[markanini]

zambz, you listened to the DT250 80Ohm model, the 250Ohm model has been compared to HD600 and is probably your best bet for audio production. Perhaps the German Maestro GMP 8.300 D is a decent alternative if the fit of the DT250 can't be resolved.

 

[zambz]

 
Quote:

The 940 had really good bass extension - but the mid-bass is where a lot of punch and impact is located.  The 840 actually has quite a pronounced mid-bass hump - and occasionally to me on some tracks  it could get a little boomy - but despite that, I felt the 840 was superior in tonality by quite a considerable margin.  I do like a natural / neutral sound though - so that could be a lot of the reason.
 
The 940 might have extended slightly more than the HD600 - but the Senns bass is better to my ears - in fact it's not even a close race.

 
Juust heard the SRH-940 and mus agree 100%, hiighs are more refined but theres something very unnatural and incorrect in the bass region, more comparisons to follow when I'm back home 

 

 

[zambz]

Yay for arriving home on such an incredibly warm day in Melbourne 

 
Today, I got to hear the SRH-840, SRH-940, HD-600 and HD-650 in one sitting, also heard the DT440 (unexpected but why not).
 
Let's start with the phone I had never heard before, the SRH-940...
 
SRH-940: I'll start with the pros on this one.  It is very obvious that Shure have worked hard to refine the treble region significantly compared to the SRH-840.  This phone has a wonderful sparkle and clarity in the treble.  The mids actually seem a bit forward to me, quite detailed but also a bit plastic sounding.  However ... who decided to toss out the entire bass region?? 

  As you guys can tell, I'm not necessarily a basshead, I really am not, but this phone had no depth whatsoever, it truly felt like there was a highpass filter on the audio.  For me this made the headphone completely impossible to enjoy.  In addition there was something strange going on in the bass region,  listening to some trance tracks that just started with a kick drum revealed that immediately ... it sounded completely unnatural. Comfort was roughly on par with the SRH-840 though of course the 940 is likely to be better on hot days due to the velour-ish padding.  Build seemed a bit flimsier than the SRH-840, probably felt like that due to the weight.  If they could have just taken the best of both the 840 and 940, then this would have been the closed headphone to beat, but unfortunately each have their strengths and overall the 840 is significantly more enjoyable and in some ways (bass) more accurate than the 940.
 
HD-600 vs HD-650: Straight up, these are both really good phones, I really love both.  But once again, the HD-600 stood out by that little amount due to the wonderful mids which are a little more forward on the 600s.  I wish I could own both at some point, but for now, the HD-600 seems the best place to start!
 
DT440: This was actually a really decent headphone, kinda reminded me more of the DT880 and SRH-840 with a little more harsh upper mids, but a very nice response overall.  I didn't pay a huge deal of attention to them in comparison to the rest, but these are indeed quite nice and possibly underrated.  Of course, build quality is a lot lower than the DT880s.
 
At this point, I'm really interested in hearing my SRH-840s against the DT880 and HD-600s one last time. I'll either do one of two things, buy both or buy the HD-600 and let my obsession rest for a while.
 
I would really love to know if everyone is hearing something similar to me, especially in regards to the SRH-940s.
 
Cheers
zambz
 
P.S.: Updated the thread title to align with the direction our conversation has gone

 

[zambz]

Just thought I'd reply a few previous comments:
 
Quote:

zambz, you listened to the DT250 80Ohm model, the 250Ohm model has been compared to HD600 and is probably your best bet for audio production. Perhaps the German Maestro GMP 8.300 D is a decent alternative if the fit of the DT250 can't be resolved.

I just don't think the DT250 is for me, in fit and sound.  I do appreciate the 250 will likely sound more refined, but the frequency response won't be altered significantly and the graph at headphone.com is actually measuring the 250 ohm version and showing that huge drop in the treble.
 
 

The 880's have two big cons for me...
 
1. The big spike @ 6-8Khz, that is super annoying, and with the boost on the mid bass that make them sound like a boombox ( smiley face EQ curve ).
2. The sound stage of the 880's is twisted, the depth is not equal to the L-R ...and you have a large L-to-R.
 

 
 

I must agree with you, especially on the first point, that spike is indeed annoying and leads to the dirty treble I heard when comparing the HD600 to these.  Although the DT880s extend quite well to 20kHz, this spike actually takes away from the high end (14 -15 kHz and above) frequency range.
 
