Pianist
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Posts
- 3,994
- Likes
- 113
I own M-Audio Q40, ATH-M50, Shure SRH840 and also just sold my GMP 8.35 D monitor mostly becuase of ergonomics, but also becuase I needed cash for other audio equipment. Here's a little comparison. Note that the Shures only have about 5-8 hours on them so far, while the other cans already had 50+ so this may not be a fair comparison for the Shure yet. Thus I will add to the impressions as the Shures continue to burn in.
UPDATE: My Shures now have around 80-100 hours on them, and I feel that they have already burned in enough to make fair judgements on their sound quality. Over the course of the last 50 hours or so I feel that the sound on the SRH840 has changed significantly and thus my comparison will be updated accordingly.
Sources used: All the ones listed in my signature with all the cans, except Shure SRH840, which I only tried with my Sony Walkman and Samsung T9 unamped so far. The following evaluation is based on my overall impressions listening to all of my sources. It is of course possible that there exists better synergy for these cans with some other sources/amps that I don't have, so please take this review with a grain of salt. This comparison, however, should give you a pretty good idea of some of the more important sound characteristics and signature of each can so that you can at least take a good educated guess on how it will sound with your source and music.
Music used: For now, I primarily listen to instrumental music, new age and I also really got hooked to 80s Asian pop recently, but I actually like pretty much all kinds of music. With these cans, I also tried some pop, some rock, electronic, trance, and even some country, which is one genre I usually don't listen to.
My favourite singers/bands include Acoustic Alchemy, Keiko Matsui, Alan Parsons Project, Yosebu, Minayo Watanabe, Enigma, Deep Forest, as well as some others. Most of my music is encoded in 192 kbps+, but I have a few songs in 128 kbps and 160 kbps as well.
Bass quantity:
M-Audio Q40s have the most elevated bass overall of all the cans with some mid bass hump.
ATH-M50 has the most elevated low bass and some mid bass emphasis as well, but less mid and upper bass than Q40s.
Shure SRH840 have almost a neutral bass with some insignificant mid bass hump.
GMP 8.35D have the most neutral bass of the three IMO, which is less in quantity, but still big and punchy.
Bass quality:
ATH-M50: Out of the box, the bass was all over the place and completely lacked tightness. After 100+ hours burn-in, the bass tightened up a lot and now sounds fine. It still lacks tightness for my taste when M50s are driven unamped out of weak portable sources, but improves significantly with amplification and better sources. Bass depth is excellent. Bass detail is OK, nothing special. Good for the price. Low level details are sometimes smeared and lost and there is a definite lack of texture in this part of the spectrum, just like in the mids.
M-Audio Q40: The bass on these was tight out of the box and is MUCH tighter than that of ATH-M50s when both are unamped. Bass detail is also excellent and the low end is nicely textured. What I also really like about the bass on these is that it's fun and punchy and manages not to intrude into the mids most of the time. However, I do feel that the quantity of bass on these is a tad over the top. Bass depth is excellent and approaches or matches M50, but M50 seems to have more depth due to a low bass bump and so may seem to have less depth.
Shure SRH840: Out of the box the mid bass on these was definitely sloppy and slow especially at high volumes. After 5-8 hours of burn-in, the low end already became more controlled and no longer as disturbing to listen to at high volumes. Bass tightness could also some work on these out of the box. Bass details were very good from the get go but, at first they were not as easy to pick out as with Q40 due to some mid bass sloppiness still present. Also, I felt that bass depth was not quite as good as on the other three cans out of the box, but still sufficient for me and still better than, say, stock Sennheiser HD25-1, which lacked bass depth IMO.
Update after 80+ hours of burn-in: The bass has improved significantly. The main improvement is in bass tightness and speed. The low end became much more controlled and all sloppiness in the mid bass that was present before is now gone and the low end became more neutral. In terms of bass speed, a well burned in SRH840 is fast enough to handle complex bass lines very well without congesting them. Bass detail remains the same as on out of the box Shures, but the details are now far easier to pick out due to much better bass control. I would now rate SRH840 bass higher than that of M-Audio Q40, since it is more linear and has better impact while still having retaining excellent detail and good tightness.
GMP 8.35D: These have excellent bass - very deep, very tight, quite linear and very detailed as well. I have not done any tests in the low frequencies, but my ears tell me that the bass reaches at least as low as M50, maybe even lower and without any artificial bumps - nice. So far, these have the best bass of any closed can I've heard, except ATH-ESW10, which I heard briefly and which has even better, more neutral low end.
Midrange:
ATH-M50: The midrange is quite neutral, maybe even a bit elevated until the upper mids, where there is a recession, which makes the mids sound quite laid back, a bit too much so for some music genres, like instrumental and jazz recordings, which sound too relaxed. Midrange detail is OK - micro-detail/texture is lacking which makes the mids sound somewhat lifeless, which reminds me a lot of UE Super.fi 5 Pros, which have a similar lack of texture in this part of the spectrum, while having strong bass and treble (in quantity I mean).
