Beagle
His body's not a canvas, and he wasn't raised by apes.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2001
- Posts
- 9,258
- Likes
- 3,633
Why don't you tell us what they sound like now and we'll imagine what they will sound like after 100 hours.
Shure SRH1840 and SRH1440 Unveiled!
- Thread starter jude
- Start date
Shahrose
Headphoneus Supremus
Quote:
I'll burn them in overnight every day until I get to 100 hours...shouldn't take long. In the past, whenever I've posted impressions prematurely, I've regretted it as my thoughts tend to change a lot in the first few days.
Still have to compare to all these other headphones to really get an idea of where they stand.
If you're really curious, then I'll say my current evaluation is very similar to MF's.
the fool
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2012
- Posts
- 326
- Likes
- 46
How is the comfort level of srh1840? Also i was browsing this thread, seems like no one give a damn on srh1440! No one purchase that model 
Shure should release only srh1840.
Shure should release only srh1840.
extrabigmehdi
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Posts
- 2,693
- Likes
- 77
Quote:
The headroom review seems to suggest that the srh1440 is overpriced , and not particularly interesting.
Shahrose
Headphoneus Supremus
Quote:
How is the comfort level of srh1840? Also i was browsing this thread, seems like no one give a damn on srh1440! No one purchase that model
Shure should release only srh1840.
Comfort is very good. It's super-light and the velour pads are among the softest, finest, most pliable I've seen (felt?). The headband isn't perfect, as it focuses the weight on the midsection. Fortunately, it can be bent/shaped to your liking with a little effort.
Beagle
His body's not a canvas, and he wasn't raised by apes.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2001
- Posts
- 9,258
- Likes
- 3,633
extrabigmehdi
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Posts
- 2,693
- Likes
- 77
Quote:
It was on their original review only, I quote:
Quote:
http://www.headphone.com/rightbetweenyourears/?p=2324
On the main page associated to the product, they don't say anything that is negative (Shure's first open-back audiophile headphone is a big performer etc etc). Also they increased artificially price to 500$ , just to announce a reduction of 20% , and the regular price of 400$.
http://www.headphone.com/headphones/shure-srh1440.php
MuppetFace
A Special Snowflake
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2010
- Posts
- 8,092
- Likes
- 1,212
Glad to see someone else trying out the SRH1840. Look forward to your impressions, Shahrose.
Shahrose
Headphoneus Supremus
I'll post comparisons to other headphones later as I get a chance to listen more. Haven't had a lot of time to myself this week.
To preface the comparison, I'll just say that I love the recabled-HD650s and IME, nothing comes close to them for the price. I still think they compete in several areas with the best headphones available.
Anyways, the 1840s have been burned in for about 50 hours now, but I honestly stopped noticing changes after the first 15-20 hours.
Stock Shure SRH1840 vs. Sennheiser HD650 + DHC Molecule UPOCC copper cable
IMO, the strength of the 1840s is in their tonal balance. Natural/realistic, balanced, and forgiving. They really just sound good with everything. There's no peakiness in the upper registers and nothing sounds out of place. This is a rare feat that I don't think many headphones have accomplished, regardless of price. The HD800 and T1 certainly haven't for example. They required recables and gear matching to be palatable; things which I don't think are necessary for the Shures. That's not to say they wouldn't benefit from an aftermarket cord, but they don't seem to need one to sound "right".
Both headphones have a natural tone, but whereas the HD650 can sound a bit dark, the 1840s remind me of an HD650 with better treble quality and balance, less bass, slightly more prominent mids and a bit more airy sound. The Shures also have one of the most mid-centric sounds I've heard, but their focus is higher in the midrange than on the HD650. I chose to use the HD650 here because, of the cans I own, they are most similar to the 1840s in tone.
Little more on the bass; the HD650 has more punch and moves more air. It can deliver more force and sustain it better. Speed is similar, but I'd give the edge to the 1840. The decay on the HD650 is a bit too drawn out and sounds a little smeared/fuzzy in comparison (subtle effect).
By the way, the bottom end extends all the way down on the 1840s (tested to 25Hz). They sound quite linear throughout the bass and it doesn't roll off as steeply as on the HD650. This is very noticeable with sin waves. However, the flipside to this is the fact that the HD650 has a more rhythmic and involving bass because of the properly implemented midbass hump. Caveat here being that the 650 can overdo it at times and become overwhelming with bass quantity, a problem not present on the Shures.
The 1840s deliver a little more detail in the upper mids/treble but their soundstage is flatter-sounding than the HD650s, which sound a bit more holographic (less "wall of sound" effect). The HD650s also have more pinpoint focus and imaging but the difference is subtle and took a while to nail down. The Shures have a wider soundstage, while the Senns offer a bit more depth in the forward plane. The 1840s also have a "larger" sound than the HD650, as if one is viewing a larger sized image in front of them. As for transparency, I'm having trouble comparing the two; both headphones are almost equally adept at conveying variations among recordings and equipment. If pressed, I'd give the edge to the 1840s here.
Where the Shures win unequivocally is the smooth and seamless integration/transition of the mids and treble. Compared to the 650s, there's a lack of graininess and scratchiness and the mids/treble are more liquid. All of these factors often contribute to and translate into a more involving and less fatiguing experience.