I'm very much in love with the HD600s at this stage.  Although, I will attempt to have one or two more listening sessions before making up my mind.
 
More contributions greatly welcome, this has been a very enlightening thread and experience for me.  Hope my findings are also helpful to others also.
 
Cheers
zambz

 

[Brooko]

Zambz - you and I are very much on the same wavelength.  Your thoughts on the 940's echo my own.
 
When the 1840s are eventually released - I'll have to get you to demo them and see what you think.  They'll not likely come to anywhere in my small city - so my only way to hear them will be when I travel.
 
Thanks for the impressions so far.  Give the Fa-003/HM5 a listen when you get the chance.  I really do think it will be right up your alley!

 

[zambz]

Quote:

Zambz - you and I are very much on the same wavelength.  Your thoughts on the 940's echo my own.
 
When the 1840s are eventually released - I'll have to get you to demo them and see what you think.  They'll not likely come to anywhere in my small city - so my only way to hear them will be when I travel.
 
Thanks for the impressions so far.  Give the Fa-003/HM5 a listen when you get the chance.  I really do think it will be right up your alley!

Thanks so much Brooko.  You know, the person at the store said that I would of enjoyed the SRH-940 more with acoustic music or similar, but seriously, what makes anyone think that bass in not important to all styles of music?  Sarah McLachlan's music actually sounds incredible on the SRH-840s because that deep baas is actually what makes you feel emotion, not just the mids.
 
Sarah McLachlan - Fallen (the kick drum, and bass playing that lovely pattern below the violins and so forth)
Sarah McLachlan - Angel (there's what seems to be a double bass below the piano which just gives this track depth)
 
I'm not a particular fan of Sarah, but I adore these 2 songs as they really are beautifully recorded and wonderful pieces of music.
 
Listen to these on your SRH-840 at some point and you'll be stunned while the SRH-940 sounds completely unmusical.  These sound great on the DT880s too as well as of course the HD600s.
 
Some may argue that the SRH-940s are reference headphones and that's why they sound like that ... which is honestly just not true!  The monitors I use in my studio (ADAM A7s) are generally known as some of the more bass light monitors used mostly for acoustic and the others I checked out at the store which are well respected (Dynaudio BM5a) actually had more bass than the ADAMs.  Both these monitors (which once again are well respected as some of the best out there for smaller studios) have about as much bass as my SRH-840s ... no I'm not kidding!  And this is in a treated room with bass traps in the corner where I'm sitting.  My monitors actually have a similar sound signature to the SRH-840s but with the smooth treble of the HD-600s and of course not quite as much extension in the low end (about 50 Hz is the best they can do).  What's most important?? Yes they are accurate, but I absolutely love listening to music with them, especially well recorded music.  Bad mixes sound horrible and good mixes sound better than any HiFi system you will ever hear.  Not really shure (pun intended?) what Shure were thinking on this one 

 
There was one thing I was curious about which you are likely to be able to answer mate.  I didn't compare the SRH-940 bass response side by side extensively today which I regret.  All I know is that the lack of bass on the SRH-940 was unbearable while I never noticed that on the HD-600.  The bass response on the HD-600 is significantly more than the SRH-940 right?  Somewhere between the 940 and 840 in level?
 
I'm trying to track down a store that has the FA-003 but no joy so far.  I know Jaben can get it in, but they don't have it in stock for listening at present.  Can you describe its sound relative to the HD-600, DT880 and SRH-840 that we both love? 

 
Thanks a lot
zambz
 
P.S.: Forgot to mention I also tried the DT990s today, but immediately noticed the recessed mids and too much bass.  Not my thang baby.

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

SRH-940:  [...] I really am not, but this phone had no depth whatsoever, it truly felt like there was a highpass filter on the audio.  For me this made the headphone completely impossible to enjoy. 

It was my initial impression, but it was much less dramatic when I started to play with ear cup position on my head (I've posted a review,, in the "review section").
And then I've modded them increasing the depth of ear cup (using a rope) , and now they significantly sound more refined/sweeter overall (let's say that the mids are as refined as the treble, and I  love how you can position clearly some instruments ).

