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 152

post #2266 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by achristilaw View Post

  The balance of this phone is for Acoustic and not for amplified Music (IMO).


This severely restrict the range of musics good for the srh940. This would mean they are mostly good for classical ?

I like them for industrial too (nine inch nails, rammstein, marylin manson...). I  could also include massive attack  which is kind of electronic trip hop.

Quote:
SYNERGY...of mating components is important (some conclude MOST important) in Audio


So what, for you, offers a "good synergy", and at an affordable price  (<300$) with the srh940?

 

Quote:
Brass has proper bite

If you mean the "transient response", sometimes it seems to me that it is exaggerated (at least with the xonar stx)  to the point of sounding sometimes artificial. It's just like a picture that is over-sharpened : it looks more detailed, but it doesn't look natural. Coming from the hd595, to the srh940, is a shocking experience, I was used to something smooth, and now I have something intolerant to anything  just a bit harsh. At the end, I think I prefer something that offers some nice euphony, i.e pleasantness of sounds, rather than an emphasis on details.

post #2267 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by achristilaw View Post

  Your not going to EQ your way to bliss people. Neutrality is just that....neutral! These are quite neutral! Neutral in a transducer means you can discern the rest of the chains performance far easier.

 

Spot on.  

 

And so many headphones are actually "sound shapers". You can change source and gear parts and these headphones will still sound like you did nothing. Having said that, I do feel that the 940 makes everything sound sweet, clear and open.due to the tipped up top. But it's relative neutrality through the bass and midrange will show up differences in recordings in that FR range. I find it a bit too revealing in the top end.

 

Maybe too many of us simply can't handle the truth and prefer a headphone that sounds "right" with all recordings.

post #2268 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle View Post

 

I find it a bit too revealing in the top end.

Comparing with  the hd595, the difference is huge.

Quote:
Maybe too many of us simply can't handle the truth and prefer a headphone that sounds "right" with all recordings.

So tell me , why it's supposed to be truth. For once I  would then agree with the adage that "truth hurts".

post #2269 of 3844
Quote:Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

 

Quote:

Comparing with  the hd595, the difference is huge.

 

595 and 598 have no upper treble.

 

 

 

Quote:
So tell me , why it's supposed to be truth. For once I  would then agree with the adage that "truth hurts".

confused_face_2.gif



 

post #2270 of 3844

@Beagle
The hd595 have  "no upper treble" ? That's not a bit exaggerated ? That doesn't seem obvious when I  compare frequency responses.

graphCompare.php?graphType=0&graphID[]=3101&graphID[]=3041

About my "truth hurts" comment, maybe I  didn't understand what you meant by "many of us simply can't handle the truth" . If you meant that the srh940 are quite revealing on top and hence people can't "handle the truth" that  it is the recordings that are harsh and not the fault of the headphones ; then I'll answer that on some supposed "relaxing" music, the percussions, or anything slightly harsh makes me cringe with the srh940 .


Edited by extrabigmehdi - 11/25/11 at 8:02am
post #2271 of 3844

There's no doubt that the SRH940 can reveal a song that sounds horrible, with either scratching, siblant notes, or compression artifacts, whereas on an HD650 those flaws are well hidden. However the very thing that allows you to hear those flaws makes it better to hear subtle details you want to hear in a song.

 

And yes it's not really possible to directly compare an HD650 with an SRH940, but it is sort of. My evaluation is simply that the HD650 is best for easy listening and the SRH940 for critical listening, but that should be obvious. Each have strengths and weaknesses over the other. I have yet to hear someone say the SRH940 has inferior highs and mids to just about anything under $900, certainly not an HD650. Anyone care to comment on that?

post #2272 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by ac500 View Post

There's no doubt that the SRH940 can reveal a song that sounds horrible, with either scratching, siblant notes, or compression artifacts, whereas on an HD650 those flaws are well hidden. However the very thing that allows you to hear those flaws makes it better to hear subtle details you want to hear in a song.

If your car vibrate, with any little flaw  encountered on the road, would you blame the shock absorbers of your car, or the road ?

Quote:

My evaluation is simply that the HD650 is best for easy listening and the SRH940 for critical listening,

ok, but  If I'm not mistaken, people like the  hd650  for critical listening too.

 

post #2273 of 3844

Quote:

Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

If your car vibrate, with any little flaw  encountered on the road, would you blame the shock absorbers of your car, or the road ?

I'm not sure what answer you were expecting, but it depends. I drive a sports car with stiff, athletic suspension, because that suspension lets the car handle beautifully, stick to the road tenaciously, and resist body movements in high-g situations. And on good roads it also coddles brilliantly.

 

On some rough roads it is rougher but tolerable to me, but some might not like it. So there I blame my car, because I knew what I was getting into it, and I'm willing to accept it as a trade-off.