M-Audio Q40: These have quite a nice midrange, especially lower mids, where they exhibit more presence and warmth than M50. Unlike M50s, midrange resolution is very good on the Q40s in both macro and micro-detail. There is a hump in the upper mids area, which causes some sibilance and harshness, but also makes for a more lively sound at lower volumes. Overall, the Q40s sound alive with all kinds of music, unlike the M50. Also, very much unlike the M50, I really like The Q40s with some of my favourite instrumental music/jazz, like Acoustic Alchemy and Keiko Matsui. It's warmth and good detail works wonderfully for acoustic guitars and pianos. They still can't touch my Shure SE530s in this area, which had an absolutely amazing, magical midrange performance, but they are somewhat comparable to Sleek SA6 in this area IMO, just harsher, less clear and a bit more analytical. Another thing to note is that with the Q40s, you really feel like you are listening to a closed can and the mids do sound a bit closed in, but it doesn't prevent me from liking them very much.
Shure SRH840: Overall, the mids on these are excellent. They definitely remind me of SE530, but SE530 still has better mids IMO - SRH840 just can't quite match that level of involvement and depth. There is one little problem however - as with the treble, the sound of SRH840 has a hint of a plasticy sound in this part of the spectrum for some reason, which reminds me of improperly fitted SE530 with black olives, but without the excessive warmth. It's not as bad as it may sound - the mids on these sound significantly more detailed than on M50 and much more open and nuanced than on Q40. Hopefully this issue will go away with more burn-in or with a better source and amp.
Update after 80+ hours of burn-in: I was pleased to discover that after burn-in, the plasticy midrange does indeed disappear and is replaced by a lukewarm, laidback, very clear and detailed mids. Both male and female vocals, saxophone, piano and many other instruments now sound very accurate and natural on the Shures, especially with my AMP3, where the mids sound just amazing. I do feel that with some sources, especially weaker portables, the midrange can sound a bit distant and overly laid back, but it's obviously the source's fault and not that of SRH840. With quality portables like AMP3 and my Sony Walkman, the Shures have plenty of energy in the mids.
GMP 8.35 D: Very nice mids. More open sounding and detailed than on Q40 and more natural than on M50. The detail in the lower mids was the first thing that impressed me about these. They are pushed quite forward, but not too much so - just enough to really get you into the music. I really, really like acoustic guitars and sax with these as well as many other instruments. Everything sounds very full bodied and quite musical. Vocals sound very good and male vocals somehow stay accurate with these without sounding chesty, despite the low midrange warmth - great balance! However, the midrange on GMP 8.35 D is not perfect - due to it's recessed treble, some other instruments don't quite have enough air, like the piano or strings. In this respect, I feel that Shure SRH840 does a better job, making the mids sound more airy with it's wonderful treble sparkle.
Treble:
ATH-M50: These have the most elevated, but also the most well extended response. However, it has an emphasis on upper treble and a somewhat subdued lower treble coupled with not so great treble quality. This results in highs on M50 being somewhat metallic and a bit piercing sometimes and the least natural sounding out of the four cans IMO. The other three are recessed and more or less rolled off in the upper registers compared to M50, which extends until 16 kHz without any roll off.
M-Audio Q40: the second worst after M50 in terms of treble naturalness IMO - it doesn't sound as metallic or thin as M50 treble, but at the same time it's less clear and can sound sibilant and harsh at times due to a bump in the low treble. Also, the Q40 highs are much more recessed than on M50, but not too much so. They also roll off earlier than M50 - at around 14 kHz or so. 16 kHz is not very audible.
Shure SRH840: So far, the treble on these Shure has been sounding quite good to my ears. It's a little plasticy for some reason (more on that later), but still sounds quite natural. The response in the treble is definitely much more neutral than on Q40 and M50 and the Shures are free of any offensive peaks or dips in this part of the frequency spectrum, although it is somewhat recessed and maybe even rolls off a bit too early - I still need to check that using some tones. Overall, the highs sound more natural and smoother on the Shures than on the M50 and Q40. They still lack air of a quality open can, but have more air than the other two.
Update after 80+ hours of burn-in: As with the midrange, I am please to report that after a good amount of burn in, the highs on the Shures are no longer plasticy. Moreover, treble definition and detail seems to have improved as well and the treble now has excellent amount of sparkle and air that matches that of a good quality open headphone. I think Shure did a great job with the treble especially considering that this is a relatively inexpensive closed headphone.
GMP 8.35 D: These have the most subdued treble of the four cans overall. There is a very slight elevation in the upper mids/low treble area, which still gives the highs a hint of sparkle, but the uppermost treble is really quite recessed and rolls off early. However, treble quality is excellent on these and it doesn't feel like the highs are in any way missing or bad. They are actually surprisingly nuanced, open, natural sounding and reveal a lot of detail, which reminds me a lot of Shure SE530s, which also have similar mellow, but detailed upper treble, except that the Shures roll off even earlier and also have more low treble bump. Overall, I would say that the GMPs have a better, more natural, more open and detailed treble than ATH-M50 and Q40. Compared to SRH840, I think that treble detail and clarity is about on par with the Shures, but the treble on GMP 8.35 D is more recessed and not as well balanced with the rest of the spectrum.
Clarity and instrument separation:
ATH-M50: Very good clarity and good instrument separation, but not as good as, say, armature IEMs and higher-end cans.The sound does get congested during complex music passages.
M-Audio Q40: Good clarity in the bass and mids, but treble clarity could be better. Instrument separation is good. These don't seem to get as congested during heavy music passages as M50s, despite them sounding more closed in.
Shure SRH840: Clarity is really, really good! At least as good as on M50, but probably better, especially in the mids. Instrument separation is also excellent and unlike the M50s the Shures seem to retain full authority even during complex music passages without getting congested and with a lot more room to breathe than with Q40s.
