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 233

post #3481 of 3844

If it has a spike around 10kHz it is like turning the contrast up on your TV, or sharpening a picture in photoshop.  The Etymotic ER-4S, ATH-CK10, Sony MDR-7520, Sony SA-5000 all have a natural spike at around 10kHz.

 

Not everyone has the same equal loudness contour, so some people may hear the spike louder than others.  I'm not sure what the dB deviations are from person to person.

 

Edit: goldenears.net notes a spike around 7kHz results in more fineness too, in efficient headphones (see the Dynamics part), but I personally find that one a little more offensive.


Edited by kiteki - 7/2/12 at 1:15pm
post #3482 of 3844
Wow thank you so much everyone for detailed answers! I truly appreciate all of them. Is this why 940 is able to compete with sennheiser hd-800 in terms of how much detail it can produce? And also do you guys appreciate and enjoy these kind of details that are included in music with 940?
post #3483 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhuidk View Post

Is this why 940 is able to compete with sennheiser hd-800 in terms of how much detail it can produce? And also do you guys appreciate and enjoy these kind of details that are included in music with 940?

They don't come close to the HD800's at all to be quite honest with you. And also, the SRH940 are to sizzly and congested up there in my opinion.

 

The two new Shures are a substantial upgrade though. And you can already find the SRH1440 for about 350$

post #3484 of 3844

The presentation of details in hd800 & srh940 is very different.

In the hd800, you have some times details that "pop up" in 3D. I  mean , it's partly thanks to the great stereo separation that details becomes obvious.

The hd800 have also an emphasis in treble, that I  think participate to sensation of being detailed.

However unlike the srh940, the treble emphasis is very smooth, and can be less annoying.

Regarding being "congested",  the srh940 are much less congested if you mod them by increasing depth of ear cups.

In term of pure enjoyment, I  don't find the hd800 vastly superior. If only the srh940 got better built quality,  that cheap plastic sucks (cracks).

I  like a bit  sizzle I  admit, perhaps the hd700 are more for me.

post #3485 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by John In Cali View Post

Ya I got those cracks, and a few more. Sent them in for warranty and they sent me a brand new pair back. Super excited, after the 2 or so weeks of not listening to them I get to rediscover all my music again, and I really prefer them prior to burn in. They also say to send the headphones without any accessories, well they sent me an in box pair back so I have double accessories.

I almost forgive them using cheap plastic for their great warranty service.

 

Wow, that's a bargain! I have yet to send mine in...I'm waiting for their "1 year of use" period because I'm weird like that. 2 more months. :)

post #3486 of 3844

Personally I think the srh940 beats the hd800 in the speed department.

 

This is confirmed when I look at the CSD graphs, and impulse response golden ear website:

For srh940:

http://en.goldenears.net/10181

For hd800:

http://en.goldenears.net/index.php?mid=GR_Headphones&category=275&page=5&document_srl=4326

 

Now this doesn't seem to match the measurements of purrin  for hd800:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/566929/headphone-csd-waterfall-plots/15#post_7698438

 

If I  trust my ears the srh940 are faster . Perhaps a good amp improve the speed of hd800 (using a regular xonar stx).

 

edit: link for srh940 corrected


Edited by extrabigmehdi - 7/4/12 at 5:37am
post #3487 of 3844

How do the KRK KNS6400 and KNS8400 measure in IR...

 

The goldenears CSD is completely different, hah.

 

Try putting LME49990 or AD797 in your STX.

post #3488 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

Personally I think the srh940 beats the hd800 in the speed department.

 

This is confirmed when I look at the CSD graphs, and impulse response golden ear website:

For srh940:

http://en.goldenears.net/5272

For hd800:

http://en.goldenears.net/index.php?mid=GR_Headphones&category=275&page=5&document_srl=4326

 

Relating to these measurements from the Golden Ears website (more of a sound science question), shouldn't the SRH940's technically be better-performing than the HD800's?

 

I read through their "How to read measurements - Earphones, Headphones and Speakers" article and it looks like the SRH940's have a better frequency response (in terms of matching-up with the "Golden Ears Target" line), quicker step response (less ripples), and a quicker impulse response (fewer ripples going outward). The only things bad about the SRH940's compared to the HD800's, from the graphs, is the fast "roll-off?" effect of the midrange frequencies relative to the < 500 Hz and 10 KHz range in the cumulative spectral decay as well as the step response being not-so-exponential in terms of decay.

 

On a note about the Audeze LCD-2's, their step response graph has a straight, rather than exponential, decay curve, lots of large ripples in the impulse response graph, and a decreasing slope in the frequency response curve after 1 KHz rather than the desired flat line. If these graphs deviate a lot, in my opinion, from the desirable results, how is it that people claim that the LCD-2's (as well as the HD800's I suppose) sound really good? From graphs alone, I would argue that the Shure SRH840's are actually better-measuring headphones than the LCD-2's.

 

Is this a flaw in the measuring system? Am I misreading or misinterpreting the graphs?

 

I'm not saying the SRH940's sound better than the HD800's, but I was just wondering about the headphone measurements and how they stack up to the desirable results based on the one website.