 

However, a few of the roads around here are deplorable and embarrassing, and on those it isn't fun. It's bad. So there I blame the road, because I'm getting more debris and washboard texture than what I think is acceptable for any road.
 

I could drive a soft boat that smooths out the bumps on the rough roads and even the embarrassing crap roads, but the tradeoffs -- poor handling, body roll like a lazy dog, no feel at all -- would be unacceptable to me.

post #2274 of 3844

 

So has anyone in this thread bought the KRK Systems KNS 6400 to compare to the SRH-940 yet?

 

 

I like that it has a detachable 3.5mm jack, whereas the Shure jack is proprietary...

 

MalVeaux said the KNS 6400 has "weak bass" but he is a bass lover so I'm looking for more impressions, and personally if I have to sacrifice bass, mids or highs in a headphone it's the bass out the window first for me, you know "r" shaped sound, 'v" and "n" shaped sound suck.

 

post #2275 of 3844

> If your car vibrate, with any little flaw  encountered on the road, would you blame the shock absorbers of your car, or the road ?

 

If you must use this analogy, sportscars do need stiff suspension, and you do feel flaws in the road with this. The SRH940 is like a corvette - fast, speedy, but sometimes uncomfortable. The HD650 is like a luxury sedan - fairly fast, buttery smooth, and extremely comfortable.

 

But really cars are not at all a good analogy to headphones. Headphones sole purpose is to reproduce the input signal for your ears to hear. A car is not meant to reproduce the bumps in the road for your butt to feel, it's meant solely as some form of transportation. The goals of each are so entirely different, any analogy regarding function simply doesn't work with them.

 

A better analogy would be a TV that blurs everything so you don't see compression artifacts from badly compressed DVDs or static from analog TV.

 

Feel free to try other analogies, but if you're going to make a point on the topic of detail vs. smoothness, make sure your item of analogy is appropriately a device of conveying an input signal to one of the human senses.

 

> ok, but  If I'm not mistaken, people like the  hd650  for critical listening too.

 
Sure, they're great headphones for everything, the SRH940 is simply better when it comes to detail reproduction. The HD650 comes close when you equalize it carefully, but it's simply not able to reveal at all subtle sounds the SRH940 does.

Edited by ac500 - 11/25/11 at 10:58am
post #2276 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by ac500 View Post

 

A better analogy would be a TV that blurs everything so you don't see compression artifacts from badly compressed DVDs or static from analog TV.

 

Ok, my point is that having "more details" doesn't means always "better" or at least more faithful to the source.
Here below, an other analogy with the sharpening tool of photoshop (click on thumbnail to see better ).  I'm tempted to put the srh940 between B & C (while I  guess the hd650 would be between A & B). Off course you see on C , the best details, but it looks fake too.

snail.jpg

post #2277 of 3844

Quote:

Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

Ok, my point is that having "more details" doesn't means always "better" or at least more faithful to the source.
Here below, an other analogy with the sharpening tool of photoshop (click on thumbnail to see better ).  I'm tempted to put the srh940 between B & C (while I  guess the hd650 would be between A & B). Off course you see on C , the best details, but it looks fake too.

"Etched."
 

 

post #2278 of 3844

The analog to a sharpening effect is exaggerated treble - it cannot add information but only makes it appear more sharp. I'm not talking about that.

 

If you boost the treble on the HD650, it's still less detailed than a SRH940 with treble reduced. The SRH940 has more truly detailed highs and upper mids than the HD650. By boosting the HD650's highs you can get that fake impression of exaggerated detail, but it doesn't fix the missing details vs. the SRH940. In other words, you will hear things in a treble-reduced SRH940 that you cannot hear in even a treble-boosted HD650.

 

True detail is the ability to present all the little subtleties in music. This is *always* good, because it's pretty much the definition of hi-fi audio. The SRH940 is simply higher fidelity in this respect than the HD650 because it can present more subtle details the HD650 simply won't reproduce at all (it's physically too slow). Yeah it may come at a cost (not as smooth or pleasant sounding as the HD650 in some cases, particularly with bad recordings), but facts are facts.

 

I still prefer the HD650s for a lot though, just because they're very nice and easy to listen to, and have almost the detail of the SRH940. In short: HD650 = extremely good deep lows through upper mids. SRH940 = extremely good upper mids through highs.


Edited by ac500 - 11/25/11 at 1:49pm
post #2279 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by ac500 View Post

I still prefer the HD650s for a lot though, just because they're very nice and easy to listen to, and have almost the detail of the SRH940.

In the end that's all that matters. I  prefer the hd595,  just because they are "easy to listen" too  (although I'm aware I  miss something from the srh940).

 

post #2280 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

If your car vibrate, with any little flaw  encountered on the road, would you blame the shock absorbers of your car, or the road ?

 


If my headphone drivers vibrated when excited by dynamics or level changes, I'd blame the headphones. Otherwise, the analogy makes no sense.

 

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