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 36

post #526 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Max View Post

Almost nothing gets the harmonics right to my ears, lol.  The exceptions I mention to people are RE0 and HD600, from what I've tried, followed closely by RE252 and RE-ZERO.

By "musical" notes, you mean just the music notes, right?  =p

 

K701 isn't the most musical then, but not unmusical altogether.

 


My K701 is dampened, by the way.  Fixes all the issues, but that's assuming that they are well-amped.  I know my Compass can't do it for sure with the carved out, partly mutilated sound K701 gets out of that amp, but my M-Stage can for sure judging by the more complete sound K701 gets out of it.  A2000X still runs circles around it - out of an ipod.  It is more efficient than my SR325.


Yea, even any speakers I've heard aren't quite right (and I've heard some costing into the tens of thousands). But perfection is not necessary for enjoyment anyway. I have and still throughly enjoy music on "low fi" gear, such as my Cowon D2 and RE2 IEM's.

 

I didn't even know there was a 701/02 mod. But I'm not the modding type. Stock is usually good enough and if I start to mod something then I go crazy trying to get the mod right to my ears (kind of like if I start to mess with EQ). So I just leave it alone.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyDebord View Post

You have to try Staxen, also my EarSonics EM3-Pro's are all about perfect harmonics. The RE0's and HD600's are musical toys in comparison.
 

 

I think "toys" is harsh. Many regard all headphones as toys for instance; I've met them. And although the 600's were not to my liking, they are nice cans. I'm sure I'd like the RE0's too and I've almost bought them but then I get sidetracked with all the other IEM options in the sub $100 range (all I'm willing to spend on IEMs) and end up not buying any!
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pterodactilo View Post

If I liked the sound signature of AKG K601, will I love the Shure SRH 940? The reviews made so far suggest both are similar.


Seems to be the consensus. I have the 702's and am wondering the same thing. I'm looking at the 940's and FA 003's for closed can options that will have the general sound signature approach as the 702's. 

 

post #527 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post


 

The numbers on the 272 don't look so hot to me.  FR is good and the bass is flat and extended for a full size closed dynamic but the distortion numbers and 30hz square waves look pretty bad.

 

It not the midbass hump that I enjoy.  I own and have heard 'phones that are flat or nearly flat down into the subsonics and that's what I prefer out of sound signatures that actually exist.  I'm talking about 'phones like my SE530s and DT1350s, and other ones I've heard at meets like the LCD-2s and HiFiMan orthos.  I prefer that to the midbass humps found on some 'phones like the M50s or SRH840s, but like I said earlier if I had to make a choice I'd take the hump and extension that it grants over rolled off bass response.

 

I have plenty of music with content in the low bass and I like to be able to hear it.



The numbers according to the japanese site seem pretty good, except for the funny frequency curve. According to that site even the Bose on-ear model is "flatter" than the AKG. Not sure I can trust that :)  ... Bass impulse reaction time is actually faster than many "reference" cans. Can you point me out to a site where they show significant distortion? But as you said, it's a full sized closed dynamic headphone, and competes best in that category. Nevertheless, I like it better than the LCD-2 or HE-5, which I owned and sold both.

 

Regarding the musicality-discussion: I find that musicality is, instead of distortion or coloration, near-absolute resolution, transient response, flat FR, pitch accuracy, and so forth. I can't "tap my toes" to music if it "distorts pleasantly" (if that means rounding transients and making everything slushy) or if coloration makes certain notes inaudible. I always found the general use of the term easy to fickle about. People easily say it if it subjectively makes them actually enjoy the music, which is not wrong, since it itself is the goal of this hobby... At least I hope so :) Just very vague when giving an evaluation. 

 

PRaT is also important to shine through a headphone. It is however often a source+amp related issue. I wonder how the 940s would mate with my Majik DS-i... How is the Shure SRH940 musical? :)

post #528 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyDebord View Post

@Mad Max

 

The closest to a natural reproduction of the harmonics, air reverberations and liquidity of musical notes in an acoustic string instrument, female voice and orchestral percussion. The opposite to musical would be analytical, dry, sterile and technical, which for some reason a few here like. A good example of an analytical, technical headphone is the Beyer DT-48.


That is strange, because one of my favorite headphones, the K701, is much of that which you first describe but also possess, according to many head-fiers, many of the latter qualities. I think they go hand in hand. Have no idea what "dry" is, but words "analytic" and "technical" rhyme pretty good with "musical". At least with modal, rhythmic and harmonically rich music :)

 

post #529 of 3844

Ok, they are great for clarity.

Now what about bass,  any impact or none ?

