Shure SRH1840 and SRH1440 Unveiled! - Page 124

Possibly why it sounds warm to some?

 

Still haven't tried it--but frankly I'm not that interested

Yes. The SRH1840 sounds much warmer than the the various FR graphs out there would lead one to believe. In this case, the FR measurements, when taken into isolation, lie somewhat

 

Sure,

 

But on the whole, when analyzed together, I think they start to tell the story more 'accurately' when compared to the subjective evaluations of the community yes?

I think your qualification of "in isolation" is important in your statement

 

At least that's what I remember back when I was looking at those charts.  Maybe I'm off here

Yes. Although I still let my ears be the final judge.

 

But I honestly believe that one can gain valuable insights if one has the trifecta of three measurements: FR (linear distortion), non-linear distortion (HD, IMD, full spectrum), and CSD. This is provided that one has carefully studied the measurements and has been able to correlate measurement behaviors and patterns with their own subjective impressions of specific transducers. Not all people are able or willing to do this. It takes diligence, patience, intelligence, and most of all, an understanding that its a relative, not an absolute system.

 

The ZaphAudio website (which takes these three measurements) on speaker drivers, has personally served me well. Zaph has certain saved me a lot of work and money in my choosing drivers for my various speaker projects.

 

 

I could not agree more.  I might have to poke around that site one of these days.

 

I've always thought of objective measurements in this hobby to initially just be tangible feedback as to what you're hearing looks like in nature so you can take that template and make future personal judgements

Edited by R-Audiohead - 11/28/12 at 11:07pm

 

x2. Well put.

The SRH-1840 does not have mid distortion, it has one of the least distorted midranges of any audio product.

 

The SRH-1840 may have some graphs done by some people that show a result, but there is no scientific proof that the one graph of one headphone actually represents the real performance of the SRH-1840 production  If you did polling that way, you would be laughed out of the business.

 

And there is no scientific proof that measuring test signals has any sort of high correlation with music reproduction.

Bold.

 

So the data you've seen is superior to the data we've been provided here on this thread?  Good science and bias do not mix well, so I question your definition of science as it is.  Where is that data to back up that statement, anyway?  In all honesty, I'd love to take a look.  The more numbers, the better.

 

Not to attack you (or anyone), but I'd like to see this evidence which apparently trumps the evidence and objectivity I've been provided.

 

Thanks!

 

Also, I do not think Purrin made any such claim about a high correlation between test signals and music reproduction.  In fact, I believe he explicitly stated that measurements are meant to be used personally, and relatively.  I don't understand why this concept is so hard to grasp.  Find out what you like, see how it measures, see if other things you like measure similarly.. and if they do.. well now those output measurements are a nice tool aren't they?

 

I fully and completely appreciate the effort members like Purrin put forth to give us access to such tools and information.   If your ears like what they hear, why do you care what the his measurements say about the story?

 

I'm not looking to start conflict, as I really don't like it. Just my two cents.

 

 

Measurements might not be the end-all in telling whether a headphone can sound good with music, but saying the 1840 doesn't have a distorted midrange after multiple people have measured it to have a very distorted midrange is just being stubborn.

Science doesn't "prove" anything - that's entirely anthithetical to the methodology (any "science" that sets out for Truth or proof is inherently flawed). Also, haven't we had this flame-war enough times? Good grief. I say with the best of intentions.

This. Again, and again, and again.

I don't think there should be so much weight placed on "well it scored 7 out of 14 jiggawubbles and therefore is inferior" but instead "well it put up a vortapixel shaped voodootruffle plot, and I really like how it sounded, so I'm gonna look for other stuff with a vortapixel shaped voodootruffle plot" or "I really like how it sounded" and just leave it at that. This back and forth crusade is so tiring. Seriously - nobody is going to "solve" anything here, it's just gonna create a lot of hurt feelings and anger over nothing. Some people like their butter on the top, and others on the bottom.

No, I am saying that the measurement doesn't correspond with music reproduction , since the SRH-1840 has one of the cleanest reproductions of midrange detail in music.

 

It all but proves that the measurement is not telling you anything.   Aside from the fact that printing a plot does not demonstrate that the person did the measurement correctly, there is also the fact that reproducing a test tone and reproducing music are not the same thing.

AFAIK music is a linear combination of tones. Measurements are not necessarily carried by test tones. Depending on the approach, it may involve the equivalent of white noise which is fairly complex: basically playing all the audible tones at the same time.

 

I don't think measurements will tell you exactly how a headphone will sound... but it should give you an idea.

Edited by ultrabike - 12/4/12 at 7:06pm

Sorry I just read this now, but during my engineering labs, we actually do this type of thing, take a sample analog signal and run it through all types of filters and schemes, then through demodulation see if it still retains its form/information. We even have headphone amps to listen to the difference. Point is, different systems will introduce distortion/error in reproduction cuz well we do live in a real world, if the system is ideal(perfect world) then no information should be lost from that signal after a demodulation.

 

Anyway, about the 1840, am I missing out on anything by not using an amp/DAC? it seems fine right now off an mp3 player and laptop in terms of volume levels. Will I expect better bass/highs? The mids are awesome, my vocalist all sound so much more charming.

Bought those phones for around 400$, and I think I was robbed. Their fair price is around 70$, they are competitive in that price point. Soundwise their main competitors are 5x5 and 5x8 series of Sennheiser - same veiled and slow unnatural sound. It will not be a surprise for me, if it is OEM from same factory .

 

And IMO they do not have anything that can be attributed to gradoheiser - it is pure Sennheiser sound 

 

Miles away from my D5000  with around same MSRP. Thanks to you, marketologists

I've definitely heard negative things being said about the 1840s as well as their price point being off. Other people in the thread have claimed they are worth $100-250 less than they are sold for, but really, they are only worth $70 to your ears? They must be absolutely terrible then.