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 55

post #811 of 3844


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pratt View Post





Lol, sorry! I'm good with them out of my M-Stage. They also sound good out of my Cowon D2 unamped or with the little FiiO E5.

 

Keep in mind that reviewer is a "warm head" so he would recommend pairing the 940's with a dark or warm amp (which I think the Predator is?).


Yeah, I heard the Predator (and RSA amps in general) have an awesome midrange. 
I like a smooth midrange with a nice and sparkly treble, though.


EDIT: How do you find them as an upgrade to the AKG K 141? Should I look further?


Edited by WoahReQQuiem - 7/18/11 at 8:54pm
post #812 of 3844

I placed putty on the back of the drivers of both the 940 and the 840. The differences were pretty much like I expected them to be. Subtle. What didn't happen was the dampening didn't magically transform the 840 into a 940 or vice versa. All that seems to have happened is that everything is a bit more controlled and slightly clearer.

The putty didn't seem to give more bass impact to either headphone. It tightened it up but the character of the Shures stayed intact.

Later I'll try to add foam and even putty into the cups but I don't believe it will change much if anything. Here's why. The left and right cups are acoustically different. For both the 840 and 940. If you look at the pics I posted earlier you'll see a green IC board in the left cup. It takes up a good deal of real estate inside the cup. The right cup of the 940 and 840 doesn't have the board in them. Obviously the acoustics can't be the same. Plus nothing seems to be neatly organized or laid out in any of the cups.

Although, I believe, further dampening may have some effect on the sound quality of the Shure by controlling vibrations, I don't think acoustics will play a part. The "air chambers" aren't crafted with any precision seemingly.

Also, by my observations, the drivers seem to be very similar to each other in both the 940 and 840. I think Shure just voiced the two headphones differently. It would also make sense that the better measuring one went into the 940.

This is a practice that companies like Grado do throughout their line so this really shouldn't come as a shock that the 940 and 840 could share the same drive but are treated slightly different.

So that's what I've noticed thus far. I'll update as I do more.


Edited by baka1969 - 7/19/11 at 7:30am
post #813 of 3844

I've bought those cans a few days ago and I was amazaed and surprised about the crispy sound quality. Well then I've read about the burn-in qualities and I must say this was my very first experience with burning in my headphones so I tried this out. I've downloaded white and pink noise and let it play not longer than about 15 minutes (more white than pink) a littler louder than I would or could listen to it.

 

After a while I put them on my head again and listened to some music...

and now I think, just THINK that I've "overburned" them... I'm not sure...?
I'm also not sure if I now like the sound more than before... or maybe, that the sound changed, is just my own imagination!

Well now the mids and mid-highs don't sound THAT sharp/crispy and with this overbrillance any more.. Sounds more accurate now but I don't know if I like it, like "that's what a recording headphone should sound like!" or I just broke it.

 

Any expierience with these situations? Well, the burn-in wasn't long and it wasn't this so much louder but absolutely louder than I could listen to white noise (put them, for my ears, on a very loud level, then laid the headphones next to me and made the volume level on my headphone amplifier just a little pinch louder).

I don't know how a broken can because of overburning it sound like, so I am very curious about this case.

 

Furthermore I would like to hear how your SRH 940 developed over the time... Is the sound exactly like the first day? Did something change? Maybe in this way I can judge if there's something wrong on mine and get them replaced as long as I can or just keep them.

 

Thank you!

post #814 of 3844

I can't really answer your question but I have to say the treble is killing me right now. I'm seriously thinking about returning themfrown.gif, something I hate to do. I suppose they would burn in a bit and the treble might soften but it would have to be a huge change for me to find it acceptable. It's a pity really as I think they have some excellent qualities (not the headband!).

post #815 of 3844
Quote:

Originally Posted by myuusic View Post


After a while I put them on my head again and listened to some music...

and now I think, just THINK that I've "overburned" them... I'm not sure...?
I'm also not sure if I now like the sound more than before... or maybe, that the sound changed, is just my own imagination!

Well now the mids and mid-highs don't sound THAT sharp/crispy and with this overbrillance any more.. Sounds more accurate now but I don't know if I like it, like "that's what a recording headphone should sound like!" or I just broke it.
 

 

Confusing aint it? These have the subtlest burn in out of all the headphones I've owned. I'm not even sure they've burned in at all.

I noticed the same thing you did after giving them a similarly mean burn in - less brilliance and attack on the notes, and getting more balanced sounding instead of being midrange and treble heavy, and at first I didn't like the change at all either. But I burned them in for hours and hours, I'm not sure 15 minutes would even do anything. All in the head maybe?


Edited by 200poundsofamp - 7/19/11 at 7:07pm
post #816 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by WoahReQQuiem View Post

Yeah, I heard the Predator (and RSA amps in general) have an awesome midrange. 
I like a smooth midrange with a nice and sparkly treble, though.


EDIT: How do you find them as an upgrade to the AKG K 141? Should I look further?

 

I think these have a smooth midrange as in it is very natural and balanced. But it is not warm if that's what you want: it is much more neutral with a lean towards "crisp" or "dry".