Comfort-wise, the Shures are even lighter than the HD650s, have much less clamping force, and softer earpads. Actually, I think the earpads might be a bit too soft. Yes they're comfy, but I wonder about their durability. They deform pretty easily and some parts hug the ears more than surrounding them like the HD650 do. I don't think it's a problem, it's just different. Fortunately, there's also an extra set of pads in the box. The build quality on the HD650 seems somewhat better because of its higher-quality and density plastic and other materials. The tradeoff ofcourse is weight. The added use of light-plastics on the Shures make them super light and comfortable. I'm not worried about the 1840s durability though. They're not at all flimsy/creaky but just don't feel as solid and "high-end" as some of the other heavier headphones like the HD800, T1 and even the HD650 as described earlier.
To preface the comparison, I'll just say that I love the recabled-HD650s and IME, nothing comes close to them for the price. I still think they compete in several areas with the best headphones available.
Anyways, the 1840s have been burned in for about 50 hours now, but I honestly stopped noticing changes after the first 15-20 hours.
Stock Shure SRH1840 vs. Sennheiser HD650 + DHC Molecule UPOCC copper cable
IMO, the strength of the 1840s is in their tonal balance. Natural/realistic, balanced, and forgiving. They really just sound good with everything. There's no peakiness in the upper registers and nothing sounds out of place. This is a rare feat that I don't think many headphones have accomplished, regardless of price. The HD800 and T1 certainly haven't for example. They required recables and gear matching to be palatable; things which I don't think are necessary for the Shures. That's not to say they wouldn't benefit from an aftermarket cord, but they don't seem to need one to sound "right".
Both headphones have a natural tone, but whereas the HD650 can sound a bit dark, the 1840s remind me of an HD650 with better treble quality and balance, less bass, slightly more prominent mids and a bit more airy sound. The Shures also have one of the most mid-centric sounds I've heard, but their focus is higher in the midrange than on the HD650. I chose to use the HD650 here because, of the cans I own, they are most similar to the 1840s in tone.
Little more on the bass; the HD650 has more punch and moves more air. It can deliver more force and sustain it better. Speed is similar, but I'd give the edge to the 1840. The decay on the HD650 is a bit too drawn out and sounds a little smeared/fuzzy in comparison (subtle effect).
By the way, the bottom end extends all the way down on the 1840s (tested to 25Hz). They sound quite linear throughout the bass and it doesn't roll off as steeply as on the HD650. This is very noticeable with sin waves. However, the flipside to this is the fact that the HD650 has a more rhythmic and involving bass because of the properly implemented midbass hump. Caveat here being that the 650 can overdo it at times and become overwhelming with bass quantity, a problem not present on the Shures.
The 1840s deliver a little more detail in the upper mids/treble but their soundstage is flatter-sounding than the HD650s, which sound a bit more holographic (less "wall of sound" effect). The HD650s also have more pinpoint focus and imaging but the difference is subtle and took a while to nail down. The Shures have a wider soundstage, while the Senns offer a bit more depth in the forward plane. The 1840s also have a "larger" sound than the HD650, as if one is viewing a larger sized image in front of them. As for transparency, I'm having trouble comparing the two; both headphones are almost equally adept at conveying variations among recordings and equipment. If pressed, I'd give the edge to the 1840s here.
Where the Shures win unequivocally is the smooth and seamless integration/transition of the mids and treble. Compared to the 650s, there's a lack of graininess and scratchiness and the mids/treble are more liquid. All of these factors often contribute to and translate into a more involving and less fatiguing experience.
Comfort-wise, the Shures are even lighter than the HD650s, have much less clamping force, and softer earpads. Actually, I think the earpads might be a bit too soft. Yes they're comfy, but I wonder about their durability. They deform pretty easily and some parts hug the ears more than surrounding them like the HD650 do. I don't think it's a problem, it's just different. Fortunately, there's also an extra set of pads in the box. The build quality on the HD650 seems somewhat better because of its higher-quality and density plastic and other materials. The tradeoff ofcourse is weight. The added use of light-plastics on the Shures make them super light and comfortable. I'm not worried about the 1840s durability though. They're not at all flimsy/creaky but just don't feel as solid and "high-end" as some of the other heavier headphones like the HD800, T1 and even the HD650 as described earlier.
^^
Great write up Shahrose! Thanks, I've been looking forward to it.
Great write up Shahrose! Thanks, I've been looking forward to it.
gelocks
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Posts
- 4,382
- Likes
- 392
Quote:
If only they were not open-back, I would have bought them...
I guess sound leakage is way too much for a cubicle environment?
How similar or different is it from the 940s (if you have them)?
In fact, which other headphones will you compare them to?
Thanks.
extrabigmehdi
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Posts
- 2,693
- Likes
- 77
Quote:
So what is the speed overall of the srh1840 ? Is it good for fast music, like psytrance ? I'm not sure the hd650 could be considered as "fast".
upstateguy
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Posts
- 4,086
- Likes
- 185
MuppetFace
A Special Snowflake
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2010
- Posts
- 8,092
- Likes
- 1,212
MuppetFace
A Special Snowflake
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2010
- Posts
- 8,092
- Likes
- 1,212
Quote:
Great set of impressions, Shahrose. It's certainly nice to see another take on the SRH1840; seems like we're largely hearing them in a similar way.
Users who are viewing this thread