GMP 8.35 D: These also have awesome clarity for a closed headphone. Almost as good as on Sleek SA6 and Phonak Audeo IEMs. Definitely better than on Q40 and as good as or better than M50 and SRH840. Instrument separation is pretty good, not great. They handle complex music quite well however without congestion.
Soundstage size and imaging:
ATH-M50: These have quite a wide soundstage, but quite upfront without too much depth. Imaging is OK, but a bit blurry. Also, whiule the sound has a decent amount of air to it, M50s sound somewhat "cupped in," which really annoys me sometimes. This cupped in sound seems to nearly disappear when M50s are properly amped however and with certain sources.
M-Audio Q40: Technically, the sound is even more closed in than on M50 , but soundstage is still quite wide, deeper and more laid back and relaxed than on M50 and with some music, like some instrumental, Q40s actually sound more natural and airy to my ears than M50s. Imaging is not as good as on M50s, but the sound is much sharper and instruments are not blurred around the edges like on M50. Also, there is no cupped in sound with Q40 at all - the sound just lacks air.
Shure SRH840: These are definitely the best of the four in this area! The soundstage is very large for a closed can with excellent depth and even some surround sound feeling with some recordings. Instrument positioning is great, the best of the four and provides quite a realistic sound to live recordings. With my AMP3 when playing lossless files, the sound is absolutely captivating with a very intimate, upfront sound and yet excellent imaging. I must say that there is a bit of that cupped in sound with the Shures still present, but nowhere near as bad as with M50 and doesn't really bother me at all.
GMP 8.35 D: I would rank the soundstage and imaging on these as somewhere in between M-Audio Q40 and ATH-M50. The GMPs have a more open midrange than Q40s, but still sound a bit closed compared to M50s. I am pretty sure that the stock pads play a major role in limiting the headstage of these cans and if replaced with pads that have larger holes, the headstage and instrument separation would probably improve significantly. With stock pads, the soundstage is a bit narrow, but with good depth and imaging is lacking as well - the sound is less blurry than on M50s, but imaging is nowhere near as realistic and Shure SRH840s trounce them in this area as well. These are similar to Q40s in this area.
Speed (transient response) and dynamics:
ATH-M50: I must ssay that these are a surprisingly dynamic sounding closed headphone for its price range. When driven unamped, the dynamic range on ATH-M50 is not quite as wide as when they are amped, but is still better than that of Q40 in this area. However, when M50 is amped, the dynamics become quite impressive! Music flows very freely without any hints of compression at all. In terms of speed, mids and treble I quite fast on ATH-M50 to my ears, while the bass is definitely on the slow side. With msuic that involves complex bass lines, M50 can struggle to reproduce them with authority, but amping does help.
M-Audio Q40: These sound sufficiently dynamic out of good sources, although not as impressive as M50. Speed quite good and these don't sound slow at all. Bass is certainly more speedy than the rather sloppy M50 bass.
Shure SRH840: I think that these have the best dynamic range of the the four cans. They definitely surpass Q40 and GMP 8.35 D in this area. Compared to ATH-M50, the Shures may actually appear to sound less dynamic due to their more laid back, subtle sound signature. In reality, however, I feel that they are even more dynamic sounding than M50s due to higher detail resolution and better soundstage and imaging. I think that the well burned-in Shures also have a pretty good transient response when paired with good sources. Due to their powerful and impactful bass, they may appear a bit slow, but I feel that their bass is quite fast - definitely faster than that of M50 and about on par with Q40.
GMP 8.35 D: These are not very impressive when it comes to dynamics and speed. At least, not with the stock pads. I think the sound with the stock pads is more oriented towards providing a balanced and controlled sound with excellent detail, which is what a quality studio monitor should be able to do. Dynamics and speed are sufficient for most music, but they do seem a bit slow for fast rock, dance trance and similar genres that require good transient response. Swapping the stock pads for ones with larger holes
and thinner foams may help improve speed, dynamics and soundstage of GMP 8.35 D, but it may also take away the wonderful full-bodied bass that they have with the stock pads, so it's a matter of personal preference.
Ergonomics, isolation, build quality and portable use:
ATH-M50: These are the second heaviest headphones of the four. I have a medium sized head and they still slide off a little when I walk fast with them on or turn my head down rapidly or walk with my head down. It's not that bad for me, but for those with smaller and/or rounder heads, this may definitely become an annoyance. Build quality seems to be very solid and the headband adjustment part is metal. The cable is not replaceable, but is quite thick and sturdy, and the plug is all metal with some metal protection against excessive bending as well. At the same time, the cable is reasonably soft and non microphonic, but that is in temperatures above zero. When worn outside in the winter in sub-zero conditions, the cable unfortunately hardens a lot and becomes quite microphonic. Keeping it under clothes should keep the microphonics level acceptable. Another annoying thing I found is that in the version with the coiled cable which I have, the cable is quite short, which is OK for portable use even for tall people, but not enough for using at home, where extension will often be needed. Thus, I recommend the version with the straight cable instead. The pleather pads are quite comfy, but mine hardened over time probably due to exposure to cold temperatures and sweat. Still quite comfy though. The holes in the earpads are large and deep enough for my medium sized ears, but for those with big ears, they may be too small. Clamping for is not very strong. Isolation on M50 is quite good - sufficient for wearing outside on the street, and even on busy streets and subway with the volume slightly turned up maybe. At 30 something Ohms, these are also quite easy to drive, but do sound better with a good portable amp.
