[kimvictor]

Okay guys, I'm guessing the general 1540 discussion has moved to this thread? I see Jude's 1540 thread is pretty dead, now...

And... if it is so... then maybe you should turn this into an appreciation thread while keeping your review as an intro...

Sure. I'll do that.

 

[Change is Good]

  Sure. I'll do that.

 

 

[Katun]

Okay, a bit more comparisons here.
 
First, I put velours on both headphones, followed by alcantara on both.
 
Here's a rundown: (velour, alcantara)
 
Comfort: SRH1840 = SRH1840 > SRH1540 >> SRH1540
Fit: SRH1840 = SRH1840 >> SRH1540 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SRH1540
Sound: SRH1840 > SRH1540 > SRH1540 >>> SRH1840  
 
Couple observations:
 
SRH1840 simply fits better and is also more comfortable. The SRH1540 does indeed have a different shape and it creates an awkward angling for bigger heads.
The SRH1540 was absolutely NOT intended to be used with velours! The fit was beyond abysmal. The SRH1540 is dependent on the tall alcantara pads.
I really love the SRH1840s sound, but when listening to the SRH1540 for awhile, I find it really hard to go back to the SRH1840's thinner sound. 
Both cables feel (and behave) really cheap, but the SRH1840s is better. It's thinner, easier to manage, and doesn't have the massive cable splitter.
I'll have to label the SRH1840 as one of my very favorite open headphones, and the same for the SRH1540 in the closed segment... possibly my favorite.
 
$500 is still a hard sell for both.

 

[kimvictor]

Okay, a bit more comparisons here.

First, I put velours on both headphones, followed by alcantara on both.

Here's a rundown: (velour, alcantara)

Comfort: SRH1840 = SRH1840 > SRH1540 >> SRH1540
Fit: SRH1840 = SRH1840 >> SRH1540 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SRH1540
Sound: SRH1840 > SRH1540 >SRH1540 >>> SRH1840  

Couple observations:

SRH1840 simply fits better and is also more comfortable. The SRH1540 does indeed have a different shape and it creates an awkward angling for bigger heads.
The SRH1540 was absolutely NOT intended to be used with velours! The fit was beyond abysmal. The SRH1540 is dependent on the tall alcantara pads.
I really love the SRH1840s sound, but when listening to the SRH1540 for awhile, I find it really hard to go back to the SRH1840's thinner sound. 
Both cables feel (and behave) really cheap, but the SRH1840s is better. It's thinner, easier to manage, and doesn't have the massive cable splitter.
I'll have to label the SRH1840 as one of my very favorite open headphones, and the same for the SRH1540 in the closed segment... possibly my favorite.

$500 is still a hard sell for both.

1540's distortion is much better though. 1840 really ****ed up in terms of distortion. I still love both though.(I just needed a closed back for my dorm)

 

[BrainFood]

$500 is still a hard sell for both.

 
They do seem a bit pricey. 
 
Shure SRH1540 £399
Focal Spirit Pro £219
Focal Spirit Classic £190
Nad HP50 £249
Yamaha MT220 £129
AKG K545 £209

 

[hodgjy]

Okay guys, I'm guessing the general 1540 discussion has moved to this thread? I see Jude's 1540 thread is pretty dead, now...

And... if it is so... then maybe you should turn this into an appreciation thread while keeping your review as an intro...

 
I've been posting over in Jude's thread, but I'll start here.  I wrote the following over there, and I'm copying it here as well.
 
I've put several more hours over several listening sessions on these, so my opinion is even more locked in.  My overall opinion has not changed at all, as these are the best headphones I've ever owned.  I think they surpass the mighty HD600s.
 
Anyway, I started to really think about what makes these special.  I've come down to two major conclusions (no need to rehash all of the opinions about bass, mids, and treble, as those are pretty obvious at this point).
 
1) As I previously stated, they have a ribbon mic presence to them.  That's very pleasing.
 
2) They have a room quality sound to them.  In natural rooms with loudspeakers, bass tends to come forward and highs are a little subdued.  I had a chance to listed to a really nice speaker system this weekend (not mine, as mine isn't very good), and my opinion was confirmed.  These Shures are tuned in a similar manner than I hear in room settings.
 
Then, I read about the new NAD VISO HP50, which are tuned to have "room feel."  When I compared their freq resp, bingo.  Behold.
 

 

[kimvictor]

   
They do seem a bit pricey. 
 
Shure SRH1540 £399
Focal Spirit Pro £219
Focal Spirit Classic £190
Nad HP50 £249
Yamaha MT220 £129
AKG K545 £209

Well, I personally think they are well worth it.

 

[kimvictor]

Anyways, this may be a good or bad news for all, but I'm noticing that amping improves the 1540 greatly, especially for the bass. The bass gains much better punch and impact when paired with an amp vs when paired just with AK100. 

 

[hodgjy]

  Anyways, this may be a good or bad news for all, but I'm noticing that amping improves the 1540 greatly, especially for the bass. The bass gains much better punch and impact when paired with an amp vs when paired just with AK100. 

I agree. Better amps make the bass take on many different notes, whereas lesser power can make it more one-note.

 

[sofastreamer]

to my ears bass and punch should better be slightly less, than gained, as the srh1540 is already borderline basshead leveled in the low frequencys.

 

[silverbox]

Are these headphones made in USA or China/elsewhere?

 

[hodgjy]

China, but those factors don't enter my mind too often.

 

[Byrnie]

  I agree. Better amps make the bass take on many different notes, whereas lesser power can make it more one-note.

They sound wonderful coming from my Asgard 2 + Bifrost combo (though I turned the -3db bass boost off on the Bifrost).

 

[hodgjy]

  They sound wonderful coming from my Asgard 2 + Bifrost combo (though I turned the -3db bass boost off on the Bifrost).

What is this bass boost you speak of? I'm confused by your wording.

 

[silverbox]

  China, but those factors don't enter my mind too often.

Thanks.