Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Shure SRH1840 and SRH1440 Unveiled!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shure SRH1840 and SRH1440 Unveiled! - Page 116

post #1726 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahrose View Post

BTW, I personally found the 1440 too hot for my tastes ultimately, but If one builds a synergistic system around them, they can sound quite good (esp for their price).  I ended up keeping the 1840 instead, which I think are the best in their price range still. Yes, the bass is a little slow and lean, no they're not as hyper-detailed as the HD800s, no they don't have the body/slam of the LCD-2/3 or even the HE6, but they sound balanced, forgiving, open and don't commit any major offences. I find them to be a jack of all trades headphone, one that I'd pick over the T1 or HD650. Actually, speaking of the HD650, the 1840 feel like a natural upgrade from them (except in some areas of bass, for reasons mentioned earlier).

 

I kinda thought that same thing, except for the HD600 instead of HD650. I like the thicker presentation of the HD600, but also like the cleaner sound of the SRH1840.

post #1727 of 2016

I agree, the HD600, and especially the HD650 have a thicker sound (one that I enjoy), but the 1840 scale higher, are more detailed, liquid and image better.

post #1728 of 2016
On the note of said mods, I found this on Stereophile:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/shure-srh-1440-stereo-headphone-review-dale#comment-506426

Purrin, would be interested if you decide to do this and see what comes of it. Kind of curious how similar the 1440 and 1840 are, under their cosmetics. smily_headphones1.gif

Also:

Lotta people keep comparing the 1840 to the HD 600/650 - so the next question is: how's it stack against the ESP/950? (Which is imho the big brother the HD 600/650 never had).
post #1729 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahrose View Post

Yes, the bass is a little slow and lean, no they're not as hyper-detailed as the HD800s, no they don't have the body/slam of the LCD-2/3 or even the HE6, but they sound balanced, forgiving, open and don't commit any major offences.

 

Apparently they're offensive to some folks. ;)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahrose View Post

Actually, speaking of the HD650, the 1840 feel like a natural upgrade from them (except in some areas of bass, for reasons mentioned earlier).

 

I third this opinion. I thought they sounded similar to the HD650s (which I love too) but an upgrade from them in certain areas. This, after owning both and comparing over the last couple of months.

post #1730 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

So.... how 'bout those Dale Thorn mods? How do they work again? Wasn't that guy banned from here for insanity or something?


I don't know specifically what Dale Thorn's mod is, but in the SRH940 thread, many people have suggested putting foam, rope, cotton balls, etc. underneath the earpad where your ears go...terrible description, a photo is better:

 

With this mod, in the configuration that I have it in, I have found that:

- The bass impact is improved

- The 9 kHz spike is less annoying

- There is more noise isolation

- Some clarity in the upper mids is lost

 

The amount and where the foam/rope/cotton/other is located affects the sound. With the configuration I have, the earpads are contoured slightly so that they are more like that of the LCD-2, which provides better noise isolation for my head shape.

 

 

 

Perhaps these mods also affect how the SRH1440 and 1840 sound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilCox View Post
 
Works well for boosting the bass on the 1840, but be careful not to add too much or you can negatively affect the midrange and treble balance.  I used a 1/8" thick oval donut of neoprene and that worked just great.

Speaking of Dale Thorn though, yes I believe he got banned for personally attacking members in the SRH940 thread who denied that they sounded nearly identical to the HD800. -.-


Edited by miceblue - 9/9/12 at 3:02pm
post #1731 of 2016

Yeah, I guess the mod consisted of taking a foam? layer from a set of spare pads and doubling up on it. Too bad I don't have the SRH1440 around anymore. It would have been nice to hear the effects of the mod and confirm via measurements. Oh wait, that's right, people don't believe in the usefulness of measurements around here.

post #1732 of 2016

Sure we do.

 

As long as you "Listen First" give an impression then confirm your initial impressions with your measurements.

 

Then - it's all good.

 

beerchug.gif

post #1733 of 2016

I don't think I actually don't know of anyone, other than nwavguy, who doesn't listen first or let their subjective experience take precedence over measurements. I've messed around enough with amps to know that adding more feedback to lower measured distortion may actually decrease sound quality. Go figure. Some people insist this is crazy.

post #1734 of 2016

I should add that measurements, while they have limitations, happen to be impartial. There's the good, and there's the bad. All separate from personal passions or biases.

