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 167

post #2491 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by R-Audiohead View Post


The 940 is definitely upper-mid focused, hence the beautiful female vocals and sparkly strings.

Less trebble, if you move the ears near top of earcup (and more balanced)


Edited by extrabigmehdi - 12/5/11 at 4:04am
post #2492 of 3844

My 940 is also very full-bodied and I do enjoy the bass, I also love them and have a great experience with my SRH940s. Still I'm not going to deny that their bass isn't nearly as smooth as full-bodied as my HD650. My amp isn't the problem since it can power my HD650's bass probably to the point of damage if I ever pushed it beyond deafening levels.

 

It's not that the 940's bass is bad. It's just a different character and while it's very detailed and "tight" IMO, it doesn't have quite the "sweep" of the HD650 to move air to the same precision and magnitude.

 

> Male vocals sound just as good on the 940.

 

Absolutely. But I wouldn't consider male vocals having bass to any considerable quantity. I'm not an advocate of massive thumping bass because I'm not a basshead, but a hypothetically perfect headphone would be able to produce it if the input signal so designates. Even deep bass male voices do NOT have anywhere near the amount of bass as any instrument I'd consider bassy (deep drum beats, etc.), so it's not really a good stress test of bass. Of course it will reveal the detailed and "tight" bass on the SRH940 which I enjoy too, as long as you don't turn the bass volume up much, otherwise it might begin to saturate.


Edited by ac500 - 12/5/11 at 8:02am
post #2493 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triggerfish View Post

The Shure 940 came out well above the others all around, with the m50s being second.  just wish I could hear the Senn HD-25-1 ii, and Ficher Audio FA-011.



Hi. given what you've tried and you preferred srh940, I think it very unlikely you will prefer hd25 (love 'em for being portable but not for detail or balance).

 

Be interested to hear your comparison with the fischers...

 

Best

 

James

post #2494 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldshoe99 View Post


 

It looks like all the new people agree with the good experience with the 940, and a handful of repeats keep saying problems with the bass.  Those people need to change amps or something.  My 940 is very full-bodied.  And the female vocals thing is the most illogical charge I've ever heard.  Male vocals sound just as good on the 940.

 

What logic even premises the idea that my statement is illogical?  I think the assumption that male vocals are bad because I said female vocals are beautiful is more of a logical fallacy.  I didn't even mention the performance with male vocals.

 

Did I contradict myself?

 

I was merely doing an A/B. Are you telling me I'm wrong?  Does that even make sense?

You ask people to make contributions and then tell them they are illogical.  Doesn't that seem contradictory?

 

No fight here, I just suggest trying not to pick one.

post #2495 of 3844

I'm referring to bass after equalization - so in other words the bass capability. If we compare bass unequalized, obviously every headphone has a different FR and therefore different quantities of bass versus another. Are you saying that the HD800 is incapable of putting out very strong impactful bass like an HD650 or LCD2 or many other headphones can?

 

I never said the bass has holes, just that it is a bit lacking in ability to scale up in quantity versus the HD650 sometimes, either due to EQ or a song that happens to have a lot of it.

 

I'll see if I can find a track for you.


Edited by ac500 - 12/5/11 at 8:11am
post #2496 of 3844
I was listening recently to "heart shapped box " from Nirvana, and I was expecting more bass.
post #2497 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

I was listening recently to "heart shapped box " from Nirvana, and I was expecting more bass.


Or more coloration....

post #2498 of 3844
By the way, bass shouldn't be affected by lossy compression.
post #2499 of 3844

Well that's disturbing to think that my HD650 has better bass than an HD800 (the unavoidable conclusion from this evidence, if true) O.o

 

It would be interesting to hear your comparison of an HD650 directly but you probably don't have one I assume.

 

Have you tried EQing a bass boost really high? I recommend this if you can't hear a difference. Although I didn't need it to hear a clear difference, it would at least exaggerate the difference for you, so you can hopefully make some distinction here.


Edited by ac500 - 12/5/11 at 9:40am
post #2500 of 3844

I'm finding the discussion about female vocals interesting on here.  The vast majority of my music collection features female vocals which I love, and I did not realize that these had a skill in displaying them.  That could very well be why I was so impressed by these over all of the other headphones I auditioned.

post #2501 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by R-Audiohead View Post

I happen to respectfully disagree.  I love the headphone but do not find it neutral.  That's just me.  I have nothing to contribute regarding similarities to the HD800.


R-Audiohead - I totally agree with what you're saying.  In my view, the SRH 940 is warm, sweet, a bit airy on the top end, and with the lack of balanced mid-bass, it is quite coloured.  Excellent with the modern jazz I have, and does female vocals generall very well.  Someone earlier said they were good for rock.  I found they were good for acoustics and folk - but rock ..... not for me.

 

That claim about the 940 being "most neutral-sounding and detailed headphone below perhaps $1000 USD" is in my own personal opinion absolute hogwash.  It doesn't hold a candle to the HD600 for neutrality.  It is detailed (again I think the lack of mid-bass is part of the reason why) - but if you wanted a combination of both neutral and detailed, the DT880 would be a far better choice.

 

Of course - just my subjective opinion wink.gif.

 

Again I go back to my comment many pages ago - it's one of the most polarising headphones I know - you either love it unreservedly - or you recognise it's flaws.  It does have them - unfortunately I couldn't live with them - but I look forward to Shure's next offering.  Their new open can seems interesting ......

post #2502 of 3844
Quote:
 I continue to be astounded that a $300 headphone with 40 mm drivers and such different design than the HD800 could sound so much alike.

 

Hum, SRH 940 is a very good headphone, even excellent for the price, but to compare it with HD800...i can't understand. I have maybe a defective SRH940 or you a bad HD800...

 

If you compare both headphones together, they are really not in the same league.

 

 

post #2503 of 3844

All I can say is, if the SRH940 has bass just about as good as you've heard, then either your ears are missing out on part of the frequency spectrum, or my HD650 has supernaturally good bass exceeding the quality of an SRH940 and therefore an HD800.

post #2504 of 3844
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brooko View Post

 

 If it's not polarising - then why does it seem to have most people in compeltely opposite sides of the debate.  Coloured vs non-coloured.  Bass light vs perfect bass.  Sounds polarising to me wink.gif

 

Maybe the 940 actually runs right down the middle?

 

I think one of the problems is that people might tend to listen to the 940 at too high a volume level. When a phone is very detailed, I find a low to moderate level is best. You don't need to crank it up to "find" everything, it's all there at lower levels. Even the bass. But those who find it missing or want it 'in their face' will crank it up and consequently get too much top end.

post #2505 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle View Post

 

Maybe the 940 actually runs right down the middle?

 

I think one of the problems is that people might tend to listen to the 940 at too high a volume level. When a phone is very detailed, I find a low to moderate level is best. You don't need to crank it up to "find" everything, it's all there at lower levels. Even the bass. But those who find it missing or want it 'in their face' will crank it up and consequently get too much top end.


When I said polarising - I meant opinion on them.  Majority of people who I've seen comment on them so far seem either love them, or if they're like me, are disappointed that they had so many good points - but were short on the little things that would have made them great (for me it was the mid-bass).  So people at opposite poles.  But you could be right - maybe the only ones commenting are the ones with strong views.

 

But don't you find them quite coloured - eg very warm - when compared to something we know is relatively neutral like the HD600 or DT880? 
 

I agree with you on the listening levels - and I do tend to listen on a relatively lower level.  I guess as I've aged, and realised I'm not so 'bullet-proof', some sanity to decibel levels started kicking in wink.gif

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