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 186

post #2776 of 3844

Yeah Qualia 010.

 

I don't know how legit the graph is though, it was in a Qualia review somewhere saying how terrible the headphone is, and then they showed an FR graph with no sub-bass and square waves that look like that.

 

I've also read a review how terrible the Sony Z1000 and MDR-7520 are, looking at the FR graph saying dips and spikes etc. etc.

 

And then there are graphs that "prove" how much better the Thunderpants is to the T50RP, right rhythmdevils?

post #2777 of 3844

Not everyone considers the Qualia 010 the best headphone ever made.  I thought it sounded exactly like it measures, and I first heard it years before I ever saw any measurements.  I laughed pretttty hard when I first saw Tyll's graphs. 

 

Not that measurements are the be all end all.  Ears are better.  But the Qualia lives up to it's measurements IMO. 

post #2778 of 3844
Quote:

Originally Posted by achristilaw View Post

 

 The only thing entry level about this phone is it's price....and in that it's doomed. 



Nailed it..

post #2779 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

Yeah Qualia 010.

 

I don't know how legit the graph is though, it was in a Qualia review somewhere saying how terrible the headphone is, and then they showed an FR graph with no sub-bass and square waves that look like that.

 

I've also read a review how terrible the Sony Z1000 and MDR-7520 are, looking at the FR graph saying dips and spikes etc. etc.

 

And then there are graphs that "prove" how much better the Thunderpants is to the T50RP, right rhythmdevils?


I dont know about the Z1000 but based on my listening time the MDR-7520 are nothing special at all, but thats besides the point.

 

post #2780 of 3844

 

Well until someone can explain to me why my Sony EX600 and EX700 look almost the same on paper, and sound significantly different in my ears, then I can't place much stock in data on paper.

 

Yes, it is measuring something that we can put stock in, but the paper obviously can't see the trees for the forest.

 

 

Here is another quote from 'that site', FTR.

 

PASSION, ART & EMOTION: Music is an emotional art form and some argue music reproduction is also an art. They argue there’s more to it than just numbers and science. And, even in my virtual lab coat with virtual pocket protector, I agree. But I think 99% of the art is at the very end of the signal chain

 

 

 

post #2781 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 

And then there are graphs that "prove" how much better the Thunderpants is to the T50RP, right rhythmdevils?


Well they generally sound better too IMO.  That doesn't mean a T50rp modded in some specific way couldn't compete with or better the Thunderpants, they use the same driver.  But I think the TP's have more potential with their larger, heavier wooden cup. 

 

Did I miss your point?  not sure...

post #2782 of 3844


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle View Post



Nailed it..


  So much more research is needed in the organic analog break-down of how we hear. Not that that would end any debates, because of the importance placed on what is heard (then deciphered) by the individual. Tastes will out! The transducer art is still in infancy!

 

post #2783 of 3844

These still sound wonderful to me.

post #2784 of 3844

I think measurements and data are good, they're just not good enough if we can't look at them and know how a headphone is going to sound.

 

I'm sure there's a Skullcandy earbud out there with perfect square waves, dead-flat FR and low THD+N.

 

So what.

post #2785 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcasey25raptor View Post

These still sound wonderful to me.



  And as you explore equipment in the future....they will reward you furtherwink.gif!!

post #2786 of 3844


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

I think measurements and data are good, they're just not good enough if we can't look at them and know how a headphone is going to sound.

 

I'm sure there's a Skullcandy earbud out there with perfect square waves, dead-flat FR and low THD+N.

 

So what.



  I remember back in the late 70's, Julian Hirsch (of Hirsch-Houke Labs) made a blanket statement that a very GOOD solid-state amplifier sounds like every other GOOD solid-state amplifier. WAAA....? He caught flack for that one! Differences are there (particularly in the frequency extremes) but His point was that the differences are small, then negligible in actuality, therefore should be of little importance. He received an industry flogging....but I can see His point.....to a point.

 

  Yet the small output of Headphone amps vary with every load thrown at them. They can't hide behind room acoustics and crossovers. Inspiring a synergistic conjoining of amp n' phone is paramount (IMO)!

 

  Amplifier technology can be quantified and predicted to a succinct degree however, and is far ahead of any electro-mechanical transducer technology. 


Edited by achristilaw - 12/17/11 at 7:38pm
post #2787 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhythmdevils View Post

 

 

Did I miss your point?  not sure...


My only point is I find it annoying when people try to prove a headphone is good or bad with data.

 

 

I mean for example, look at the Audeze website, is that marketing or science? I think it's marketing.

 

post #2788 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by achristilaw View Post

 

  Amplifier technology can be quantified and predicted to a succinct degree however, and is far ahead of any electro-mechanical transducer technology. 

 

I think ideally most of us want this.

 

music -> open window -> listener.

 

 

Not this:

 

music -> microphone -> cable -> FIR, IIR, ADC, CPU, DSP, PSU, DPI, MP3, DAC, silver cable, pallics, headphone, room acoustics, positional axis, leather earpad vibration, modal overtone sub-bass decapactiorisation -> air (21 Celsius) -> listenter

post #2789 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 

I think ideally most of us want this.

 

music -> open window -> listener.

 

 

Not this:

 

music -> microphone -> cable -> FIR, IIR, ADC, CPU, DSP, PSU, DPI, MP3, DAC, silver cable, pallics, headphone, room acoustics, positional axis, leather earpad vibration, modal overtone sub-bass decapactiorisation -> air (21 Celsius) -> listenter

 

Music going through a window would be affected by the size and positioning of the window.  Also without walls there is no window, so the walls would create some very noticeable reverberation, in order to remove the reverberation we would need to cover it with walls like those of an anachronic chamber.  Anachronic chamber walls can be up to 6 feet with all the acoustic material = 6 feet of attenuation by air leaving you with worse sound then Mic to cable to preamp to mixer to adc to storage to dac to amp to headphone, which would only be attenuated by air approximately 1 inch from mouth to mic to headphone to ear.
 

 

post #2790 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post


My only point is I find it annoying when people try to prove a headphone is good or bad with data.

 

 

I mean for example, look at the Audeze website, is that marketing or science? I think it's marketing.

 


Its clearly both.

 

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