M-Audio Q40: These are the lightest of the four with cable included. The cups are bigger than on M50s, the pleather earpads have larger holes, but the holes are shallower than those on M50. For my medium sized, non sticking out ears, they are quite comfortable. Clamping force is quite a bit stronger than on M50s and combined with their light weight, this leads to a very secure fit on my head. For those with larger melons, the clamping force may become too much and might require some headband bending. Build quality of the headphone itself is excellent with metal parts where the headband adjusts. The build quality of the cable is not quite that great, as many reported problems with it getting easily damaged. It does look rather cheap, but mine still works fine after about 8 months of use. Thankfully, the cable is also replaceable, so if anything goes wrong you could easily replace it for cheap. Isolation is quite decent on the Q40s - about average for closed cans I would say. Microphonics are minimal. Like M50s, these are well suited to use even on the subway. The big bass impact also helps enjoy these in noisy environments. Like M50s, these are fairly easy to drive, but at 64 Ohms, they do require more volume to get similarly loud.
Shure SRH840: Contrary to what some people have written in the SRH840 impression thread, I find these to be excellent portable headphones. They are the heaviest of the four and do slide down my head even more than M50s, but with some headband adjustment, it is not really bothersome for me. For people with small heads, these might not won't fit securely enough for walking around. For those with large heads, they will be just right. The pleather pads on the Shures are the best of the four cans - they are softer and and more comfy, with large holes in the earpads which should accommodate even very big ears. Cable is replaceable, very soft and quite light for a coiled cable, but at the same time seems very solidly built at the connections. Microphonics are minimal. Overall build quality seems excellent, although these are all plastic. Isolation is really good for closed cans - definitely above average and perhaps only matched by GMP 8.35 D in this review. These work well in noisy environments - they are certainly no IEMs, but the isolation is sufficient for just about any general purpose IMO. Despite being rated at only 44 Ohms and with high sensitivity, the Shures require more volume than the other three cans in this review to get similary loud, but should still work fine with most portables.
GMP 8.35 D: First, I must say that these headphones in their stock condition are very ill suited for portable use! The problem is the coiled cable, which is WAY thicker, and heavier than that of the other three cans compared here. It's also short like M50 cable. I tried using them outside, but the cable is so heavy that it kept on pulling the headphones off my head everytime I looked down or tried to rock out to the music. This is really unfortunate, because otherwise, the cans are very well suited for portable use. They are very easy to drive - the easiest of the four. They isolate about as well as SRH840s and other top isolating closed cans. The pleather earpads are also of high quality and are very comfy. Also, the cans themselves are the lightest and of the four. Durability of both the cable the 'phones is probably the best thing about them though - they are easily the most durable headphone I've ever seen.
M50, Q40 and SRH840 + AMP3:
Here I decided to try each of the three cans with my new AMP3 Pro 1 portable player. The reason why I want to write about how they sound with this player, is because AMP3 just sounds so fantastic with the updated firmware and so I think it is able to drive all of these three cans pretty close to their full potential. Certainly, a Hifiman or iMod might do an even better job squeezing the last few drops of performance out of the headphones, but I am sure AMP3 does a sufficient job. Unfortunately, I no longer own GMP 8.35 D and so cannot say how it will sound with AMP3, but considering that AMP3 is quite a lively, powerful sounding device I think it would complement GMP 8.35 Ds mellow sound very well. Anyways, so here are the results of my testing:
AMP3 and M50: AMP3 clearly seems to reveal all the faults and colorations of ATH-M50. The sound is very clearly cupped in when using AMP3, but at the same time bass and treble are nicely controlled and the overall sound is quite pleasing I find. Bass tightness is still a bit lacking, but it's OK. Treble doesn't sound piercing at all with the AMP3 and the artificial metallic coloration in the treble region is minimal. Texture is definitely lacking on M50 and AMP3 clearly shows that. The sound is very clear, especially in the midrange, but it just sounds a bit simplified and not as harmonically rich compared to the other three cans in this comparison, due to the lack of micro-detials. Dynamics are excellent.
AMP3 and Q40: Wow, what a surprise! Q40s really seem to open up with the AMP3. The sound is certainly still that of a closed can and lacks air in the upper treble, but the bass and midrange sound surprisingly open, dynamic and detailed when the Q40s are driven by AMP3. In terms of detail, Q40 is just wayy ahead of the M50 with the AMP3. There is just so much more texture and refinement in the Q40 sound. Also, as I said dynamics are surprisingly good and appear to be even better than on M50 at times. Driven by my other sources, the dynamics on Q40 are definitely this good. The bass is very accurate and tight and punchy - much better than on M50 - yet doesn't overpower the midrange at all. Mids are fantastic - vocals are accurate and most instruments sound very sweet. The midrange is more refined and detailed when driven by AMP3. The treble is certainly not as clear as on the other three cans and there is that spike in the low highs which causes some slight harshness and peakiness at high volumes. However, with AMP3, Q40 sounds just fine in the treble as long as bitrate of the music files is sufficiently high (I would say 192+).
AMP3 and Shure SRH840: WOW! This combo sounds just magical. AMP3 makes the Shure's already excellent mids sound even more clear, accurate and transparent than with my other sources and also fuller and richer. Yesterday night I've listened to Candy Dulfer's "Lily Was Here" recording in wav. format and the Shures sounded so good with this song that I listened to it over and over again many times getting eargasm after eargasm.
