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 140

post #2086 of 3844


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by baka1969 View Post

I'll say that comparing the HD800 and 940 isn't a fair comparison. The 940 is a closed can and sounds like it. The HD800 is open. The 940 has a mid bass hole the HD800 doesn't. The HD800 is more refined. The 940 is rough around the edges. The HD800 needs a quality amp. The 940 doesn't. The 940 does not compare to the HD800.


To be fare with the SRH-940 they are close but among the close back they have good soundstage and "rough around the edges" they are not with good source.

 

And for the records I could care less if they don't compare to the HD800.

 

post #2087 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post


Let me be precise.


These are the headphones I've heard:


Ultrasone Edition 10

Ultrasone Edition 8

Ultrasone Pro 900

LCD-2 (R2)

Sennheiser HD800

ATH-W5000

ATH-W1000X

Skullcandy Aviator

Skullcandy G.I.

Skullcandy Hesh

Skullcandy Icon

Shure SRH-940

Shure SRH-840

Sony ZX500

Sony XB700

Sony Piiq Q1

Dr. Dre Beats Studio

AKG K701

Grado MS1

Grado SR60i

Sennheiser PX200

Sennheiser HD 595

Jays v-Jays

 
Owned:

Beyerdynamic TESLA T5p

Audio Technica ATH-A2000X

STAX SR-404 Signature

Sony SA-5000

Sony MDR-V6

Sony PSP VoIP clip-ons

Koss PortaPro

Fostex T-5

Audio Technica ATH-ESW9....

 


...
Edit: I spent about 10~15 minutes on each one, and listened to classical, female vocal pop, and electronica.

10-15 minutes is hardly enough time to give an evaluation or to state definitively how two headphones compare. Nor an hour.

I could list all the cans I've listened to before but I'm not sure I'd state with assurance or write a review based upon some of the limited experiences I've had.
post #2088 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinster View Post



 


To be fare with the SRH-940 they are close but among the close back they have good soundstage and "rough around the edges" they are not with good source.

And for the records I could care less if they don't compare to the HD800.

Compared to the HD800, the 940 is a bit rough around the edges to me. As for my source and rig, anyone is free to judge for themselves if it's of quality or not. Just look at my sig. The Head-Fi'ers that have heard it haven't complained.
post #2089 of 3844

 

I will just add, for clarity, that if I actually owned the SRH-940 and HD800, my impressions would be more deep, and if I compared them with an iPod nano... or with a $500 tube amp, I'm sure my imperssions would then vary, too...

 

I use the T51 as my reference for 10 minute demo sessions, but rarely write any detailed reports after that.

 

When I get the EPH-O2 portable amp, that will probably improve my portable reference.

 

Everyone should be source critical, equipment used, music used, et cetera.

 

Thebigmehdi has mentioned his Xonar STX is his best source for the SRH-940, for example.

 

For long A/B sessions between the HD800 and SRH-940, only "oldshoe99" in this thread seems to have gone into depth comparing the two, and perhaps ra97zor, and now more recently baka1969.

 

A flagship is a flagship, compare the pinnacle sound of what the company is offering first, compare the price after, you should never compare the price first, and then the sound second.

 

You also have to take exotica into account in the price, Ultrasone Edition 10? Lots of exotica. Sony Z1000? Not so much. 940? Very little.

 

post #2090 of 3844


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by baka1969 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinster View Post



 


To be fare with the SRH-940 they are close but among the close back they have good soundstage and "rough around the edges" they are not with good source.

And for the records I could care less if they don't compare to the HD800.

Compared to the HD800, the 940 is a bit rough around the edges to me. As for my source and rig, anyone is free to judge for themselves if it's of quality or not. Just look at my sig. The Head-Fi'ers that have heard it haven't complained.


I was not trying to point out your source but my experience with the SRH-940. I notice ( as other too) that if you feed the Shure with low mp3 out of a portable player they can sound rough and lifeless but feed with Flac or better 24bits recording from a good source to a tube amplifier the sound smooth and musical with the genre I listen ( not HipHop obviously ) and this is to my ears. ( I have to admit that I'm not  too sensitive to high ) 

 

 

post #2091 of 3844

They sound better with 24bit music into a tube amp? Lol.

