or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › New Shure SRH1540 closed-back headphones?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Shure SRH1540 closed-back headphones? - Page 4

post #46 of 87

Anyone compared the SHR1540 and the MDR-7520?

post #47 of 87

What about the 1540's compared to the W1000X?

post #48 of 87

Any thoughts/comments on this review

 

Quote:
 Update: I was really optimistic about the SRH-1540, being the high-quality headphone that it basically is. But the treble rolloff has become unbearable after a few days. Going back and comparing to the B&O H6, B&W P7, Beyer COP and others, all of the others have the treble extension which is recessed on the SRH-1540. So I enabled the old reliable iTunes Treble Booster, which brings the SRH-1540 treble up to a comparable level (with no noticeable peaks or roughness), I gave it a long listen comparing back and forth among these headphones, and am satisfied that the result sound is OK for the $500 USD I spent for the SRH-1540. The problem with the SRH-1540 seems to be the design - a much stronger than neutral bass, a more distant than normal midrange perspective, and a slightly reduced treble - all combining to render the highs much weaker than the other headphones.
post #49 of 87

Any reviews by anyone who have tried the 1540? Am wondering how the midrange sounds - whether or not it is similar to say the 1840s or more euphonic like the w3000anv/ad-series from audio technica. 

post #50 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashie View Post

Any reviews by anyone who have tried the 1540? Am wondering how the midrange sounds - whether or not it is similar to say the 1840s or more euphonic like the w3000anv/ad-series from audio technica. 


With the short time I had with it.. It didn't remind me of the 1840 at all. It really struck me like it was a better srh840 in the 1840 housing. It feels like the 1840 when worn but it doesn't sound like it at all.

1840 midrange is smooth and a bit warm for me. The 940 very forward. 1540 midrange is neither. Didn't find it too recessed either. But then again.. Just had a few minutes with it straight from the box without any burn in. What was immediately noticeable for me was the bass though. It has a bit more than I would like.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
post #51 of 87

Hi HiFlight,

Can you tell us how the sound signature comparison between SRH-1540 (closed)  and SRH-1840 (opened) against the old SRH-840 (closed)?

I'm very interested to know which one has the best in term of detail, big sound stage with 3D imaging and very good separation with very tight & punchy bass?

Thanks.

post #52 of 87

Quote:

The problem with the SRH-1540 seems to be the design - a much stronger than neutral bass, a more distant than normal midrange perspective, and a slightly reduced treble - all combining to render the highs much weaker than the other headphones.

 

That is almost exactly how I feel about the Shure.
Though I think the lack of treble is a consequence of the strange midrange. The band between 1KHz and 5KHz is kind of boosted compared to almost all other headphones. But since the volume of the "real" treble is in line with the volume of the fundamental note band (100-1000Hz) there is break from the lower treble to the upper treble. This break is what gives the impression of lacking treble, lower and upper treble are not connected well enough in the frequency response. The "smaller" Shures like the 840 or 940 do a lot better job at balancing the upper midrange/lower treble to the "air" in highest frequencies.
This strange emphasis makes the mids being too present, almost in your face (think Grado or audio-technica woodies here) while at the same time being presented more distant because of the way our brain decodes distances from the tonal balance of sounds we know. Voices are nosy and bright with a slight telephonic ring to them and electric guitars stand out a lot. For me as a drummer (who also records himself) especially snare drums sound just wrong, the fundamental is barely audible while the ring of the drum is too present. Altogether it's enough for me to be annoyed by the overall presentation.

 

The Bass is just a matter of taste. It's borderline for me, definitely boosted in the low end which almost always makes a bass feel "slow" (especially for me as a drummer, kick is more important then "oomph"). The kick IS there, though. But bass guitars or upright basses definitely dominate the mix.
It is a relatively open sounding can for a closed one with OK isolation. The treble shares a lot of similarities with the SRH840. It's soft. Super soft. A passage where crash cymbals are ridden through a chorus for example just melts into one big carpet of swishing when it would usually be interrupted by the drummer actually repeatedly hitting the cymbal. But the actual hits are hardly audible. I don't like it.