The sax and guitar just sounded incredibly rich, full and detailed with the SRH840 and the soundstage was very intimate, yet with excellent imaging and a sort of a realistic surround sound feeling that I found highly intoxicating. The bass tightness could be better I think and dynamic range is not the best on AMP3 - I think the Shures are certainly capable of delivering even better dynamics when driven by better sources. Still SRH840 and AMP3 are an excellent match I think, producing a very realistic and full bodied sound that is just so beautiful. Compared to Q40, the Shures sound more open and effortless and don't have any obvious peaks or roll off like Q40 does. the treble is more extended than on Q40. The bass however, is tighter with the Q40 although the Shure bass is more linear and more in balance with the rest of the spectrum. Compared to ATH-M50, SRH840 is just better in every way with the AMP3. It's like M50 without all the major faults that it has - the bass on the Shures is tighter and and more realistic, the mids are much more textured and the treble is more open and natural sounding. Their sound quality is a class above the M50s without a doubt in my mind, but they are also more expensive of course.
More is coming, Stay tuned!
UPDATE: My Shures now have around 80-100 hours on them, and I feel that they have already burned in enough to make fair judgements on their sound quality. Over the course of the last 50 hours or so I feel that the sound on the SRH840 has changed significantly and thus my comparison will be updated accordingly.
Sources used: All the ones listed in my signature with all the cans, except Shure SRH840, which I only tried with my Sony Walkman and Samsung T9 unamped so far. The following evaluation is based on my overall impressions listening to all of my sources. It is of course possible that there exists better synergy for these cans with some other sources/amps that I don't have, so please take this review with a grain of salt. This comparison, however, should give you a pretty good idea of some of the more important sound characteristics and signature of each can so that you can at least take a good educated guess on how it will sound with your source and music.
Music used: For now, I primarily listen to instrumental music, new age and I also really got hooked to 80s Asian pop recently, but I actually like pretty much all kinds of music. With these cans, I also tried some pop, some rock, electronic, trance, and even some country, which is one genre I usually don't listen to.
Bass quantity:
M-Audio Q40s have the most elevated bass overall of all the cans with some mid bass hump.
ATH-M50 has the most elevated low bass and some mid bass emphasis as well, but less mid and upper bass than Q40s.
Shure SRH840 have almost a neutral bass with some insignificant mid bass hump.
GMP 8.35D have the most neutral bass of the three IMO, which is less in quantity, but still big and punchy.
Bass quality:
ATH-M50: Out of the box, the bass was all over the place and completely lacked tightness. After 100+ hours burn-in, the bass tightened up a lot and now sounds fine. It still lacks tightness for my taste when M50s are driven unamped out of weak portable sources, but improves significantly with amplification and better sources. Bass depth is excellent. Bass detail is OK, nothing special. Good for the price. Low level details are sometimes smeared and lost and there is a definite lack of texture in this part of the spectrum, just like in the mids.
M-Audio Q40: The bass on these was tight out of the box and is MUCH tighter than that of ATH-M50s when both are unamped. Bass detail is also excellent and the low end is nicely textured. What I also really like about the bass on these is that it's fun and punchy and manages not to intrude into the mids most of the time. However, I do feel that the quantity of bass on these is a tad over the top. Bass depth is excellent and approaches or matches M50, but M50 seems to have more depth due to a low bass bump and so may seem to have less depth.
Shure SRH840: Out of the box the mid bass on these was definitely sloppy and slow especially at high volumes. After 5-8 hours of burn-in, the low end already became more controlled and no longer as disturbing to listen to at high volumes. Bass tightness could also some work on these out of the box. Bass details were very good from the get go but, at first they were not as easy to pick out as with Q40 due to some mid bass sloppiness still present. Also, I felt that bass depth was not quite as good as on the other three cans out of the box, but still sufficient for me and still better than, say, stock Sennheiser HD25-1, which lacked bass depth IMO.
Update after 80+ hours of burn-in: The bass has improved significantly. The main improvement is in bass tightness and speed. The low end became much more controlled and all sloppiness in the mid bass that was present before is now gone and the low end became more neutral. In terms of bass speed, a well burned in SRH840 is fast enough to handle complex bass lines very well without congesting them. Bass detail remains the same as on out of the box Shures, but the details are now far easier to pick out due to much better bass control. I would now rate SRH840 bass higher than that of M-Audio Q40, since it is more linear and has better impact while still having retaining excellent detail and good tightness.
GMP 8.35D: These have excellent bass - very deep, very tight, quite linear and very detailed as well. I have not done any tests in the low frequencies, but my ears tell me that the bass reaches at least as low as M50, maybe even lower and without any artificial bumps - nice. So far, these have the best bass of any closed can I've heard, except ATH-ESW10, which I heard briefly and which has even better, more neutral low end.
Midrange:
ATH-M50: The midrange is quite neutral, maybe even a bit elevated until the upper mids, where there is a recession, which makes the mids sound quite laid back, a bit too much so for some music genres, like instrumental and jazz recordings, which sound too relaxed. Midrange detail is OK - micro-detail/texture is lacking which makes the mids sound somewhat lifeless, which reminds me a lot of UE Super.fi 5 Pros, which have a similar lack of texture in this part of the spectrum, while having strong bass and treble (in quantity I mean).