Quote:

Sarah McLachlan - Fallen (the kick drum, and bass playing that lovely pattern below the violins and so forth)
Sarah McLachlan - Angel (there's what seems to be a double bass below the piano which just gives this track depth)

Well, I  can clearly hear the deep bass, but on the fallen track especially, it might sound  thin (especially at the first kick drum).
The angel track seems fine. But the clarity overall  is incredible,  I don't care if my speakers would provide more bass.

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

There was one thing I was curious about which you are likely to be able to answer mate.  I didn't compare the SRH-940 bass response side by side extensively today which I regret.  All I know is that the lack of bass on the SRH-940 was unbearable while I never noticed that on the HD-600.  The bass response on the HD-600 is significantly more than the SRH-940 right?  Somewhere between the 940 and 840 in level?
 
I'm trying to track down a store that has the FA-003 but no joy so far.  I know Jaben can get it in, but they don't have it in stock for listening at present.  Can you describe its sound relative to the HD-600, DT880 and SRH-840 that we both love? 

 
Thanks a lot
zambz
 
P.S.: Forgot to mention I also tried the DT990s today, but immediately noticed the recessed mids and too much bass.  Not my thang baby.

My thoughts on the SRH940 was that it actually extends as well as - if not further than the HD600.  It doesn't have as much extension as the DT880, and the SRH840 actually rolls off quite a bit after a big mid-bass hump.  The 940's bass sounds wonky because of the dip where most headphones often a have a small hump (the mid-bass).  On the attached graph you can see it quite clearly .......
 
840 has the big hump and rapid roll-off => this gives good bass impact - but can feel a bit loose and boomy sometimes.
600's bass is quite similar to the SRH940 - really good definition in the sub-bass - but it shines where the 940 fails - it has a nice mid-bass as well.
 
You're correct when you say the 600's bass 'appears' to be in the middle of the 840 and 940.  In reality - the 600's bass is better than both by a considerable margin - because it extends nicely, and doesn't suffer from either m,id-bass deficiency or bloat.
 

 
BTW - I'm supposed to be doing a comparison of the HM5 to HD600.  Will post a link once it's finished.

 

[zambz]

Firstly, huge thanks to extrabigmehdi for taking the time to check out the tracks on the SRH-940, very valuable feedback.  Thanks so much! 

 
Quote:

My thoughts on the SRH940 was that it actually extends as well as - if not further than the HD600.  It doesn't have as much extension as the DT880, and the SRH840 actually rolls off quite a bit after a big mid-bass hump.  The 940's bass sounds wonky because of the dip where most headphones often a have a small hump (the mid-bass).  On the attached graph you can see it quite clearly .......
 
840 has the big hump and rapid roll-off => this gives good bass impact - but can feel a bit loose and boomy sometimes.
600's bass is quite similar to the SRH940 - really good definition in the sub-bass - but it shines where the 940 fails - it has a nice mid-bass as well.
 
You're correct when you say the 600's bass 'appears' to be in the middle of the 840 and 940.  In reality - the 600's bass is better than both by a considerable margin - because it extends nicely, and doesn't suffer from either m,id-bass deficiency or bloat.
 

 
BTW - I'm supposed to be doing a comparison of the HM5 to HD600.  Will post a link once it's finished.

That would be really good mate, thanks a lot.
 
Agreed with you regarding the mid-bass, it certainly is where all the punch lies in most bassy tracks and without it, well ... the bass gets left behind entirely.
 
I have examined these graphs on many occasions on Headroom too and I actually think that in many ways they are spot on regarding frequency response...
 
SRH-840: Really punchy bass (mid-bass boost) and rather dirty (but fun) treble due to the boost at 9kHz and harsher roll off above around 12 kHz (loses sparkle as a result)
SRH-940: Better extension into treble giving a really crisp representation.  Drop in mid bass giving a feel of very little bass.  There's also the peak at 9kHz again but it's less noticeable on the 940 due to the upper frequencies being more present.
DT-880: Excellent bass extension though suffers from a similar problem to the SRH-840s whereby the highs are a bit dirty (boost at 8.5 kHz and roll off after around 13 kHz).
HD-600: Not quite as good a bass extension as the DT880 but a much smoother treble with no major peaks or dips in human hearing range (up to around 18 kHz).  Slight presence in upper mids due to minor bump at 2.5 kHz, but less significant than the DT880s treble peak.  Overall the most neutral and smooth sounding to my ears, I could listen to it all day without a problem I think.
 
