[brat]

What do you think?
If not then where starts the High End? At what price or quality point?

 

[agdr]

The 940s are "more" high end, IMHO, wherever someone wants to draw that line.  I have both.  The 940s:
 
* have better specs - see the graphs on headphone.com or posted here
* generally seem to get (slightly) better listening reviews from people who have had both, posted on threads here
* have better earpads
* don't have the exposed wires going to the cups
* have pull-down sliders that "lock" in better
* come with a great hard shell case

 

[fomoz]

imo high-end is a flagship product that is comparable in quality to other flagship products. HE-6, LCD-2, HD 800, T1, Ed. 8...

 

[Pianist]

SRH840 is sure pretty hi-fi, but no, they are not high end. High end is usually stuff that costs a lot more and is a luxury. Something like HD800 or LCD2 are high end because they both cost around the $1k mark and few people can and/or think it is normal to spend that much on headphones.

 

[bcasey25raptor]

no i would classify them as mid end. i love mine though even though i needed to send them in to shure for a replacement.

 

[tattoou2]

Quote:

The 940s are "more" high end, IMHO, wherever someone wants to draw that line.  I have both.  The 940s:
 
* have better specs - see the graphs on headphone.com or posted here
* generally seem to get (slightly) better listening reviews from people who have had both, posted on threads here
* have better earpads
* don't have the exposed wires going to the cups
* have pull-down sliders that "lock" in better
* come with a great hard shell case

I have both too and agree with your impressions.  
 

 

[Pianist]

Well, sound is extremely subjective. I personally prefer SRH840 to SRH940. I think SRH840 is still very detailed, but warmer with more low end and midrange presence which makes music sound more natural and pleasant to my ears. SRH940 is more analytical, but I wouldn't say that it's technically superior. You guys are right about the design and accessories though - the SRH940 is certainly more high-end in that regard. Sound quality wise, there is no clear separation between mid-fi or hi-fi or high-end. It's all subjective.

 

[MalVeauX]

Heya,
 
As others have stated, high end really just refers to the top end of a line of something and it doesn't mean it has to cost over $9,000. It just will be the end of the line for something specific. A high end Sony for example may not cost as much as a high end Stax for example, yet both may be referred to as high end. End of the day, it's about referring to flag ship or near flag ship models, any where from the source to the headphone. You can even use high end to refer to the source material's sample rate for example.
 
But really, high end doesn't refer to it's sound honestly. That's completely subjective. Some people will put on a pair of $200~$500 headphones on a $300 amp with a $150 dac and think it's awesome and then try out a $1200 dac $1500 amp $1000+ headphones and not really notice much of a difference. Both could be high end for their product line. High end doesn't mean best sound.
 
Very best,

 

[buffalowings]

$100 phones are pretty high end for the average Ipod listener, though low end for 'audiophiles"

 

[[OverDrive]]

NO!

 

[Ra97oR]

It will be high-end as long as you like them YOURSELF. Are people now buying headphones for status instead of sound now?

 

[brat]

So "high end" is a concept that refers to:
1. cost
2. location of the product in company's product line
But it's not sonically definitive?
My omegas do almost everything better than the 840s BUT... if I don't listen to my electrostatic rig for some weeks then the 840s fed by the headphone output of the computer (Sony Vaio with Realtek High Definition Audio) sound to me really good: almost flat freq.response, good detail, good bass slam, good focus and instrument separation, good stage. And they are not burned-in indeed, they have about 5-6 hours! But still sound to me really "high end" and I'm completely satisfied.

I've used to own HD650 and k701 and they (both considered as high end headphones) have much more findamental faults than the "cheap" SRH-840. HD650 is slow and unbalanced, the AKGs are with terrible freq. responce. Moreover I've listened to them using dedicated "high end" sources, amps, cables, etc. and not the computer
I began to reconsider my concept for high-end audio products....

 

[extrabigmehdi]

For me "high end" is anything above what the "mainstream consumers" are buying.
Depending of what are the "mainstream consumers" , the definition of "high end" change.
If the "mainstream consumers" is anyone, even non audiophile, then off course the srh840 is high end.
But if you are talking of people at head-fi, then the high end is the hd800 or stax etc..

 

[Digital-Pride]

Not quite "High-end" they are however one of the stars of the mid-range or "mid-fi".

 

[MalVeauX]

Quote:

$100 phones are pretty high end for the average Ipod listener, though low end for 'audiophiles"

I've always been confused how people spend several hundred on their ipod/accessories. But then listen to $10~$30 monitors. I guess it's much like someone with a $2000 gaming machine who have a single 1080p LCD that is low quality.
 
Alas, I suppose on the other hand, I'm happy with my ancient Jeep that will run forever instead of buying something fancier and higher quality...
 
Very best,