 

  1. I've pointed out that CSDs for the the SRH1840/1440 are incredibly clean, and that this is likely why many listeners are attracted toward them. No narrow treble spikes, resonances, or ringing. This is actually quiet a feat that few dynamic headphones have accomplished.
  2. FR graphs show the SRH1440 to be tipped upward with emphasis on the upper mids and treble in comparison to many other headphones. I don't think is in opposition with even the proponents of the SRH1440. Heck, even Dale Thorn himself offered a mod to tame down the brightness.
  3. Distortion measurements (both mine and Tyll's) were lacking with the SRH1840/1440. Muppetface (who I consider a friend) likes the SRH1840, and she has acknowledged that these cans tend not to scale well with better more revealing upstream equipment. My subjective thoughts on the sound quality of these two headphones is well known. If anything, the poor distortion performance below 1kHz may affect certain individuals more than others depending upon the individual's sensitivities, ear-training, preferred listening volumes, etc.

 

Nothing about the measurements for the SRH1840/1440 were inconsistent with my own personal subjective observations (I always listen first, LOL!). However, just because these headphones measure badly in one or two ways doesn't mean that the measurements are wrong just because you love these headphones. 

 

What I've done here is simply left data to support some of the subjective claims we've heard, and leave people to have the choice to use them (in a comparative capacity) in a purchasing decision barring their ability to actually listen to them. Last time I looked, I didn't see that this was an appreciation thread.

 

I've said before, on a personal level, measurements don't have any bearing whether someone will enjoy a headphone or not. 


Edited by purrin - 9/9/12 at 5:03pm
post #1735 of 2016

Nicely said purrin!

 

I have to say that I don't usually agree or "sing you praises" because you have a certain "approach" to comment on headphones (basically, you are too upfront and honest! LOL!) but I appreciate the work you do for the community. And, I personally don't get defensive if a headphone I like measures wrong/bad because, well, my ears likes them and measurement wouldn't really matter but it might give me an understanding of why/how the sound is in particular and any weaknesses cans might have.

 

In conclusion, if someone likes the 1840/1440s, then measurements shouldn't matter... BUT for anyone that HAS NOT bought them, subjective + objective data might tilt people to either try them or not... their choice!

 

 

P.S. I like the 1840s, just not at $500... If I get the chance to buy them later (and don't have the HD600s anymore), I might... (distortion and all! biggrin.gif )

post #1736 of 2016

I think the problem with the "measurements are objective" idea is that the measurements are designed, selected, performed and intrepreted by human beings.

 

So, there is a "bias" involved in the entire process of measurement.   As a professional software engineer, who has written software for the testing of electronics, I don't trust human being's ability to design and create either hardware or software - from first hand experience.

 

===

 

Now I can see a "bias" associated with being sold a $5,000 audio product at a store, and then deciding that it sounded "good" or "better" simply because your mind wanted to convince itself that you had not wasted $5,000.  I get that idea.

 

In the case of the burn-in of the SRH-1840, the reason that I think that bias is not involved is two-fold - first - that the change due to burn-in was a surprise (as I mentioned).   Sorry, I don't believe in multiple personality entities in one's head, where one is tricking the olther, lol.   So, I don't logically see how a surprise could be bias.   Second, the change was opposite to my preference.  I wanted to sell them and use the money to try the HE-500 that I have heard so much about.  Again, logically an outcome that is the opposite of what you want, cannot be bias.

 

The burn-in change cannot be explained by "the brain getting used to the headphones" (which does make some logical sense), simply because I did not listen to the headphone in between a brief audition out of the box - when my reaction was similar to Anaxilus - and then after the burn-in, when the initial problems mostly vanished (they entirely vanished when I applied the "mod" pictured a few posts back by miceblue at http://www.head-fi.org/t/583950/shure-srh1840-and-srh1440-unveiled/1740#post_8685194 ).

 

None of the above is meant to say that the product is priced correctly (I have not heard enough different current headphones to assert that) or more importantly, that they will the right headphones for anyone other than me.

post #1737 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by kstuart View Post

I think the problem with the "measurements are objective" idea is that the measurements are designed, selected, performed and intrepreted by human beings.