It's a shame that Headroom don't have measurements for the FA-003 but based on what I can see at Inner Fidelity, it seems that the main colouration that this one has is a dip at 300 Hz.  Not sure how audible this is (Brooko to the rescue on that point?). 
 
Cheers
zambz

 

[extrabigmehdi]

The DT 880  has the best 50 hz square response of the bunch, so probably the best punchy bass.
The shure srh840 has the worst, so it might have a lot of midbass, it's not quality bass.
At least that's how I  interpret the 50 hz square response.

 

[zambz]

Yeah,, though let's be honest, all dynamic headphones produce far from a good square wave., especially when compared to the LCD-2.
 
I noticed someone linking to a great site with measurements called Golden Ears on head-fi, and I think it summarises exactly what is wrong with the SRH-940...
 
The folks over at Golden Ears have done some thorough listening tests between studio monitors and headphones and discovered that in order to achieve a similar balance to flat studio monitors, the headphones need a boost in the bass region for the equivalent sound.
 
The picture below shows what they believe to be the ideal flat headphone response...
 

 
Further information about their G.E.R.I metric can be found here: http://en.goldenears.net/419
 
Now let's take a look at GEs measurements for some headphones of interest (unfortunately no DT880 or HD650 measurements are present on the site, which is unfortunate).
 
SRH-940: As you can see on GEs measurements, the mid-bass dip is much more subtle, but notice that Shure have produced an almost true flat line frequency response with boosted treble  But in order for that to sound equivalent to studio monitors, a perfectly straight line is not what's desired.  This further proves that the SRH-940 is slanted towards the treble with an insufficient amount of bass, even for a flat, accurate monitoring experience. Mixing bass is one of the hardest tasks when working on a mix, especially for electronic music.  This huge drop in bass implies a lack of detail in the bass area, even if the rest of the spectrum is decent.
 

 
HD-600: No surprise, this is extremely well balanced.
 

 
 
And according to GE, the SRH-840s look rather decent too, with the well known mid bump (although not drastic) and an unfortunately treble bump which is likely what makes it a little harsh and dirty at times...
 

 
Another great site worth a read with excellent info, let's hope GE review the DT880 soon 

 
Cheers
zambz

 

[Acix]

^^ those are nice graphs, but they will not show you all the needed info...like the resolution of hps, sound stage, or the depth of the sound. As well there is the drives burn in issue, cables and digital convertors, and of course the hps amp.
 
If I was depend only on the graph data, I should work all day long in the studio only with Pioneer monitor 10.

 


 
 

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

Yeah,, though let's be honest, all dynamic headphones produce far from a good square wave., especially when compared to the LCD-2.

But the srh840  is the worst by a margin. I  would avoid them if I  were looking for quality bass. Still the monster beats studio manage to do worse , but it's in the same class I  would say.
 
A while a ago, I've deduced what would be the "ideal" curve  for headroom frequency response. I've established it by comparing high end  "neutral" models, and reading the explanations from headroom about how to interpret a graph.
 
Here I've added the ideal curve in black :

 
I think the hd650 have a closer to ideal bass, and the balanced hd650 is really close if you don't consider sub bass.



Here , if you consider only the frequency balance, the hd800 win because it provide more sub bass.
Unfortunately a balanced amp is too expensive, otherwise it seems a good plan to run a balanced hd650.
 

 

[Brooko]

Does anyone else find it kind of strange that while I orginally commented on what I was hearing - and used a graph to back up the comparison - the discussion has (once again - as it does so many times on head-fi) reverted to graphs showing what you "should be" hearing - and basing recommendations off that ......
 
Is it just me - or is this kind of skewed thinking ...... ?

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

Is it just me - or is this kind of skewed thinking ...... ?

I never said you should absolutely be hearing what's on the graph, but if you are basing your thoughts on a graph, then don't complain if they become a base of the discussion. I find the frequency response from golden ears  & headroom significantly different , and obviously there's a lot of factors that have impact in the data presented. I don't have a problem in trusting  such graph as long as I know that even our ears have limitations in assessing  the flaws in a frequency balance.