 

post #530 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by electropop View Post

The numbers according to the japanese site seem pretty good, except for the funny frequency curve. According to that site even the Bose on-ear model is "flatter" than the AKG. Not sure I can trust that :)  ... Bass impulse reaction time is actually faster than many "reference" cans. Can you point me out to a site where they show significant distortion? But as you said, it's a full sized closed dynamic headphone, and competes best in that category. Nevertheless, I like it better than the LCD-2 or HE-5, which I owned and sold both.


Didn't you see the THD+N vs frequency graph in the pdfs I linked?  It's pretty bad below 100hz.  Is the 272 even on Ryu's site or is it a rebrand of one of their other models?  I can tell from the numbers that its a little different from the 271MKII at least.  The impedance curves are probably close enough to be within manufacturing tolerances and the difference in the 30hz square waves could be damping or enclosure related but I'd wager in stock trim the 271MKII will have audibly more accurate deep bass than the 272.

 

I'm not sure exactly what sort of gear that guy uses for his tests, but it doesn't seem to be a proper dummy head, and that can seriously screw with the FR it reads.  For example, the XB700's FR isn't even close to reality.  I've got one and it sounds a lot more like Headroom's graph.  I've got no idea if it messes with his other measurements though.

 

Of course I'm not not saying you can't like it.  My original comment was just about how to use measurements to find something that fits your preferences, not how to use them to proclaim the superiority of whatever you already like.

post #531 of 3844

I have the impression that the bass of the srh940, is not better than the hd595. Or that the bass has just nothing special compared to a lot of model.

 

In particular when I look at the square response to 50 hz:  it's as if it's the symmetric to hd595, so my bet is that there's no "bass impact" at all.



graphCompare.php?graphType=3&graphID[]=3041&graphID[]=3101

post #532 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post


Didn't you see the THD+N vs frequency graph in the pdfs I linked?  It's pretty bad below 100hz.  Is the 272 even on Ryu's site or is it a rebrand of one of their other models?  I can tell from the numbers that its a little different from the 271MKII at least.  The impedance curves are probably close enough to be within manufacturing tolerances and the difference in the 30hz square waves could be damping or enclosure related but I'd wager in stock trim the 271MKII will have audibly more accurate deep bass than the 272.

 

I'm not sure exactly what sort of gear that guy uses for his tests, but it doesn't seem to be a proper dummy head, and that can seriously screw with the FR it reads.  For example, the XB700's FR isn't even close to reality.  I've got one and it sounds a lot more like Headroom's graph.  I've got no idea if it messes with his other measurements though.

 

Of course I'm not not saying you can't like it.  My original comment was just about how to use measurements to find something that fits your preferences, not how to use them to proclaim the superiority of whatever you already like.



Ah, interesting. Missed the links due to over saturation with my phone's screen :)

 

30Hz square wave difference is the only noticeable one. Wonder if it's due to leather vs. velour pads? They should be the same headphone otherwise. I wonder what counts to them sounding much more accurate, down there, than any other closed phone I've tried. I have the bad habit of judging with my hearing. Numbers tend to affect how one hears things... But anyhow it's interesting, especially in this case given the distortion figures.

 

I'll have to go do some comparisons at that site to learn more. And not to derail more, I'd really like to put the K272s against the srh940s. Seems they might have much in common.

post #533 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi View Post

I have the impression that the bass of the srh940, is not better than the hd595. Or that the bass has just nothing special compared to a lot of model.

 

In particular when I look at the square response to 50 hz:  it's as if it's the symmetric to hd595, so my bet is that there's no "bass impact" at all.

 


I'm sure that doesn't take coloration into account. From my experience, a steadily descending bass-curve usually promises more accurate bass. But impact-wise, I'd say it depends on many other aspects as well. Usually more coloration and a slower impulse reaction promises more impact, which I don't really care for myself.

 

post #534 of 3844

Do you think we can judge clarity from the harmonic distortion graphs ? It doesn't seem when I compare the graphs that the srh940 have more clarity than srh840:

 

graphCompare.php?graphType=1&graphID[]=913&graphID[]=3101

post #535 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post


Didn't you see the THD+N vs frequency graph in the pdfs I linked?  It's pretty bad below 100hz.  Is the 272 even on Ryu's site or is it a rebrand of one of their other models?  I can tell from the numbers that its a little different from the 271MKII at least.  The impedance curves are probably close enough to be within manufacturing tolerances and the difference in the 30hz square waves could be damping or enclosure related but I'd wager in stock trim the 271MKII will have audibly more accurate deep bass than the 272.

 

I'm not sure exactly what sort of gear that guy uses for his tests, but it doesn't seem to be a proper dummy head, and that can seriously screw with the FR it reads.  For example, the XB700's FR isn't even close to reality.  I've got one and it sounds a lot more like Headroom's graph.  I've got no idea if it messes with his other measurements though.

