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 158

post #2356 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by electropop View Post

Essentially yes, but I'm not an expert. Always thought of it as some sort of a buffering mechanism, but I must study more. 

 

Thought this one had an impact in one setup which I tried it: http://www.firestone-audio.eu/shop/products/allproductslisted/bravo.php

If nothing else, at least 24/96 is a plus to some. 


That one looks very similiar to the Teralink X2 I linked earlier.

 

It feels good to seperate components, but I'm a bit unsure of using more than 1 clock, and any form of buffering (latency), I guess when listening to music latency is ok, but with anything involving a microphone, instrument, or audiovisual (like watching sports or playing games), then latency/lag can become very annoying, even if it's only a 50th of a second. For the most part ASIO can fix it.

 

 

post #2357 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle View Post



All the pro recording mags love the SRH-940. But what the hell would recording engineers know about the way recordings should sound? We know way better because we have other headphones to compare them to. And that's all that matters right? rolleyes.gif



Wait, are you being sarcastic or serious?  I can't seem to tell.tongue_smile.gif

post #2358 of 3844

I haven't heard them, but they look absolutely identical to Sennheiser HD380s. (They even have the same carrying case!)

I wonder if one is just a rebranded version of the other and, if so, which came first?

post #2359 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsndogs View Post

I haven't heard them, but they look absolutely identical to Sennheiser HD380s. (They even have the same carrying case!)

I wonder if one is just a rebranded version of the other and, if so, which came first?

Shure doesn't need to rebrand Sennheiser headphones, it's nonsense.

post #2360 of 3844

 

but monoprice does and you can get the Sennheiser IE6 for $7 USD, according to the latest hype train.

post #2361 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital-Pride View Post

Wait, are you being sarcastic or serious?  I can't seem to tell.tongue_smile.gif


I thought it was fairly obvious, what with the rolleyes.gif inserted at the end..

 

post #2362 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 

but monoprice does and you can get the Sennheiser IE6 for $7 USD, according to the latest hype train.

I  made a search  to ensure you were not kidding .... Incredible. wink_face.gif
 

 

post #2363 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle View Post


I thought it was fairly obvious, what with the rolleyes.gif inserted at the end..

 


Right you are!  I guess my sarcasm detector needs a bit of fine tuning.tongue.gif

 

post #2364 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post


That one looks very similiar to the Teralink X2 I linked earlier.

 

It feels good to seperate components, but I'm a bit unsure of using more than 1 clock, and any form of buffering (latency), I guess when listening to music latency is ok, but with anything involving a microphone, instrument, or audiovisual (like watching sports or playing games), then latency/lag can become very annoying, even if it's only a 50th of a second. For the most part ASIO can fix it.

 

 


Sorry! The term I meant to use was "jitter". Dejittering is what it does and I think it shows clearly in measurements as well. ASIO is different and mainly bypasses any OS inbuilt mixers and reduces latency. ASIO is really important for XP-users, in audiophile terms. Windows 7 is much better at audio though. 

 

Buffer is not required, though it's possible to completely get rid of jitter (at least almost) if you had a good signal processor / clock and give it some time, so to speak. 

 

Also, I really enjoyed Beagle's comment. I've not heard the 940 yet, but I think I'd like them more than many other phones according to reviews by forum dwellers and professionals alike. 

 

post #2365 of 3844

Jude and a lot of other high-profile reviewers seldom seem to give bad reviews. I think if they don't like something, they just choose not to review the product. Tyll on the other hand has really stuck it to the Beats, and popped into this thread briefly to give the thumbs down to the 940s.

 

I'm trying to pay more attention nowadays to what reviewers choose not to review.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

I remember Jude had a pair of these (940's) way before they were released - and he was going to review them, but sadly never did.  I'd actually be interested to hear his take on them as well.

 



 

post #2366 of 3844

I would like for Tyll or others who are skeptical of the SRH940 to answer something in that case:

 

Why is it that a high quality violin recording played on the SRH940 sounds so much more lifelike, detailed, realistic / natural than a Sennheiser HD650 (either stock or equalized)?

 

I think the SRH940 is in the same class as the HD650 and some other headphones, it just has a different set of strengths and weaknesses like any sidegrade headphone. The SRH940 has amazing highs and good lows. The HD650 has amazing lows and good highs. Simple as that.

 

As a example of my point, my HD650 reproduces piano much more naturally sounding IMO than the SRH940 because the natural tonality and resonance of piano is very much a detailed bass tone. Violin is the complete opposite, and the majority of its character comes from its very particular treble details, so it's no surprise that it sounds more natural on the treble-superior SRH940.


Edited by ac500 - 11/28/11 at 3:07pm
post #2367 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by ac500 View Post

I would like for Tyll or others who are skeptical of the SRH940 to answer something in that case:

 

Why is it that a high quality violin recording played on the SRH940 sounds so much more lifelike, detailed, realistic / natural than a Sennheiser HD650 (either stock or equalized)?

 

I think the SRH940 is in the same class as the HD650 and some other headphones, it just has a different set of strengths and weaknesses like any sidegrade headphone. The SRH940 has amazing highs and good lows. The HD650 has amazing lows and good highs. Simple as that.

 

As a example of my point, my HD650 reproduces piano much more naturally sounding IMO than the SRH940 because the natural tonality and resonance of piano is very much a detailed bass tone. Violin is the complete opposite, and the majority of its character comes from its very particular treble details, so it's no surprise that it sounds more natural on the treble-superior SRH940.

 

On a sidenote, I really want to expand my listening experience of headphones. I want to get maybe a DT880 or perhaps try some other headphone contending for the "king" of treble to compare. In fact I kind of hope the DT880 is better than the SRH940. I really hope so, because I really want a open-back comfortable alternate that is very detailed like the SRH940. But that's just not what I've heard from other people... but who knows, comparisons are always so subjective.


Hey,

 

I have owned the HD600, SRH940, DT880 and auditioned the HD650. I'm a violinist myself for 9 years and is involved in orchestras and solo performances. Imo, I would cross the HD650 out of my shopping list. Considering the soundstage, details, timbre, etc, the HD600 is the best for classical at this very stage while DT880 tags behind. SRH940 is very good for violins but for a full sized orchestra, it's definitely lacking the sound of the timpanis.

 

post #2368 of 3844

 

A2000X was my favorite for violins.

 

 

I think beagle makes a point about the pro audio magazines liking the SRH-940 if that is the case (I've only seen one such review).

 

I think tyll is against accentuated brightness, just like MacedonianHero here on head-fi.

 

 

post #2369 of 3844
Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 

I think beagle makes a point about the pro audio magazines liking the SRH-940 if that is the case (I've only seen one such review).

 

 

 I just feel that since the 940 was designed for studio monitoring purposes, it is doing it's job remarkable well. I have been listening to Roxy Music's "Avalon" for like 25 years and I heard fine details and spacial imaging via the 940 that I had never heard before. I'm not saying I'd want to listen to music with these on a full-time basis but they do show up pretty much everything that's on a recording, which is what studio cats want.

post #2370 of 3844

I don't think you need "expert" opinion on the 940.  It's a wonderful sounding headphone for good quality recordings, not so wonderful for bad recordings since it's very revealing.  As far as any deficiencies go, and it's been nit-picked to death here, those deficiencies are extremely small compared to almost anything I can think of below $600 or so.  There are very few people here who argue for high fidelity, especially the editors at Innerfidelity.  Mostly it's about "fun", whatever that means.

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