[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

Sorry to sound like a broken record here but how neutral are these cans? I am on a quest for fidelity and a neutral frequency response is very important to me. Furthermore, I am concerned that the treble has been boosted as to fake detail. Any thoughts on these matters?

I recommend KRK KNS 8400, or if you have more money and a way to drive them GMP 450 PRO

 

[Sonic Atrocity]

Would you say the KRK's and the Audio Technica CK10 are more neutral in their frequency response than the Shure 940? 
 
Also, would you say that the KRK's and the Audio Technica CK10 have more fidelity not just in that they are accurately detailed but in their sound staging/instrument separation? 
 
I am not entirely sure which is more important to me - a flat frequency response or the soundstage/instrument separation I mentioned. But I am thinking that  neutral frequency response is the foundation to achieving fidelity while the other elements lie subordinate to it. 
 
Are there other elements of fidelity I am failing to acknowledge? Is my philosophy regarding fidelity flawed in your eyes? 
 
Mind my thirst for fidelity here. I am really serious about my music. Very serious.
 
Edit: I thought I'd throw this in as food for thought: someone mentioned that the 840 has a slight hump in either the lower midrange and/or upper mid-bass and that this is more true to replicating studio monitors than a headphone that does not do this. Of course, I want my headphones to replicate studio monitors (after all, a headphone is supposed to sound like speakers and being that I am searching for fidelity studio speakers even more so). Thoughts on this matter?

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

Would you say the KRK's and the Audio Technica CK10 are more neutral in their frequency response than the Shure 940? 
 
Also, would you say that the KRK's and the Audio Technica CK10 have more fidelity not just in that they are accurately detailed but in their sound staging/instrument separation? 
 
I am not entirely sure which is more important to me - a flat frequency response or the soundstage/instrument separation I mentioned. But I am thinking that  neutral frequency response is the foundation to achieving fidelity while the other elements lie subordinate to it. 
 
Are there other elements of fidelity I am failing to acknowledge? Is my philosophy regarding fidelity flawed in your eyes? 
 
Mind my thirst for fidelity here. I am really serious about my music. Very serious.

I think the KRK is a superior monitor to the SRH-940 because it is more balanced.
 
Sure, the upper mids aren't as sweet and crystal, but the KRK really does a decent job of not emphasizing any aspect of the spectrum.
 
If you want something that is extremely unforgiving, I stick to my SP-1 / GMP450 PRO recommendation, IF you can drive them.  If not, the KRK is a great alternative that is easy to drive and more ergonomic.
 
Soundstage isn't the most impressive in the KRK, but separation is pretty good, especially for the price.
 
I'm one of the people (maybe in the minority) that finds the SRH-940 as more of a "fun" headphone rather than an analytical one.  I have the SP-1 for when I really want to focus on specifics of the music.
 

 

[kiteki]

 
Actually I found the mids on the CK10 too synthetic, they couldn't render acoustic instruments very well, so I don't think they are for you.
 
I haven't heard the KRK's, and I thought the Audio Technica A2000X had a higher level of fidelity and tone than the SRH-940.
 
For me, the 940 excelled at being involving, I loved the layering and the vocals, the A2000X is a much better reference and fidelity choice, if you want a purer, more intimate tone.
 
If you want the best imaging, from my experience I think IEM's are the most precise there, but I'm not sure what's artificial and what's real in that department.
 
 

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

 
Actually I found the mids on the CK10 too synthetic, they couldn't render acoustic instruments very well, so I don't think they are for you.
 
I haven't heard the KRK's, and I thought the Audio Technica A2000X had a higher level of fidelity and tone than the SRH-940.
 
For me, the 940 excelled at being involving, I loved the layering and the vocals, the A2000X is a much better reference and fidelity choice, if you want a purer, more intimate tone.
 
If you want the best imaging, from my experience I think IEM's are the most precise there, but I'm not sure what's artificial and what's real in that department.
 
 

What made you let go of that gem anyways?  I remember seriously considering your offer to trade for my SRH-940.
 
 

 

[kiteki]

I prefer the T5p.
 
I only want one high-end at a time, not interested in collecting headphones.

 

[Lorspeaker]

I dun have love affair with audio technicas, the sound stage presented confused my ears..haa.
Maybe I am too "inside" the orchestra....the instruments are all over my head...
That goes with the um3x when I first started.

My ears are twisted...lol.

...............

Did I mention that the 940 sounded fabulous with my little dot mk3?
It's airier, and takes a notch off the brightness of the can.

..............

 

[ac500]

> Maybe I am too "inside" the orchestra....the instruments are all over my head...
 
Isn't that the definition of a bad sound stage though somewhat? Good soundstage is supposed to sound like the music is coming from outside your head, whereas poor soundstage sounds like there are instruments lodged in your brain. That's what I thought, anyway.

