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 119

post #1771 of 2016

I did a contest with the local store on a write-up for the 1840.

 

Notably I find them to be good rock n roll headphones but are peaky at the mids and low treble with kind of missing top end altogether. I do agree that technically they lose to the big three though.

 

"Sadly the drivers themselves never striked me as fast and extremely detailed unlike the SRH940s or AKG Q701. Those expecting accurate imaging though maybe also be disappointed as I never once felt the SRH1840 had as good positioning as even the Sennheiser’s HD6XX, Beyerdynamics DT880 or the AKG Q701."

 

There are those that will disagree with me but these are my opinion of them and I hope my impressions capture their tonality in words.

 

full review impressions here(inb4 shameless advertising)

 

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151027310021765&set=a.10151027309961765.416410.360820046764&type=1


Edited by firev1 - 9/17/12 at 7:55am
post #1772 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by firev1 View Post

I did a contest with the local store on a write-up for the 1840.

Notably I find them to be good rock n roll headphones but are peaky at the mids and low treble with kind of missing top end altogether. I do agree that technically they lose to the big three though.

"Sadly the drivers themselves never striked me as fast and extremely detailed unlike the SRH940s or AKG Q701. Those expecting accurate imaging though maybe also be disappointed as I never once felt the SRH1840 had as good positioning as even the Sennheiser’s HD6XX, Beyerdynamics DT880 or the AKG Q701."


There are those that will disagree with me but these are my opinion of them and I hope my impressions capture their tonality in words.

full review impressions here(inb4 shameless advertising)

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151027310021765&set=a.10151027309961765.416410.360820046764&type=1

What's that? Shameless advertising? *ehem*

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151036456356765&set=a.10151027309961765.416410.360820046764&type=1&ref=nf

LIKE MY REVIEW TOO! biggrin.gif

Heh, but seriously all the best, may the best write-up win that sweet pair.
post #1773 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by crinacle View Post


What's that? Shameless advertising? *ehem*
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151036456356765&set=a.10151027309961765.416410.360820046764&type=1&ref=nf
LIKE MY REVIEW TOO! biggrin.gif
Heh, but seriously all the best, may the best write-up win that sweet pair.

HAHA LOL, indeed, good luck. I didn't want to make myself sound harsh in the impressions by but I felt the studio champions(HD600, Q701 etc) were technically better in everyway and it shows in my impressions somewhat.


Edited by firev1 - 9/26/12 at 8:00am
post #1774 of 2016

I doubt that the Q701 would ever surpass the SRH1840 in technicalities except for a slightly wider soundstage.

Actually I found that the SRH1840 rivals the T1 in technicalities, except for the bass quality and fastness.

But the T1s have to be driven from a high voltage amp, otherwise the bass will be loose due the measured 1400 (!) Ohms impedance in the 100 Hz region.


Edited by voyager123 - 9/26/12 at 10:12am
post #1775 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by voyager123 View Post

I doubt that the Q701 would ever surpass the SRH1840 in technicalities except for a slightly wider soundstage.

 

I'd take a Q701 over the 1840 any day.  Hell, make it two Q701s.  Apart from the slightly wonky mids/vocals the 701 is technically better than the 1840 in just about every conceivable way.


Edited by Anaxilus - 9/26/12 at 10:34am
post #1776 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by voyager123 View Post

I doubt that the Q701 would ever surpass the SRH1840 in technicalities except for a slightly wider soundstage.

Actually I found that the SRH1840 rivals the T1 in technicalities, except for the bass quality and fastness.

But the T1s have to be driven from a high voltage amp, otherwise the bass will be loose due the measured 1400 (!) Ohms impedance in the 100 Hz region.

 

^ Agreed.

post #1777 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by voyager123 View Post

I doubt that the Q701 would ever surpass the SRH1840 in technicalities except for a slightly wider soundstage.
Actually I found that the SRH1840 rivals the T1 in technicalities, except for the bass quality and fastness.
But the T1s have to be driven from a high voltage amp, otherwise the bass will be loose due the measured 1400 (!) Ohms impedance in the 100 Hz region.

Lol what's your definition of technicalities? There's nothing technilly superior about the 1840s distortion numbers. I could see an argument against their distortion if we were talking subjective impressions, but technicalities are objective.
post #1778 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post


Lol what's your definition of technicalities? There's nothing technilly superior about the 1840s distortion numbers. I could see an argument against their distortion if we were talking subjective impressions, but technicalities are objective.

