Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Shure announcing new SRH1540 in Tokyo today! - Head-Fi TV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shure announcing new SRH1540 in Tokyo today! - Head-Fi TV - Page 11

post #151 of 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by starfly View Post

@HiFlight, would you mind taking measurements of the earcup dimensions on the 1540? And then the inner space?

At the highest and widest points, they measure: 2 5/8" high x 1 3/4" wide and 1" deep.
post #152 of 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFlight View Post


At the highest and widest points, they measure: 2 5/8" high x 1 3/4" wide and 1" deep.

Thanks, so about 66mm long and 45mm wide and 25mm deep. Great, perfect size :) (those measurements are the inner space for your ears right?)

post #153 of 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by maricius View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFlight View Post



Actually after further comparisons, I like the 1840's with the 1540 pads better than the stock 1540. The 1540 with the 1840 pad significantly reduces the bass level.

 



How about 1840's with the stock velour pads versus the 1540's with the 1840 pads? I'm sorry if this is becoming annoying, just curious

Edit: Would you also mind mentioning what exactly you like about the 1840 with the 1540's pads compared to the stock 1540. Thanks a lot!! It's not just for me, it's for all the Head-Fiers who are interested. wink.gif

The 1840 with the 1540 pads seems overall warmer, but still well balanced tonally. Bass extends deeper and makes me feel I am missing nothing on the low end. Sine sweeps are pretty linear.

IMO, the 1540 pads work better on the 1840 than the 1840 velour pads work on the 1540. The 1540 response is more V-shaped than the 1840 and the highs seem to be to be brighter with the 1840 pads on the 1540 than the stock 1840.

I felt that the bass (probably more accurate to say "lower mid-bass") on the stock 1540 was overemphasized relative to the rest of the audio spectrum, at least for my listening preferences. Using the 1540 pads on my 1840 adds bass evenly and I am not perceiving that same sensation of over-emphasis that I did with the 1540. The closed backs of the 1540 also warms my ears more than the 1840. Still, I think it will all boil down to personal preferences. I am just not a big fan of V-shaped sound contours.

The 1540 clearly offers considerably more isolation than does the open-back 1840. This is noticeable on the first listen.

I also noted that the construction of the cables was different on the exterior with the 1540 having a beefier strain relief at the "Y" and round cable as opposed to the 1840 zip-cable design. I don't know if the interior wiring is the same or different as I have only done surgery on the cable from my 1840.

I hope this helps...
Edited by HiFlight - 11/4/13 at 12:42pm
post #154 of 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by starfly View Post

Thanks, so about 66mm long and 45mm wide and 25mm deep. Great, perfect size smily_headphones1.gif (those measurements are the inner space for your ears right?)

Yes, that is the interior space. I find the 1540 pads to be a little roomier than the 1840 pads just from the feel differences when wearing the two.
post #155 of 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFlight View Post


The 1840 with the 1540 pads seems overall warmer, but still well balanced tonally. Bass extends deeper and makes me feel I am missing nothing on the low end. Sine sweeps are pretty linear.

IMO, the 1540 pads work better on the 1840 than the 1840 velour pads work on the 1540. The 1540 response is more V-shaped than the 1840 and the highs seem to be to be brighter with the 1840 pads on the 1540 than the stock 1840.

I felt that the bass (probably more accurate to say "lower mid-bass") on the stock 1540 was overemphasized relative to the rest of the audio spectrum, at least for my listening preferences. Using the 1540 pads on my 1840 adds bass evenly and I am not perceiving that same sensation of over-emphasis that I did with the 1540. The closed backs of the 1540 also warms my ears more than the 1840. Still, I think it will all boil down to personal preferences. I am just not a big fan of V-shaped sound contours.

The 1540 clearly offers considerably more isolation than does the open-back 1840. This is noticeable on the first listen.

I also noted that the construction of the cables was different on the exterior with the 1540 having a beefier strain relief at the "Y" and round cable as opposed to the 1840 zip-cable design. I don't know if the interior wiring is the same or different as I have only done surgery on the cable from my 1840.

I hope this helps...

Hmmm I am closing in on a Modded Wooden Back D2k... I wonder if these would be a step above the Denons! Granted less bass... but possibly better mids and highs :O still no wood so... that leaves my w1000x a sad girl. Seeing as she want's another wooden friend <3

 

Still might have to give these a listen some day >.> 

post #156 of 493

That's interesting about the 1540 pads on the 1840s.

 

I just got a pair of 1840s from Amazon last week after getting a refund for my now broken SoundMagic HP-100 that I bought back in March. (it was through an amazon storefront, so they couldn't just give me a replacement.. so I got the option of full refund or partial and keep the broken headphones)

 

I like them a lot so far, but I'd also like to try the 1540 pads.

 

It's a shame that Shure usa doesn't seem to be selling them yet.

post #157 of 493
Is anybody able to compare the Shures in anyway with the Sennheiser Momentum?

Also, is the tonality anywhere near the 846s?
I have and love my 846s but I am beginning to miss the Headstage full size cans bring and I am limited to closed cans cos I use them out and about.
post #158 of 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFlight View Post


The 1840 with the 1540 pads seems overall warmer, but still well balanced tonally. Bass extends deeper and makes me feel I am missing nothing on the low end. Sine sweeps are pretty linear.