M-Audio Q40: These have quite a nice midrange, especially lower mids, where they exhibit more presence and warmth than M50. Unlike M50s, midrange resolution is very good on the Q40s in both macro and micro-detail. There is a hump in the upper mids area, which causes some sibilance and harshness, but also makes for a more lively sound at lower volumes. Overall, the Q40s sound alive with all kinds of music, unlike the M50. Also, very much unlike the M50, I really like The Q40s with some of my favourite instrumental music/jazz, like Acoustic Alchemy and Keiko Matsui. It's warmth and good detail works wonderfully for acoustic guitars and pianos. They still can't touch my Shure SE530s in this area, which had an absolutely amazing, magical midrange performance, but they are somewhat comparable to Sleek SA6 in this area IMO, just harsher, less clear and a bit more analytical. Another thing to note is that with the Q40s, you really feel like you are listening to a closed can and the mids do sound a bit closed in, but it doesn't prevent me from liking them very much.
Shure SRH840: Overall, the mids on these are excellent. They definitely remind me of SE530, but SE530 still has better mids IMO - SRH840 just can't quite match that level of involvement and depth. There is one little problem however - as with the treble, the sound of SRH840 has a hint of a plasticy sound in this part of the spectrum for some reason, which reminds me of improperly fitted SE530 with black olives, but without the excessive warmth. It's not as bad as it may sound - the mids on these sound significantly more detailed than on M50 and much more open and nuanced than on Q40. Hopefully this issue will go away with more burn-in or with a better source and amp.
Update after 80+ hours of burn-in: I was pleased to discover that after burn-in, the plasticy midrange does indeed disappear and is replaced by a lukewarm, laidback, very clear and detailed mids. Both male and female vocals, saxophone, piano and many other instruments now sound very accurate and natural on the Shures, especially with my AMP3, where the mids sound just amazing. I do feel that with some sources, especially weaker portables, the midrange can sound a bit distant and overly laid back, but it's obviously the source's fault and not that of SRH840. With quality portables like AMP3 and my Sony Walkman, the Shures have plenty of energy in the mids.
GMP 8.35 D: Very nice mids. More open sounding and detailed than on Q40 and more natural than on M50. The detail in the lower mids was the first thing that impressed me about these. They are pushed quite forward, but not too much so - just enough to really get you into the music. I really, really like acoustic guitars and sax with these as well as many other instruments. Everything sounds very full bodied and quite musical. Vocals sound very good and male vocals somehow stay accurate with these without sounding chesty, despite the low midrange warmth - great balance! However, the midrange on GMP 8.35 D is not perfect - due to it's recessed treble, some other instruments don't quite have enough air, like the piano or strings. In this respect, I feel that Shure SRH840 does a better job, making the mids sound more airy with it's wonderful treble sparkle.
Treble:
ATH-M50: These have the most elevated, but also the most well extended response. However, it has an emphasis on upper treble and a somewhat subdued lower treble coupled with not so great treble quality. This results in highs on M50 being somewhat metallic and a bit piercing sometimes and the least natural sounding out of the four cans IMO. The other three are recessed and more or less rolled off in the upper registers compared to M50, which extends until 16 kHz without any roll off.
M-Audio Q40: the second worst after M50 in terms of treble naturalness IMO - it doesn't sound as metallic or thin as M50 treble, but at the same time it's less clear and can sound sibilant and harsh at times due to a bump in the low treble. Also, the Q40 highs are much more recessed than on M50, but not too much so. They also roll off earlier than M50 - at around 14 kHz or so. 16 kHz is not very audible.
Shure SRH840: So far, the treble on these Shure has been sounding quite good to my ears. It's a little plasticy for some reason (more on that later), but still sounds quite natural. The response in the treble is definitely much more neutral than on Q40 and M50 and the Shures are free of any offensive peaks or dips in this part of the frequency spectrum, although it is somewhat recessed and maybe even rolls off a bit too early - I still need to check that using some tones. Overall, the highs sound more natural and smoother on the Shures than on the M50 and Q40. They still lack air of a quality open can, but have more air than the other two.
Update after 80+ hours of burn-in: As with the midrange, I am please to report that after a good amount of burn in, the highs on the Shures are no longer plasticy. Moreover, treble definition and detail seems to have improved as well and the treble now has excellent amount of sparkle and air that matches that of a good quality open headphone. I think Shure did a great job with the treble especially considering that this is a relatively inexpensive closed headphone.
GMP 8.35 D: These have the most subdued treble of the four cans overall. There is a very slight elevation in the upper mids/low treble area, which still gives the highs a hint of sparkle, but the uppermost treble is really quite recessed and rolls off early. However, treble quality is excellent on these and it doesn't feel like the highs are in any way missing or bad. They are actually surprisingly nuanced, open, natural sounding and reveal a lot of detail, which reminds me a lot of Shure SE530s, which also have similar mellow, but detailed upper treble, except that the Shures roll off even earlier and also have more low treble bump. Overall, I would say that the GMPs have a better, more natural, more open and detailed treble than ATH-M50 and Q40. Compared to SRH840, I think that treble detail and clarity is about on par with the Shures, but the treble on GMP 8.35 D is more recessed and not as well balanced with the rest of the spectrum.
Clarity and instrument separation:
ATH-M50: Very good clarity and good instrument separation, but not as good as, say, armature IEMs and higher-end cans.The sound does get congested during complex music passages.
M-Audio Q40: Good clarity in the bass and mids, but treble clarity could be better. Instrument separation is good. These don't seem to get as congested during heavy music passages as M50s, despite them sounding more closed in.
Shure SRH840: Clarity is really, really good! At least as good as on M50, but probably better, especially in the mids. Instrument separation is also excellent and unlike the M50s the Shures seem to retain full authority even during complex music passages without getting congested and with a lot more room to breathe than with Q40s.