 

I made a quick and dirty EQ setting to make the Shure enjoyable for me by just fooling around with the standard EQ of foobar2K:

 



Keep in mind that I was not trying to make a neutral phone out of it. This setting keeps the overall characteristics (strong bass, bright(ish) mids with lot's of air and smooth treble) of the headphone but eliminates the two biggest weaknesses it IMO has: too much bass and wonky mids
The bass is still there, even the low registers are still booming and oomphing in your face. But the bass has won a lot of points in punch category. Mids are still bright but are no longer distant or telephonic. Also the treble is there all of a sudden - though I barely even touched it. It's also not emphasized.
If it wasn't for the soft treble I could very well enjoy listening to music with this setting for a long time.

This quick and dirty EQ setting shows me how much potential this phone really had (when Shure tuned it) or has (for modders). I just can't get over the strange midrange tho.

There is absolutely nothing to complain about in the accessory or build quality department with the exception of the necessity to remove the cable before you can put the cans in the hard case. Comfort is a problem though. The headband extends more outwards then downwards which is a problem for me. My ears are "mounted" quite low on my head and without pushing down with force to compress the head band padding the ear pads would come to rest on my ear lobes even in the biggest setting. Funny thing is that I can make it even 30% smaller without having the earpads change position on my head. Instead pressure on the earpads is increased. From my point if view the construction is fail. But that's quite common for me, there are lot's of headphones out there that simply don't fit my egghead.

This is of course only my impression based on my expectations of how things should sound. From my point of view it's not worth the price they ask for it. I'd rather take a 940 or 840 if it HAD to be a Shure.

If you like forward mids and are a base head, give it a shot, tho!

m00h

post #53 of 87

......

 

NVM


Edited by feverfive - 1/3/14 at 8:06am
post #54 of 87
Any opinions on shure srh1540 vs he 500?
post #55 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by m00hk00h View Post
 

Quote:

 


This is of course only my impression based on my expectations of how things should sound. From my point of view it's not worth the price they ask for it. I'd rather take a 940 or 840 if it HAD to be a Shure.

If you like forward mids and are a base head, give it a shot, tho!

m00h

 

and if it does not have to be shure? would the w1000x be a safer bet?

post #56 of 87
Well, let's put it this way: I enjoyed the W1000x a lot more than the Shure.

m00h
post #57 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicmaddy View Post

Any opinions on shure srh1540 vs he 500?

I'm a fan of Shure sets. I own 3 (e3c, e4c, se425) of their IEMs. Owned and love my srh440 and srh940. Looked to upgrade and the 1840 was my first choice. Listened to it in Hong Kong where they had a demo unit.

Went with the he500. Glad I did.

Still wanted a good closed full sized set so I naturally looked at the 1540. Too bass heavy for me. I decided to just keep my 940s.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
post #58 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by antikryst View Post


I'm a fan of Shure sets. I own 3 (e3c, e4c, se425) of their IEMs. Owned and love my srh440 and srh940. Looked to upgrade and the 1840 was my first choice. Listened to it in Hong Kong where they had a demo unit.

Went with the he500. Glad I did.

Still wanted a good closed full sized set so I naturally looked at the 1540. Too bass heavy for me. I decided to just keep my 940s.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Was the bass on the 1540 tight and refined compared to the HE-500 or did it appear bloated? I'm looking for a portable headphone with as close to Planar Magnetic bass as possible and was considering the 1540s.

post #59 of 87

I was able to spend some time witht he SRH1540.  I do like them, but I don't $500 like them.

Better build quality than the SRH940 because of the metal design.  However, for metal music I had on me, it didn't WOW me, but then again I was listening from a tablet haha.  I 'm sure they would sound better at home.  I wouldn't mind picking them up used.


Edited by PFULMTL - 1/29/14 at 1:02am
post #60 of 87

Tyll put up measurements in his February update:

 

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/ShureSRH1540.pdf

 

(for those that love graphs! ;-))

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › New Shure SRH1540 closed-back headphones?