 

I'm sorry if you misunderstood, but I don't have the 141's and never heard them. I have the 702's and think the 940's are a significant improvement over those. I compared the two a bit more and the 940's win in ever aspect since they are just more clear, detailed, open, less dark, more forward and balanced/natural mids, etc. The 702's might have more bass, but it is not as good of a quality (it is even thumpy/boomy in comparison). The 702's only start to sound as good (but ultimately they don't) when you really crank them at volumes I think are borderline dangerous. The 940's sound good at much lower volumes (directly compared, so even with the "higher volume is better" boost the 702's still lose) but can also crank as well of course. The only thing the 702's might do "better" is have less treble which rolls off earlier and thus some might find them less fatiguing (I don't find the 940's fatiguing, at least with well recorded music). Or that they have more bass quantity (but not quality). They have a wider sound stage too, but this only serves to place the mids/vocals (especially lower mids) too far away in the sound scape...thus the 702's sound dark, distant, and even hollow in comparison, and less refined. The 940's can sound a little closed in, but never like you need air. I much prefer their narrower sound stage because it is more realistic and balanced and thus makes the music more present, focused, and energizing all throughout the freq. range. I'm really surprised at how much more I like the 940's over the 702's because I thought the 702's were a great can ever since I got them. I still think they are good, but I'm glad I tried the 940's even though I was satisfied with the 702's because you never know what you might be missing!
 

 

post #817 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by myuusic View Post

 

Furthermore I would like to hear how your SRH 940 developed over the time... Is the sound exactly like the first day? Did something change? Maybe in this way I can judge if there's something wrong on mine and get them replaced as long as I can or just keep them.

 

Thank you!


Yes, the exact same. No development here, and I've got about 50 hours on them now: all listening to them with regular music. I liked them out of the box and was having chills within the first 20 minutes of listening. I still am getting chills (though granted I do this much with other headphones and especially speakers as my favorite music just evokes this response in me often). The sound is the same, and I have only gotten to know it better in all of it's nuances or subtleties over time and with various music.

 

You can't break any can by "over burning them", only by playing them past distortion level.

 

Give yourself more time to become psychologically used to the sound, but the actual sound, independent of your ear/brain, will not change. So if you don't like them within a week (with 10 to 20 hours of getting used to them), well, you never will...except maybe paired with darker/warmer amps.

 

Also, are you using lossless files? These really bring out the sibilance (and all the other flaws) in lossy files as any good resolving gear does.

 

post #818 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post

I can't really answer your question but I have to say the treble is killing me right now. I'm seriously thinking about returning themfrown.gif, something I hate to do. I suppose they would burn in a bit and the treble might soften but it would have to be a huge change for me to find it acceptable. It's a pity really as I think they have some excellent qualities (not the headband!).


I have had more than 400 hours of playing time/burn-in and no... these cans are bright.

I did notice that bass/lower region extended a bit more but other than that, no big change.
 

 

post #819 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by gelocks View Post


I have had more than 400 hours of playing time/burn-in and no... these cans are bright.

I did notice that bass/lower region extended a bit more but other than that, no big change.
 

 

Yeah, now that you mention it it does seem to take the exact same jump the 840 does at 10k, only this time without any kind of a bass boost to compensate for it. Explains why they're slightly thin sounding despite being so close to neutral everywhere else, and why they take a while getting used to.

 

Guess these are the Beyer kind of neutral, only with the nice Shure midrange. Ah well nothing wrong with that.

post #820 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by 200poundsofamp View Post

 

Confusing aint it? These have the subtlest burn in out of all the headphones I've owned. I'm not even sure they've burned in at all.

I noticed the same thing you did after giving them a similarly mean burn in - less brilliance and attack on the notes, and getting more balanced sounding instead of being midrange and treble heavy, and at first I didn't like the change at all either. But I burned them in for hours and hours, I'm not sure 15 minutes would even do anything. All in the head maybe?


100% agree, mate. Less brilliance and attack on notes as well. I'm still confused if this now is the right path to the headphones.. It really sounds more balanced I suppose. It's not like before that disturbing to hear your favorite music on a loud level any more, before that it really was way too bright and too much brilliance that my ears likely were just before bleeding, but I still thought this "disturbance of brilliance" could be a key to hear more accurate in recordings either.. So I'm still confused but I think it's better that the brilliance and attacked dropped. What do you think?

 

post #821 of 3844
Quote:
Originally Posted by myuusic View Post


100% agree, mate. Less brilliance and attack on notes as well. I'm still confused if this now is the right path to the headphones.. It really sounds more balanced I suppose. It's not like before that disturbing to hear your favorite music on a loud level any more, before that it really was way too bright and too much brilliance that my ears likely were just before bleeding, but I still thought this "disturbance of brilliance" could be a key to hear more accurate in recordings either.. So I'm still confused but I think it's better that the brilliance and attacked dropped. What do you think?

 


Or we are adjusting to it's sonic character. I also noticed a bit of a smoother, less bright/speedy character after two weeks. Then I listened to some other phones for a few days. When I went back the the 940, it sounded like it did initially.
 

 

post #822 of 3844

+1... I think that's just its bit of technicolor, and you get used to it.

post #823 of 3844

@baka1969

 

any updates on the modded srh840 and srh940. im curious as i might mod my 840 if it makes it faster. is it possible to decrease the mid bass bloat?

post #824 of 3844
Personally I'd like to have a little more bass extension and less analytical if that could/would happen then the 840s would basically be perfect for me.
post #825 of 3844

how are the 940s un-amped on an ipod? i have the 440s and im thinking of upgrading. 

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