GMP 8.35 D: These also have awesome clarity for a closed headphone. Almost as good as on Sleek SA6 and Phonak Audeo IEMs. Definitely better than on Q40 and as good as or better than M50 and SRH840. Instrument separation is pretty good, not great. They handle complex music quite well however without congestion.
Soundstage size and imaging:
ATH-M50: These have quite a wide soundstage, but quite upfront without too much depth. Imaging is OK, but a bit blurry. Also, whiule the sound has a decent amount of air to it, M50s sound somewhat "cupped in," which really annoys me sometimes. This cupped in sound seems to nearly disappear when M50s are properly amped however and with certain sources.
M-Audio Q40: Technically, the sound is even more closed in than on M50 , but soundstage is still quite wide, deeper and more laid back and relaxed than on M50 and with some music, like some instrumental, Q40s actually sound more natural and airy to my ears than M50s. Imaging is not as good as on M50s, but the sound is much sharper and instruments are not blurred around the edges like on M50. Also, there is no cupped in sound with Q40 at all - the sound just lacks air.
Shure SRH840: These are definitely the best of the four in this area! The soundstage is very large for a closed can with excellent depth and even some surround sound feeling with some recordings. Instrument positioning is great, the best of the four and provides quite a realistic sound to live recordings. With my AMP3 when playing lossless files, the sound is absolutely captivating with a very intimate, upfront sound and yet excellent imaging. I must say that there is a bit of that cupped in sound with the Shures still present, but nowhere near as bad as with M50 and doesn't really bother me at all.
GMP 8.35 D: I would rank the soundstage and imaging on these as somewhere in between M-Audio Q40 and ATH-M50. The GMPs have a more open midrange than Q40s, but still sound a bit closed compared to M50s. I am pretty sure that the stock pads play a major role in limiting the headstage of these cans and if replaced with pads that have larger holes, the headstage and instrument separation would probably improve significantly. With stock pads, the soundstage is a bit narrow, but with good depth and imaging is lacking as well - the sound is less blurry than on M50s, but imaging is nowhere near as realistic and Shure SRH840s trounce them in this area as well. These are similar to Q40s in this area.
Speed (transient response) and dynamics:
ATH-M50: I must ssay that these are a surprisingly dynamic sounding closed headphone for its price range. When driven unamped, the dynamic range on ATH-M50 is not quite as wide as when they are amped, but is still better than that of Q40 in this area. However, when M50 is amped, the dynamics become quite impressive! Music flows very freely without any hints of compression at all. In terms of speed, mids and treble I quite fast on ATH-M50 to my ears, while the bass is definitely on the slow side. With msuic that involves complex bass lines, M50 can struggle to reproduce them with authority, but amping does help.
M-Audio Q40: These sound sufficiently dynamic out of good sources, although not as impressive as M50. Speed quite good and these don't sound slow at all. Bass is certainly more speedy than the rather sloppy M50 bass.
Shure SRH840: I think that these have the best dynamic range of the the four cans. They definitely surpass Q40 and GMP 8.35 D in this area. Compared to ATH-M50, the Shures may actually appear to sound less dynamic due to their more laid back, subtle sound signature. In reality, however, I feel that they are even more dynamic sounding than M50s due to higher detail resolution and better soundstage and imaging. I think that the well burned-in Shures also have a pretty good transient response when paired with good sources. Due to their powerful and impactful bass, they may appear a bit slow, but I feel that their bass is quite fast - definitely faster than that of M50 and about on par with Q40.
GMP 8.35 D: These are not very impressive when it comes to dynamics and speed. At least, not with the stock pads. I think the sound with the stock pads is more oriented towards providing a balanced and controlled sound with excellent detail, which is what a quality studio monitor should be able to do. Dynamics and speed are sufficient for most music, but they do seem a bit slow for fast rock, dance trance and similar genres that require good transient response. Swapping the stock pads for ones with larger holes
and thinner foams may help improve speed, dynamics and soundstage of GMP 8.35 D, but it may also take away the wonderful full-bodied bass that they have with the stock pads, so it's a matter of personal preference.
Ergonomics, isolation, build quality and portable use:
ATH-M50: These are the second heaviest headphones of the four. I have a medium sized head and they still slide off a little when I walk fast with them on or turn my head down rapidly or walk with my head down. It's not that bad for me, but for those with smaller and/or rounder heads, this may definitely become an annoyance. Build quality seems to be very solid and the headband adjustment part is metal. The cable is not replaceable, but is quite thick and sturdy, and the plug is all metal with some metal protection against excessive bending as well. At the same time, the cable is reasonably soft and non microphonic, but that is in temperatures above zero. When worn outside in the winter in sub-zero conditions, the cable unfortunately hardens a lot and becomes quite microphonic. Keeping it under clothes should keep the microphonics level acceptable. Another annoying thing I found is that in the version with the coiled cable which I have, the cable is quite short, which is OK for portable use even for tall people, but not enough for using at home, where extension will often be needed. Thus, I recommend the version with the straight cable instead. The pleather pads are quite comfy, but mine hardened over time probably due to exposure to cold temperatures and sweat. Still quite comfy though. The holes in the earpads are large and deep enough for my medium sized ears, but for those with big ears, they may be too small. Clamping for is not very strong. Isolation on M50 is quite good - sufficient for wearing outside on the street, and even on busy streets and subway with the volume slightly turned up maybe. At 30 something Ohms, these are also quite easy to drive, but do sound better with a good portable amp.
