bass heavy headphone.


Edited by bcasey25raptor - 11/4/11 at 12:15am
post #1992 of 3844

  Anyone have a Yamamoto HA-02? You have to pair them with the 940's....auditory ambrosia. Put a yummy Yammy in the loop! Great amp for easy to drive phones and the performance of both do mesh (read: flatter) and suit each other to a "T". This is for the non-"EQ'd" bunch that enjoy the sound of actual acoustic instruments. 

 

  Strings on mass or anything with a reed bundled together? Wow! The Bass is a non-issue because it suits the rest of the headphone's traits, and is properly folded and balanced with in the sound portrait. Not for Bass-Heads! It resists being anything other than neutral..... Not bright, just a well lit acoustic interior! 

 

  

 

  

post #1993 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

Are you sure?

graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=3101
Except for a spike at 9khz it still recesses by a good 5 db. Why do people on this site hate treble so much. Boosted treble would be above 0db. The treble on these look rather flat and neutral (TRUE NEUTRAL)

 

And guys there is still boasted midbass. By about 3db. There is no neutral to some people and colored to others. Neutral is a straight line.

 

This graph shows a recession in sub bass, flat mids, slightly boasted midbass, and recessed treble. I really need to question the merit of people on here about their knowledge on audio and how it should sound.

 

 

I would also like to point out that the shure srh840 is a colored bass heavy headphone.


Interesting Casey - and you've actually heard the SRH940 have you?

 

Because most people who are calling them bass light and treble heavy (including myself) have actually spent time with them.  Suggest you actually demo them - then you could maybe rethink above statements rolleyes.gif

 

And I for one wouldn't call the SRH 840 bass heavy - yes it has a mid-bass hump - but bass heavy ..... no.

post #1994 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post


Interesting Casey - and you've actually heard the SRH940 have you?

 

Because most people who are calling them bass light and treble heavy (including myself) have actually spent time with them.  Suggest you actually demo them - then you could maybe rethink above statements rolleyes.gif

 

And I for one wouldn't call the SRH 840 bass heavy - yes it has a mid-bass hump - but bass heavy ..... no.


MId bass heavy not sub bass heavy. And i will be trying the shure srh940. I am buying a pair. I was pointing out that unless the graph is wrong the treble is not colored and the mid bass is neutral.

 

post #1995 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post


MId bass heavy not sub bass heavy. And i will be trying the shure srh940. I am buying a pair. I was pointing out that unless the graph is wrong the treble is not colored and the mid bass is neutral.

 


 

You said "bass-heavy" - that's what I responded to .......

 

And if you are going to try the 940's I'll be interested in your impressions.  Very warm forward mids, well extended sub-bass, recessed mid-bass, very extended and detailed highs - I would call them very coloured - warm with a dryish (but not grainy) top-end.  With all the emphasis on the top end - and missing mid-bass - they give the impression of being a little bass light.

 

Hardly what you described in your graph/text.  But then again I owned them ....

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