Edited by miceblue - 7/4/12 at 1:08am
post #3489 of 3844
Do you guys think that the 940 would still be able to compete with other headphones even if the price went up? Maybe like $350-400?
post #3490 of 3844

The SRH-940 is a very good price performer, yes it easily competes with sound quality at $350-400 since in audio sound quality versus price is honestly all over the place.

 

I believe studio headphones like the Sony CD900ST, Fostex T50RP and KRK KNS6400 / 8400 could be in a similar category.

 


 

miceblue if you want to compare the SRH-940, HD800 and LCD-2 with the measurements at goldenears (or other sites) it's best to start a new thread to get the most concise answers on a case study.

post #3491 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

 

Relating to these measurements from the Golden Ears website (more of a sound science question), shouldn't the SRH940's technically be better-performing than the HD800's?

 

I read through their "How to read measurements - Earphones, Headphones and Speakers" article and it looks like the SRH940's have a better frequency response (in terms of matching-up with the "Golden Ears Target" line), quicker step response (less ripples), and a quicker impulse response (fewer ripples going outward). The only things bad about the SRH940's compared to the HD800's, from the graphs, is the fast "roll-off?" effect of the midrange frequencies relative to the < 500 Hz and 10 KHz range in the cumulative spectral decay as well as the step response being not-so-exponential in terms of decay.

 

On a note about the Audeze LCD-2's, their step response graph has a straight, rather than exponential, decay curve, lots of large ripples in the impulse response graph, and a decreasing slope in the frequency response curve after 1 KHz rather than the desired flat line. If these graphs deviate a lot, in my opinion, from the desirable results, how is it that people claim that the LCD-2's (as well as the HD800's I suppose) sound really good? From graphs alone, I would argue that the Shure SRH840's are actually better-measuring headphones than the LCD-2's.

 

Is this a flaw in the measuring system? Am I misreading or misinterpreting the graphs?

 

I'm not saying the SRH940's sound better than the HD800's, but I was just wondering about the headphone measurements and how they stack up to the desirable results based on the one website.

Just corrected the link for srh940, I  hope you didn't mistake it with T1 wink.gif
All I'm saying is that the srh940 have great speed, and it's one area it excells particularly.

It works nicely with fast paced music, and transients doesn't get smeared.

 

There's a final assessment foer each headphone,  on golden ear  website, that doesn't take in account everything. But here's what I believe  is the reference:
 

900x900px-LL-44314f00_292cfb97_ideal.jpeg

 

In the row treble relative to midrange, seems to indicate if the headphone is bright or not.

So the hd800 is quite bright, the main major flaw. But otherwise they have exceptional clarity, lot of dynamics, show well micro details , bass is neutral (when compared to midrange).

 

900x900px-LL-acaeaef3_hd800.jpeg

 

Compared to srh940:
 

srh940.jpg

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhuidk View Post

Do you guys think that the 940 would still be able to compete with other headphones even if the price went up? Maybe like $350-400?

I think it's matter of taste.   What makes the srh940 so special compared to other offer in the market ? I believe it's the speed.

I  think you can get a quite balanced and enjoyable headphone for 400$, but it's hard to find something that beat all mid-fi headphone and in every areas, even if you raise the price.


Edited by extrabigmehdi - 7/4/12 at 12:28pm
post #3492 of 3844

The SA-5000 / SA-3000 were probably faster in speed due to the driver material (nanocomposite) and user impressions, and were priced the same or lower than the SRH-940.

 

IEM's like the Ultimate Ears UE700 have excellent speed, seperation and integration (missing in the TF10), and only cost $112 at amazon.com.

 

 

As I pointed out headphones are not perfect (neither are TV screens) so extra contrast and colour enhances them, which is what the Sony SA series did, with some spikes.

 

A flat and extended FR in a $50 headphone is very dull.


Edited by kiteki - 7/4/12 at 7:43am
post #3493 of 3844
Quote:

Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

 

There's a final assessment foer each headphone,  on golden ear  website, that doesn't take in account everything. But here's what I believe  is the reference:

 

900x900px-LL-44314f00_292cfb97_ideal.jpeg

 

In the row treble relative to midrange, seems to indicate if the headphone is bright or not.

So the hd800 is quite bright, the main major flaw. But otherwise they have exceptional clarity, lot of dynamics, show well micro details , bass is neutral (when compared to midrange).

 

900x900px-LL-acaeaef3_hd800.jpeg

 

Compared to srh940:
 

srh940.jpg

 

 

 

 

Ah, thank you for the clarifications. From my experience with the SRH940's, I agree with the treble/bass ratings relative to the midrange. I'm still not completely sure what dynamics/speed means for a headphone.

post #3494 of 3844

The "dynamics" is a bit confusing, they're not referring to dynamic range.

post #3495 of 3844

Regarding the speed I think you have to compare the srh940, with the hd595 (and I guess the new hd598), on fast paced music.

It's just that fast paced music on hd595 almost leave you indifferent. Probably because transients are a bit smeared....

I  recommend the hd595 mostly for ambient stuff, or new age ...

 

Regarding the dynamics , I  found it confusing too.

Here's how I understand it:

On small level, you have "high resolution" that refers to how much micro details "pop up".

On a bigger level, you have the "dynamics" line , that would refer to how abrupt change in dynamics are perceived as "energic", such like percussions .

If you have a better/ more accurate explanation, you are welcome.

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