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 225

post #3361 of 3844

Nope thats not an over simplification. But it is interesting which aspects of each headphone are present in the 1440, in many ways I think it almost offer the perfect blend of the two headphones. I have been asked if I could only have one (actually I don't own the 1840 and will have to return it at some point soon) which one I would take and I am torn between the sound of the 1440 which I think offers the most overall sound signture I like with the 940 which offers isolation and the easiest detail retreval. I feel guilty owning both as they are more money than I intended to spend on full size equipment but it really is a hard choice and I may decide to just keep both. It might be inferred that if I owned the the 1840 I might feel the same way and I think this could be partially true but I honestly like the sound of the other two better. In fact I was disappointed in the difference between the 940 and 1840 which lead me to pick up the 1440. But having said all that since you prefer the 840 sound over the 940 sound I do suspect you will prefer the 1840 more so likely made the right choice for yourself.

post #3362 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dweaver View Post

<snip (I wish I had something really neutral that I could compare against because I actually wonder if the 1840's mids are slightly recessed...).  My only complaint against the 1440 is a slightly harsher sound when it comes to cymbals but this only has actually been to much on the occasional track, personally I like the 940 the best for cymbals and such.

 

I think the best comparison would be the sounds that are live. Compared to most audio gear, the sounds of live cymbals are bright and brassy. But that's the way they're supposed to sound. And that's the biggest trick for equipment, to get all voices and instruments to sound live. To get vocals or other midrange stuff to sound natural, headphones have to use damping or a certain voicing, and that muffles the sounds and overtones of cymbals, brass etc. Of course, we are assuming that the sounds of the recording are close to live and that is a big question mark.

 

I think the 1440 gets you somewhat of a nice portrayal of what live sounds are, the speed and dynamics. But there is always going to be some sort of trade-off, no matter how much you spend.

post #3363 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post
Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki View Post

 

While I respect your opinions I'm a tiny bit skeptical because you said the Sony EX1000 is far and away more than the Sony EX600.

 

I didn't say the SRH1840 is more than the SRH940. I said I like it more. There's a big difference there: I'm not implying the SRH1840 outperforms the SRH940 across the board, I'm saying my preference lies with the former because I hear it as having some of the SRH940's good qualities (lots of clarity, detail, capable imagining, good tracking) while simultaneously being more laid back.

 

And my stance on the EX600 and EX1000 is pretty much: the latter is a step up from the former, but just how much of a step up is debatable.

 

Ok thanks for clarifying.

 


Edited by kiteki - 4/29/12 at 6:00am
post #3364 of 3844

The other day on amazon this were on sale for 200 dollars!! I'm so mad with myself that I didn't get them.

post #3365 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MuppetFace View Post

 

 

I didn't say the SRH1840 is more than the SRH940. I said I like it more. There's a big difference there: I'm not implying the SRH1840 outperforms the SRH940 across the board, I'm saying my preference lies with the former because I hear it as having some of the SRH940's good qualities (lots of clarity, detail, capable imagining, good tracking) while simultaneously being more laid back.

 

And my stance on the EX600 and EX1000 is pretty much: the latter is a step up from the former, but just how much of a step up is debatable.

 

From my brief audition of SRH1840, I found them much more focused, refined and balanced than the SRH940. I fell in love with the sound of SRH1840 in fact while I really disliked the SRH940. To each their own, but to my ears the SRH1840 is a clear improvement over SRH940 in sound quality. Although it may be that I didn't listen to them long enough.

 

I agree about EX1000 being a step up from EX600 as well. I auditioned the two side by side at a local meet recently out of my HM-601 and while they shared the same sound signature and character, the former was noticeably more refined sounding.

post #3366 of 3844
Howdy Pianist;

I originally auditioned my 940 along with a pair of Sony 7520 (pro version of the Z1000) headphones and after over an hour of A/B testing bought the 7520. But by that night I just felt like the bass of the 7520 was muddying the sound to much for me and was too similar to my usual sound and headphones. So I went back the next day and did another round of testing and decided I would switch to the 940. My biggest concern about the 940 was how it handled instruments like Cello's because the bass was not heavy and layered enough as compared to the Sony for example. But I just liked the clarity and detail enough I thought I will give myself time to adjust to the difference in bass.

Over the next couple I weeks I was amazed at much more insight into my music the 940 was giving me. I did hit songs where I missed the bass but even when that happened the rest of the music just made up for the loss.

I was then given the opportunity to try the 1840 and jumped at the chance. Needless to say I immediately noticed the difference in the sound when the 1840 arrived. The difference in the midrange was very dramatic and the region where the cymbal crash lies was a bit hotter while the decay was actually quieter. I liked the bass improvement but couldn't get used to the loss of the mids, this feeling never left either, even after a week of listening to the 1840.