M-Audio Q40: These are the lightest of the four with cable included. The cups are bigger than on M50s, the pleather earpads have larger holes, but the holes are shallower than those on M50. For my medium sized, non sticking out ears, they are quite comfortable. Clamping force is quite a bit stronger than on M50s and combined with their light weight, this leads to a very secure fit on my head. For those with larger melons, the clamping force may become too much and might require some headband bending. Build quality of the headphone itself is excellent with metal parts where the headband adjusts. The build quality of the cable is not quite that great, as many reported problems with it getting easily damaged. It does look rather cheap, but mine still works fine after about 8 months of use. Thankfully, the cable is also replaceable, so if anything goes wrong you could easily replace it for cheap. Isolation is quite decent on the Q40s - about average for closed cans I would say. Microphonics are minimal. Like M50s, these are well suited to use even on the subway. The big bass impact also helps enjoy these in noisy environments. Like M50s, these are fairly easy to drive, but at 64 Ohms, they do require more volume to get similarly loud.
Shure SRH840: Contrary to what some people have written in the SRH840 impression thread, I find these to be excellent portable headphones. They are the heaviest of the four and do slide down my head even more than M50s, but with some headband adjustment, it is not really bothersome for me. For people with small heads, these might not won't fit securely enough for walking around. For those with large heads, they will be just right. The pleather pads on the Shures are the best of the four cans - they are softer and and more comfy, with large holes in the earpads which should accommodate even very big ears. Cable is replaceable, very soft and quite light for a coiled cable, but at the same time seems very solidly built at the connections. Microphonics are minimal. Overall build quality seems excellent, although these are all plastic. Isolation is really good for closed cans - definitely above average and perhaps only matched by GMP 8.35 D in this review. These work well in noisy environments - they are certainly no IEMs, but the isolation is sufficient for just about any general purpose IMO. Despite being rated at only 44 Ohms and with high sensitivity, the Shures require more volume than the other three cans in this review to get similary loud, but should still work fine with most portables.
GMP 8.35 D: First, I must say that these headphones in their stock condition are very ill suited for portable use! The problem is the coiled cable, which is WAY thicker, and heavier than that of the other three cans compared here. It's also short like M50 cable. I tried using them outside, but the cable is so heavy that it kept on pulling the headphones off my head everytime I looked down or tried to rock out to the music. This is really unfortunate, because otherwise, the cans are very well suited for portable use. They are very easy to drive - the easiest of the four. They isolate about as well as SRH840s and other top isolating closed cans. The pleather earpads are also of high quality and are very comfy. Also, the cans themselves are the lightest and of the four. Durability of both the cable the 'phones is probably the best thing about them though - they are easily the most durable headphone I've ever seen.
M50, Q40 and SRH840 + AMP3:
Here I decided to try each of the three cans with my new AMP3 Pro 1 portable player. The reason why I want to write about how they sound with this player, is because AMP3 just sounds so fantastic with the updated firmware and so I think it is able to drive all of these three cans pretty close to their full potential. Certainly, a Hifiman or iMod might do an even better job squeezing the last few drops of performance out of the headphones, but I am sure AMP3 does a sufficient job. Unfortunately, I no longer own GMP 8.35 D and so cannot say how it will sound with AMP3, but considering that AMP3 is quite a lively, powerful sounding device I think it would complement GMP 8.35 Ds mellow sound very well. Anyways, so here are the results of my testing:
AMP3 and M50: AMP3 clearly seems to reveal all the faults and colorations of ATH-M50. The sound is very clearly cupped in when using AMP3, but at the same time bass and treble are nicely controlled and the overall sound is quite pleasing I find. Bass tightness is still a bit lacking, but it's OK. Treble doesn't sound piercing at all with the AMP3 and the artificial metallic coloration in the treble region is minimal. Texture is definitely lacking on M50 and AMP3 clearly shows that. The sound is very clear, especially in the midrange, but it just sounds a bit simplified and not as harmonically rich compared to the other three cans in this comparison, due to the lack of micro-detials. Dynamics are excellent.
AMP3 and Q40: Wow, what a surprise! Q40s really seem to open up with the AMP3. The sound is certainly still that of a closed can and lacks air in the upper treble, but the bass and midrange sound surprisingly open, dynamic and detailed when the Q40s are driven by AMP3. In terms of detail, Q40 is just wayy ahead of the M50 with the AMP3. There is just so much more texture and refinement in the Q40 sound. Also, as I said dynamics are surprisingly good and appear to be even better than on M50 at times. Driven by my other sources, the dynamics on Q40 are definitely this good. The bass is very accurate and tight and punchy - much better than on M50 - yet doesn't overpower the midrange at all. Mids are fantastic - vocals are accurate and most instruments sound very sweet. The midrange is more refined and detailed when driven by AMP3. The treble is certainly not as clear as on the other three cans and there is that spike in the low highs which causes some slight harshness and peakiness at high volumes. However, with AMP3, Q40 sounds just fine in the treble as long as bitrate of the music files is sufficiently high (I would say 192+).
AMP3 and Shure SRH840: WOW! This combo sounds just magical. AMP3 makes the Shure's already excellent mids sound even more clear, accurate and transparent than with my other sources and also fuller and richer. Yesterday night I've listened to Candy Dulfer's "Lily Was Here" recording in wav. format and the Shures sounded so good with this song that I listened to it over and over again many times getting eargasm after eargasm.
More is coming, Stay tuned!