 

Of course I'm not not saying you can't like it.  My original comment was just about how to use measurements to find something that fits your preferences, not how to use them to proclaim the superiority of whatever you already like.


I find myself disagreeing with quite a few of his FR graphs, I like HeadRoom's best.

 

post #536 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by electropop View Post

Ah, interesting. Missed the links due to over saturation with my phone's screen :)

 

30Hz square wave difference is the only noticeable one. Wonder if it's due to leather vs. velour pads? They should be the same headphone otherwise. I wonder what counts to them sounding much more accurate, down there, than any other closed phone I've tried. I have the bad habit of judging with my hearing. Numbers tend to affect how one hears things... But anyhow it's interesting, especially in this case given the distortion figures.

 

I'll have to go do some comparisons at that site to learn more. And not to derail more, I'd really like to put the K272s against the srh940s. Seems they might have much in common.


Its hard to say what about the 272s looks a whole lot more accurate than most other closed 'phones.  Most of them are pretty similarly bad, but there are some exceptions.  That said, I'd guess that the 940s are probably the second most accurate (in the bass) closed dynamic Tyll has measured with his new rig, after the Beyer DT1350s, especially if you listen at low volumes where most of the THD+N stays well under 1%.

 

I think I'm getting fairly good at correlating the numbers with the sound though.  I bought the DT1350s based off of Tyll's measurements and I wasn't disappointed.  I think they sound great.  I'd just about bet my liver that the 940s are more comfortable though since they're not supras so despite the awesome sound I probably wouldn't recommend the 1350s as a primary home-use 'phone.  They're awesome if need something portable though.

post #537 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Max View Post

I find myself disagreeing with quite a few of his FR graphs, I like HeadRoom's best.


I think the dummy head is rather important.  There was some mention of measurement differences between a dummy head and a coupler matched to the acoustic impedance of a human ear in the comments on Tyll's article about the DT48.  How the pads seal or are deformed by pressure as well as resonances in the structure of the 'phone will be different depending on how its held on to the the measurement device.  Obviously, having it sit on a foam rubber and plastic head will be a lot closer to reality than just clamping it to a coupler.

 

There's also the issue of if an HRTF is being used and which one it is.  I wish that everyone would stop using them all together with headphone measurements.  Besides the fact that none of the "standard" ones really correlate to headphones I think that it would cut down on people who don't even know what an HRTF is making grand pronouncements about what constitutes "flat" and "accurate" without ever seeing the raw data.  I think it glosses over to many complex issues.

post #538 of 3844

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post


I think the dummy head is rather important.  There was some mention of measurement differences between a dummy head and a coupler matched to the acoustic impedance of a human ear in the comments on Tyll's article about the DT48.  How the pads seal or are deformed by pressure as well as resonances in the structure of the 'phone will be different depending on how its held on to the the measurement device.  Obviously, having it sit on a foam rubber and plastic head will be a lot closer to reality than just clamping it to a coupler.

 

There's also the issue of if an HRTF is being used and which one it is.  I wish that everyone would stop using them all together with headphone measurements.  Besides the fact that none of the "standard" ones really correlate to headphones I think that it would cut down on people who don't even know what an HRTF is making grand pronouncements about what constitutes "flat" and "accurate" without ever seeing the raw data.  I think it glosses over to many complex issues.


My thoughts exactly... and more, lol.

I figure his test dummy head, if he's using one, is not very good.

post #539 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Max View Post

I find myself disagreeing with quite a few of his FR graphs, I like HeadRoom's best.


While I'm at it, how about his A2000X graph?  Does that bear any resemblance to what you hear from your pair?

post #540 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post


Its hard to say what about the 272s looks a whole lot more accurate than most other closed 'phones.  Most of them are pretty similarly bad, but there are some exceptions.  That said, I'd guess that the 940s are probably the second most accurate (in the bass) closed dynamic Tyll has measured with his new rig, after the Beyer DT1350s, especially if you listen at low volumes where most of the THD+N stays well under 1%.

 

I think I'm getting fairly good at correlating the numbers with the sound though.  I bought the DT1350s based off of Tyll's measurements and I wasn't disappointed.  I think they sound great.  I'd just about bet my liver that the 940s are more comfortable though since they're not supras so despite the awesome sound I probably wouldn't recommend the 1350s as a primary home-use 'phone.  They're awesome if need something portable though.

 

I evaluate phones primarily how well I can tab notes with them, not by sound. I've found some phones, even though good on paper, near impossible for that task, when listening to more complex material. Main reason why I don't trust graphs absolutely and never order something based on them. Good that the Beyers are working for you though.

 

Ah, what's the use... I'll make some calls and see if I can get a good price on these. Won't hurt too much to try them out.

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