 

post #2092 of 3844

If I had to give a negative point on the Sh-940 is lately after longer listening session I'm getting more discomfort on the top of my head from the headband. Keeping in mind that I'm bald. 

post #2093 of 3844

x2, i get the pain at the top too....though its not a bare patch.

tongue_smile.gif

 

 

....and no matter how i close my eyes, the 940 could never remind me of the hd800.

confused_face_2.gif

 

 

i much prefer keeping comparisons between closed cans vs closed cans,

open vs open, iems vs iems. that way i dun go crazy, or drive the restoftheworldcrazy.

wink.gif

 

 

but if we musssssst mix things up, i would say the 940 is a cross between the clarity of the 702 with a tall w1000x soundstage...errr....add in the holographic d2000 imaging .lol.

deadhorse.gifdeadhorse.gifdeadhorse.gif

 

forget what i just wrote....just go and get a 940 and listen it for yourself.

popcorn.gif

 

post #2094 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by baka1969 View Post


Compared to the HD800, the 940 is a bit rough around the edges to me. As for my source and rig, anyone is free to judge for themselves if it's of quality or not. Just look at my sig. The Head-Fi'ers that have heard it haven't complained.


I actually found the 940 to be very smooth in the treble. Treble is elevated somewhat but it is very clean and smooth. On the other hand, I found the HD800 top to be a bit grainy and spiky. So "rough around the edges" I assume to mean not as refined, which would be correct, just considering the materials and construction are so different on each. The HD800 is like space age technology and the 940 is your usual moulded plastic. I always hear the sound of the material coming through in the music with moulded plastic. Having said that, I do find the 940 almost magical in its portrayal of detail and it's lack of bloat and overhang in the bass. I could also say the same thing about the HD800, the difference being that the HD800 does other things better.. 

 

post #2095 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twinster View Post

If I had to give a negative point on the Sh-940 is lately after longer listening session I'm getting more discomfort on the top of my head from the headband. Keeping in mind that I'm bald. 

Headband + Bald = Discomfort

Have you tried old socks or memory foam/sheep skin seat belt shoulder pad ?

313ZNNGMN2L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

 

post #2096 of 3844


Thanks for the tip biggrin.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by david1978jp View Post

Headband + Bald = Discomfort

Have you tried old socks or memory foam/sheep skin seat belt shoulder pad ?

313ZNNGMN2L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

 



 

post #2097 of 3844

Mr Baka, I believe no one here is implying that the 940 can do some of the same things technically the HD800 can.  But, it is fair to say that they share a similar sound signature as in they both present a very neutral, analytical type sound.


Edited by Digital-Pride - 11/6/11 at 9:34am
post #2098 of 3844


What's so funny to you? confused_face_2.gif I feed my MAD EAR HD with the DACmini and get good synergy result. basshead.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

They sound better with 24bit music into a tube amp? Lol.

 



 

post #2099 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital-Pride View Post

Mr Baka, I believe no one here is implying that the 940 can some of the same things technically the HD800 can.  But, it is fair to say that they share a similar sound signature as in they both present a very  neutral, analytical type sound.


I still don't get it? Obviously the 940s are a few leagues below the HD800s. I would put the HD600s in a just league below the HD800s and subsequently the SRH940s a league below the stellar HD600s. One is open, spacious and has the best sound stage of any headphone I've ever heard owned (confirmed by Purrin's awesome measurements), the other is a closed, bass-light headphone (which is weird for a closed headphone as they tend to be on the moar bass side of the equation) that is ok for under $300.

 

I've said it before, for the $, I thought the SRH840s were a better buy (and sounded slightly better to my ears). But there are some who would like to fool themselves into thinking these headphones are in the same league of today's flagship headphones....this is simply not true.

 

Image2.jpg

 

Sorry for the '80s references, but every time I've heard the SRH940s, this thought kept running past my mind. tongue.gif

 


Edited by MacedonianHero - 11/6/11 at 9:20am
post #2100 of 3844

Looks like I'm going to have to try these controversial pair of headphones myself.  Time to roll up the sleeves, get dirty and see er, rather hear what these buggers are all about!biggrin.gif


Edited by Digital-Pride - 11/6/11 at 9:53am
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