 

So, there is a "bias" involved in the entire process of measurement.   As a professional software engineer, who has written software for the testing of electronics, I don't trust human being's ability to design and create either hardware or software - from first hand experience.

 

Of course! There is always bias. But one needs to truly understand that "objective" is simply a handy label to use. And measurements, at least the ones we are talking about are very limited in scope of what they exactly measure. (There's an inherent understanding of this for people who deeply understand what the measurements actually mean.) This one of the reasons why Tyll or I offer different types of measurements. Perhaps instead of saying measurements are objective, maybe it's more correct to say that measurements are another data point or provide another point of view.

 

As for not trusting human hardware or software, I hope you don't drive a car or fly in planes. Especially with all these drive/fly-by-wire accelerator pedals and wing surface controls. biggrin.gif


Edited by purrin - 9/9/12 at 9:30pm
post #1738 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

Of course! There is always bias. But one needs to truly understand that "objective" is simply a handy label to use. And measurements, at least the ones we are talking about are very limited in scope of what they exactly measure. (There's an inherent understanding of this for people who deeply understand what the measurements actually mean.) This one of the reasons why Tyll or I offer different types of measurements. Perhaps instead of saying measurements are objective, maybe it's more correct to say that measurements are another data point or provide another point of view.

As for not trusting human hardware or software, I hope you don't drive a car or fly in planes. Especially with all these drive/fly-by-wire accelerator pedals and wing surface controls. biggrin.gif

I have no idea if there's a solid attribution for this, but a number of years ago going through QRM, the line "objectivity is a lie" came up. Of course I thought of Farnsworth at the races, but the deeper meaning is certainly relevant here. The point isn't that we can just dismiss measurements because they're not "natural law" or "found truth" but instead that we must recognize the limitations of both our own reality and frame of reference, and therefore of our ability to measure and document.

I think you're absolutely, 110% spot-on, in the points you're making - dismissing something because it's disagreed with you once or twice seems a little bit, nutty. Instead, try to figure out WHY something "disagrees" or otherwise doesn't explain what you want to get at. And that's exactly what I see you arguing for. I think that people would benefit by taking a step back and acknowledging their subjective experiences as having a lot of merit, and that standardized measurements are actually a benefit in trying to tie those subjective experiences together. They aren't diametrically opposed.

beerchug.gif
post #1739 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by purrin View Post

 

Of course! There is always bias. But one needs to truly understand that "objective" is simply a handy label to use. And measurements, at least the ones we are talking about are very limited in scope of what they exactly measure. (There's an inherent understanding of this for people who deeply understand what the measurements actually mean.) This one of the reasons why Tyll or I offer different types of measurements. Perhaps instead of saying measurements are objective, maybe it's more correct to say that measurements are another data point or provide another point of view.

 

As for not trusting human hardware or software, I hope you don't drive a car or fly in planes. Especially with all these drive/fly-by-wire accelerator pedals and wing surface controls. biggrin.gif

 

x2. Not everyone on this forum is lucky enough to try out a headphone before buying it, or has the extra capital to just buy it to try it out and try to flip it. The more data points available (both objective and subjective) that we can line up with our own experience, the easier it is for us to make better decisions when looking for new headphones. 

post #1740 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahrose View Post

BTW, I personally found the 1440 too hot for my tastes ultimately, but If one builds a synergistic system around them, they can sound quite good (esp for their price).  I ended up keeping the 1840 instead, which I think are the best in their price range still. Yes, the bass is a little slow and lean, no they're not as hyper-detailed as the HD800s, no they don't have the body/slam of the LCD-2/3 or even the HE6, but they sound balanced, forgiving, open and don't commit any major offences. I find them to be a jack of all trades headphone, one that I'd pick over the T1 or HD650. Actually, speaking of the HD650, the 1840 feel like a natural upgrade from them (except in some areas of bass, for reasons mentioned earlier).

I agree with the jack of all trades description. This, and the apparent robustness (we'll see), despite the poor ear angle and inadequte headband padding (both corrected) means they have become my every day headphone (not studio phone however). The (IMO) design flaws should induce a recall.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Shure SRH1840 and SRH1440 Unveiled!