IMO, the 1540 pads work better on the 1840 than the 1840 velour pads work on the 1540. The 1540 response is more V-shaped than the 1840 and the highs seem to be to be brighter with the 1840 pads on the 1540 than the stock 1840.

I felt that the bass (probably more accurate to say "lower mid-bass") on the stock 1540 was overemphasized relative to the rest of the audio spectrum, at least for my listening preferences. Using the 1540 pads on my 1840 adds bass evenly and I am not perceiving that same sensation of over-emphasis that I did with the 1540. The closed backs of the 1540 also warms my ears more than the 1840. Still, I think it will all boil down to personal preferences. I am just not a big fan of V-shaped sound contours.

The 1540 clearly offers considerably more isolation than does the open-back 1840. This is noticeable on the first listen.

I also noted that the construction of the cables was different on the exterior with the 1540 having a beefier strain relief at the "Y" and round cable as opposed to the 1840 zip-cable design. I don't know if the interior wiring is the same or different as I have only done surgery on the cable from my 1840.

I hope this helps...

 

Thanks. That's perfect!!! I'm sure your impressions will be a great help to others. If I may ask one final question, have you ever tried the cotton mod or the 1840 mods for increasing bass? If so, how would they compare to the 1840s with the 1540's pads? The notice was the thicker or the more filled the ear pads are, the stronger the bass response. 

 

By your impressions, I guess one can conclude that the 1840 (even with the 1540 pads) is meant for a more reference sound as compared to the fun sound signature of the 1540s. Great help… though I'm still unsure which I'll be getting… Head-Fi problems. 

post #159 of 493

I'll just say... HOLY BASSSSSSS!!!

What?!?!

post #160 of 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mshenay View Post
 

Hmmm I am closing in on a Modded Wooden Back D2k... I wonder if these would be a step above the Denons! Granted less bass... but possibly better mids and highs :O still no wood so... that leaves my w1000x a sad girl. Seeing as she want's another wooden friend <3

 

Still might have to give these a listen some day >.> 

I have the Denons and the 1540 were much much better for the reasons you suspect: really amazing mids and highs.  Also, in my opinion, better bass.  

post #161 of 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by gelocks View Post
 

I'll just say... HOLY BASSSSSSS!!!

What?!?!

 

I'm guessing yours have arrived? Impressions?

post #162 of 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by maricius View Post
 

 

I'm guessing yours have arrived? Impressions?

Yes, impressions, impressions! :)

post #163 of 493

Mine are running fine from a magni/modi stack btw ^^

post #164 of 493
Quote:
Originally Posted by maricius View Post
 

 

I'm guessing yours have arrived? Impressions?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by starfly View Post
 

Yes, impressions, impressions! :)

 

Picked them up from the Post Office this morning.

Haven't tested as I'd like since I'm planning a work trip for next week... lots of things to do but I can say that:

 

1) They are extremely comfortable

2) They are VERY light compared to the Alpha Dogs or the Yamaha MT-220s which I was using yesterday

3) It may be New Toy Syndrome effects but, I'm LOVING the sound of these guys!

 

Why am I loving the sound?

Because it's doing what I expected of the SRH940s/1840s, it's playing the crap out of everything I'm throwing at it from Salsa, Merengue to Dance, Trance and Dub.

 

Is it bass light? NOOOOO!

Does it have more quantity, presence and slam than the SRH1840s? DEFINITELY.

Is it bloated or boomy? A little bit actually...

Does it have ear-piercing highs? No. It does NOT sound as bright overall like the 940s but they don't sound as warm/relaxed like the 1840s either.

 

I guess one "con" as of now is that instrument separation/imaging might not be better than what I remember the 1840s to be with the same tracks. It is very good but not excellent (that was my favorite thing of the 1840s...) Also, mid-bass quantity might be a turn-off to some. Reminds me of the hump of the 840s but with more control and overall more detail. Sub-bass is not strongly pronounced but it is definitely present (checked out the "Heartbeats" Flac for testing but need more tracks to be completely sure).

 

Listening to tracks from Rock acts like The Juliana Theory, Killswitch Engage, Senses Fail, etc. is actually a treat and might be faring better than the Alpha Dogs on this...

 

I will be away from my headphones for a while actually so I'm not sure if I'll be able to compare my T5p (on the way), Alphas, MT220s, etc. this week, but I'll try to keep on updating my impressions. Also, I might review these since I tend to do that with my Shure's! LOL

 

 

P.S. Running through FiiO X3 --> Schiit Magni --> Headphones.


Edited by gelocks - 11/5/13 at 11:19am
post #165 of 493

Okay, thanks for your first impressions gelocks :) I wonder if the bass will tighten up with a bit of burn in, I remember that happening with the P7 when I first got them. Otherwise if it really is slightly boomy and slightly bloated, I wonder if I'll like them enough.

 

A good test track for sub-bass is The Dark Knight OST, the first track on that album, and then at about 3:20 on that track :) Wonder how these will compare to the 7520. Hopefully I get my pair by Saturday.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphones (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphones (full-size) › Shure announcing new SRH1540 in Tokyo today! - Head-Fi TV