 

Detail retrieval, soundstage depth, width, height, imaging, realistic timbre...

 

There are some things you can gauge better from listening than measuring.

 

I've owned the T1s (recabled too) and I agree completely with voyager's assessment.

post #1779 of 2016

So, let's summarize the 1840 lest we start on the dead horse again.  From a objective standpoint, the SRH1840 doesn't quite match the current top level dynamics in terms of measurements(mostly distortion numbers).  From a subjective standpoint, the 1840 is quite capable sonically and those that own it consider it a top performer.

 

I think that about covers it.tongue_smile.gif


Edited by Digital-Pride - 9/27/12 at 10:40am
post #1780 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital-Pride View Post

So, let's summarize the 1840 lest we start on the dead horse again.  From a objective standpoint, the SRH1840 is does not match the current top level dynamics in terms of measurements(mostly distortion numbers).  From a subjective standpoint, the 1840 is quite capable sonically and those that own it consider it a top performer.

 

I think that about covers it.

I notice that soon or later we are influenced by the graph, and it doesn't matter if our first listen is done by not looking at the  graph.

So let's look directly at the best graphs, and buy the corresponding headphone.

post #1781 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital-Pride View Post

So, let's summarize the 1840 lest we start on the dead horse again.  From a objective standpoint, the SRH1840 doesn't quite match the current top level dynamics in terms of measurements(mostly distortion numbers).  From a subjective standpoint, the 1840 is quite capable sonically and those that own it consider it a top performer.

 

I think that about covers it.tongue_smile.gif

 

Fair enough.

post #1782 of 2016

Any similarities between the SRH-1840/1440 and KRK KNS-8400? normal_smile%20.gif

The 8400 measures as some sort of bass monster, but I find it nearly bass light until you remove the felt dampening material and replace it.

 

BTW I wonder if you can really mod the SRH-840 to make it sound similar to another Shure model? Maybe the SRH-940.

What does the SRH-840 sound like with SRH-940 pads? Yes, yes, I know the SRH-940 will always be "technically" better or so they say.

post #1783 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdockweiler View Post

Any similarities between the SRH-1840/1440 and KRK KNS-8400? normal_smile%20.gif

The 8400 measures as some sort of bass monster, but I find it nearly bass light until you remove the felt dampening material and replace it.

 

BTW I wonder if you can really mod the SRH-840 to make it sound similar to another Shure model? Maybe the SRH-940.

What does the SRH-840 sound like with SRH-940 pads? Yes, yes, I know the SRH-940 will always be "technically" better or so they say.

A lot of people here like the 8400, especially for the price. I wanted to like it, as I liked everything physically about it except the cord. However, the more I listened to it the more I couldn't stand what I guess was an upper midrange harshness. I returned them after about a month. I haven't owned the 8400 and the 1840 at the same time, so I can't do an A-B. However, the 8400 had good detail and separation, as well does the 1840. I use the 1840 as my every day casual HP, so obviously to me, at least, it is easy to listen to.

post #1784 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by voyager123 View Post

I doubt that the Q701 would ever surpass the SRH1840 in technicalities except for a slightly wider soundstage.

 

Funny you say that, because the first time I heard the SRH1840, I posted that i preferred my K701 to them even without consideration for price. 

 

I can understand why people like the SRH1840, but my impressions of them mirror what Anaxilus has said. Just want to offer a counterpoint to anyone reading who might be considering buying these blindly. As always, it's a good idea to have a listen first. Maybe even compare to the Q701 and see if you can save yourself $400. 

post #1785 of 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shahrose View Post

 

Detail retrieval, soundstage depth, width, height, imaging, realistic timbre...

 

There are some things you can gauge better from listening than measuring.

 

I've owned the T1s (recabled too) and I agree completely with voyager's assessment.

 

I found the SRH1840 non-fatiguing, somewhat balanced, and with decent soundstage. However, I did not find the SRH1840 good at detail retrieval. Personally, I found my $100 used HD558 a little more detailed. While not a terrible headphone, for the price, the SRH1840 is IMO a poor performer.

 

Consider that ~$700 will get you an entry level STAX package (SRS-2170), an HD600/650 (+ decent portable DAC/Amp), HE-500,...

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!