This was what prompted me to go listen to the 1440 and ultimately lead me to take them home. The 1440 just bridged he gap between the two sounds so nicely, filling in the bass while retaining the midrange. It also had the hotter cymbals like the 1840 but retained more of the decay as well. The cymbals though are one of the areas where the 1440 can get to be to much for some songs and I prefer either the 940 or 1840 more but only on some songs in my library.

I do wonder if I had had the chance to hear the 1840 and the 940 when I first A/B tested the 940 and 7520 if I would have just bought the 1840 because I it's overall balance as compared to the 940. But in doing so I think I would have missed out on the special qualities of the 940. But having said that their are quite a few people who bought and owned the 940 for the a length of time comparable to me that just never did like it's signature and you might fall solidly into that group of users in which case th 1840 is definitely the better choice.
Edited by dweaver - 4/29/12 at 11:30am
post #3367 of 3844

Interesting. I found the SRH1840 perfectly balanced in the treble - very detailed, yet with zero harshness and the treble was perfectly in line with the mids for me. I did think there was one area where SRH1840 was somewhat lacking and that is low to mid bass. I found that with some dance tracks I tried, the punch in the lows was somewhat subdued with SRH1840 and the balance shifted towards mids and highs. I also tried Ultrasone Signature Pro at the same time. My source was HM-601. Ultrasones produced a much more satisfying low end without giving up quality, but I found their treble somewhat metallic. SRH1840 has a very natural, smooth and refined treble.

post #3368 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post

I did think there was one area where SRH1840 was somewhat lacking and that is low to mid bass. I found that with some dance tracks I tried, the punch in the lows was somewhat subdued with SRH1840 and the balance shifted towards mids and highs.

 

That is exactly why I passed on the 1840's. I listen to a lot of dance and bass was simply too subdued for my tastes.  I agree though that top frequencies were indeed smooth and refined.

 

 

post #3369 of 3844

I have to say the differences in the treble area are not huge between all three models but there is enough difference that I was able to notice it and appreciate it. But I don't think I would be as concerned if I only had one pair as it would get harder to notice the differences without the ability to immediately A/B/C test them. The midrange and bass on the other hand is very noticeably different between each headphone and is the biggest area people need to think about when deciding which headphone to buy.

 

As for the bass, the Shures will never be bassy enough for some types of genre's, fortunately for me I don't listen to those genre's very often if at all so they suite me well.

post #3370 of 3844

^ I guessed as much regular_smile%20.gif

post #3371 of 3844

Have you guys tried listening to the Dark Knight OST with the Shures? They are a match made in heaven.

post #3372 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pianist View Post

 

From my brief audition of SRH1840, I found them much more focused, refined and balanced than the SRH940. I fell in love with the sound of SRH1840 in fact while I really disliked the SRH940. To each their own, but to my ears the SRH1840 is a clear improvement over SRH940 in sound quality. Although it may be that I didn't listen to them long enough.

 

I agree about EX1000 being a step up from EX600 as well. I auditioned the two side by side at a local meet recently out of my HM-601 and while they shared the same sound signature and character, the former was noticeably more refined sounding.

 

You really hated the SRH-940, way back in this thread.

 

The EX1000 is extremely refined, but back when the EX600/800ST/1000 series was new, most people said the difference between them is only 10% or so.

 

The EX600 has a little more edge and different signature, so the EX1000 is a departure, not an enhanced EX600, which is what many people are led to believe.  I wanted the EX1000 to be an enhanced EX600, so I was dissapointed, expectation effect.

 

The EX600 sounds very smooth and analog from the HM-601, it's a good sound, I listened to that setup for XX hours.

 

 

Back on topic, saying the SRH-1840 is a "clear improvement" is too vague.  I don't think studios will be picking up the SRH-1840 anytime soon, even if it is more balanced.

 

FTR, the SRH-940 has near-identical volume balance as the HD800, which is supposed to be a king of balance or something.

 

post #3373 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kiteki View Post


 

Back on topic, saying the SRH-1840 is a "clear improvement" is too vague.  I don't think studios will be picking up the SRH-1840 anytime soon, even if it is more balanced.

 

FTR, the SRH-940 has near-identical volume balance as the HD800, which is supposed to be a king of balance or something.

 

 

I agree. Aside from the advantages conferred by virtue of being open, I don't find the 1840 to be a clear upgrade in SQ from the 940. It's just different.

post #3374 of 3844
Sorry to deviate from the SRH1840 comparisons, but I was wondering if anyone can suggest a decent amp, or DAC/amp for the SRH940's...but under $100. I was thinking of a HiFiMan 101 or a FiiO E7, or should I just save up for a better one?
Edited by miceblue - 5/4/12 at 10:58pm
post #3375 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

Sorry to deviate from the SRH1840 comparisons, but I was wondering if anyone can suggest a decent amp, or DAC/amp for the SRH940's...but under $100. I was thinking of a HiFiMan 101 or a FiiO E7, or should I just save up for a better one?


E7 works great with the SRH940s. I heard that the E5 does a decent job.

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