 

[Lorspeaker]

They sounded behind my ears, above my eyebrow...right in front of my nose....
Maybe some inside my head..which is somewhat hollow

I would say ATs are BIG SOUNDING no doubt...and has lots of followers who can make sense of the presentation.


Right this moment I am listening to a pair of cheap ear phone,
The sound is definitely INSIDE my head...not BIGBIG sounding and allaround like the ATs.

 

[kiteki]

 
With the Sony SA-5000 I remember listening to Bjork Hunter and the vocals were quite sharp and inside my nose.
 
Can't remember if I was using a Convolver in foobar but quite interesting effect.
 

 

[Sonic Atrocity]

Hmm, the KRK are half the price of the Shure 940 on headphone.com... I am not someone who judges by price but twice the price? Is the performance much better on the 940? I was reading that the drivers aren't the fastest on the KRK and I listen to a lot of metal - although I do want cans that will be good for everything. 
 
I was listening to the MDR-V6 today and thought the sound stage was absolutely terrible. Is the KRK better than the v6 regarding sound stage? and do you guys think it represents the bass properly?

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

Hmm, the KRK are half the price of the Shure 940 on headphone.com... I am not someone who judges by price but twice the price? Is the performance much better on the 940? I was reading that the drivers aren't the fastest on the KRK and I listen to a lot of metal - although I do want cans that will be good for everything. 
 
I was listening to the MDR-V6 today and thought the sound stage was absolutely terrible. Is the KRK better than the v6 regarding sound stage? and do you guys think it represents the bass properly?

Man, I seriously sound a like a broken record--
 
But the GMP450 PRO or SP-1 are fast dynamics.  They just keep fitting your needs better and better the more you say haha.
 
They'll have to be a dedicated desk can, though

 

[tdockweiler]

Quote:

Hmm, the KRK are half the price of the Shure 940 on headphone.com... I am not someone who judges by price but twice the price? Is the performance much better on the 940? I was reading that the drivers aren't the fastest on the KRK and I listen to a lot of metal - although I do want cans that will be good for everything. 
 
I was listening to the MDR-V6 today and thought the sound stage was absolutely terrible. Is the KRK better than the v6 regarding sound stage? and do you guys think it represents the bass properly?

That's my problem with the SRH-940. I liked it's sound, but when I had the KRK and didn't feel it was worth the extra $150 over my KRK KNS-6400. There's many things the SRH-940 does better though. For those that want to just just listen to music for fun and not analyze it, the SRH-940 is the way to go. Most seem to agree it's more "musical". I actually prefer the KRKs since they felt a bit more clear and detailed. Of course this varies between tracks. I actually did feel the SRH-940 was a bit warmer though and was very good for female vocals. The SRH-940 did feel like it had more bass somehow, but probably doesn't extend as low as the KRK KNS-8400. I'm too cheap to buy the SRH-940, but it's mostly because my DJ100 and KRK KNS-6400 held up so well. I actually thought my DJ100 was more fun to listen to than the SRH-940. The DJ100 I think has more similarities to the SRH-840 though, but it's not as warm sounding and has less mid-bass.
 
Some many disagree, but I think the soundstage size of the KRK has the SRH-940 beat. People kept saying the 940 had just a larger soundstage than the SRH-840, but I just wasn't hearing it. On the KNS-8400 at times I feel as if I was listening to a semi-open headphone. Not like an open headphone, but at least more acceptable for movies and gaming. It does have some vents on the top of the cups that may help in some way. It could be comparable to the soundstage size of the K240 Studio!
 
I always hated the soundstage size of the M50, V6, MDR-7506 and the SRH-840, so the KRKs were a step  up for me. I rarely like to use closed headphones for movies/games, so the KRKs would be perfect OK for me due to the decent soundstage. BTW it's not like the size of the D2000, but that headphone cheats

 
BTW it seems like both the SRH-940 and the KRKs really do benefit from a good AMP/DAC. My Headroom Micro Amp loves the SRH-940. Anyone tried the HRT Music Streamer II with the SRH-940?
 
 

 

[kiteki]

trottweiler should I buy the 6400 or the 8400?
 
 
Not sure why you're asking about the HRT MSII, that's an overpriced DAC.
 

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

> Maybe I am too "inside" the orchestra....the instruments are all over my head...
 
Isn't that the definition of a bad sound stage though somewhat? Good soundstage is supposed to sound like the music is coming from outside your head, whereas poor soundstage sounds like there are instruments lodged in your brain. That's what I thought, anyway.

For the millionth time, the soundstage is in the recording, not created by the headphones!!! With any headphone, if the drivers are matched, you will hear it correctly