[nikp]

Quote:

Bass is overrated. The amount of bass on the srh940 according to graphs is the perfect amount to allow the mids and highs to shine. Neutral bass is best bass.

 
The bass on the SRH940 isn't neutral. 
 
 

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

 
Hate to be rude by i stated "according to graphs" I am pretty sure thats self explanatory. I'm only stating that emphasized bass is overrated. My shure srh840 has way to much bass for a neutral can. Would prefer more treble to compensate. Still i would be more interested in a shure open back headphone vs a closed back headphone. Closed back always sound cramped.

Let me requote you Casey .....
 
 

Bass is overrated. The amount of bass on the srh940 according to graphs is the perfect amount to allow the mids and highs to shine. Neutral bass is best bass.
 

 
So what you are saying is that the SRH940 bass is perfect as-is, and by inference (from your second statement) that it is effectively neutral.
 
Let me speak plainly - "Bollocks".
 
You haven't heard the 940 extensively - yet "according to the graphs" the bass is perfect 

 
IMO the 940's bass is not neutral, it is not natural, and it is not 'perfect'.  It has a mid bass hole - which is plainly visible on the graphs, and is evident if you actually take time to listen to them.  Your statement is both ill-informed and incorrect.
 
Just my opinion of course - but then again I've actually spent considerable time with them 

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Key words "according to graphs". Did I state I heard them ?  No. I stating that reading the graphs gives me that impression. Everyone hears differently and what might sound unnatural to one person may sound realistic to another. I don't doubt your credibility but I don't have an option to try them unless I buy them and I am very hesitant to drop $300 on something which sounds worse then what I have. Currently the reviews are to polarizing.  

 

[electropop]

Quote:

Let me requote you Casey .....
 
 
 
So what you are saying is that the SRH940 bass is perfect as-is, and by inference (from your second statement) that it is effectively neutral.
 
Let me speak plainly - "Bollocks".
 
You haven't heard the 940 extensively - yet "according to the graphs" the bass is perfect 

 
IMO the 940's bass is not neutral, it is not natural, and it is not 'perfect'.  It has a mid bass hole - which is plainly visible on the graphs, and is evident if you actually take time to listen to them.  Your statement is both ill-informed and incorrect.
 
Just my opinion of course - but then again I've actually spent considerable time with them 

Yet you adopted the term "mid-bass hole" only after someone else stated it... Not on anyone's side, just sayin'.  Many seem to hear things only after seeing graphs and use them to justify something. What I think, is that the placebo works both ways... 
 
This is interesting: http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/KRKKNS8400.pdf
Since I most definitely am not hearing that much of a boost mid-bass. Is there so much production variation, are we hearing what we want to hear, are we hearing what we see or are we hearing what the majority hears... Add to that, that most of us just aren't that trained or acute at this stuff. The mind interprets sound waves in the most peculiar ways. Can we really afford to say anything? 
 

 

[alv4426]

S-Logic says otherwise 

 
Quote:

 Closed back always sound cramped.

 

 

[electropop]

Haha. Have to fix that: "Ultrasone always sounds cramped". 

 

[Brooko]

@bcaseyraptor
 
I think I've stated my point - so I'll let it go now.
 
I'd really suggest that while graphs can lend credence to a debate on a sound signature, they should not be used to as the sole basis for a hypothesis on a sound signature without actually listening to the cans in question.  If posed as a question (eg according to the graphs, these should be bass neutral - can anyone confirm this?) - no problem.
 
But posed as a statement of fact (eg according to the graphs, these have prefect bass) only muddies the waters for people looking for actual impressions or guidelines for actual comparisons.  If you haven't heard them - you cannot make any statements of fact.  It happens far to often on head-fi - and should really be stopped.  Especially by head-fiers such as yourself who should really know better

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

Yet you adopted the term "mid-bass hole" only after someone else stated it... Not on anyone's side, just sayin'.  Many seem to hear things only after seeing graphs and use them to justify something. What I think, is that the placebo works both ways... 
 
This is interesting: http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/KRKKNS8400.pdf
Since I most definitely am not hearing that much of a boost mid-bass. Is there so much production variation, are we hearing what we want to hear, are we hearing what we see or are we hearing what the majority hears... Add to that, that most of us just aren't that trained or acute at this stuff. The mind interprets sound waves in the most peculiar ways. Can we really afford to say anything? 
 

Big difference E-pop.
 
I know what the graphs say - but I've also heard and owned the SRH940.  I know there is a mid-bass hole - the graphs simply confirmed it for me.  Casey on the other hand hasn't spent time with them, and is making statements about the bass solely based on the graphs (which again - show a mid-bass hole quite plainly).
 

 

[zomg]

Count me interested. Hopefully they'll sound more "right" than the srh940s with classical.
They could be quite expensive, though, looks like they have a lot of metal parts, and that's a bit unusual with Shure.

 

[nikp]

To be honest, I'm quite hesitant to climb aboard the Titanic (maiden voyage of Shure's open headphones). 

 

[Blue Boat]

Quote:

Can we really afford to say anything? 
 

brb getting my Audio Technica ONTOs. Best headphones in the world according to my ears. Perfect neutral signature and nobody can dispute that.

 

[electropop]

"Big difference E-pop.
 
I know what the graphs say - but I've also heard and owned the SRH940.  I know there is a mid-bass hole - the graphs simply confirmed it for me.  Casey on the other hand hasn't spent time with them, and is making statements about the bass solely based on the graphs (which again - show a mid-bass hole quite plainly)."
 
Edit: added the quote in case I was unclear, heh.
 
I know he hasn't and I'm not justifying his words by any means! Just bringing some thoughts to the table 

 
Regarding the 8400, many seem to say they are quite linear/smooth and even weak in the bass, although the graph says otherwise. My point was, that maybe after seeing the graph it altered your aural perception of the can and now seem to hear the "mid-bass hole", although there might not be one. Which is true is hard to say... My guess on the 8400 contradiction, is that there's more than marginal production variation at this point. On paper (innerfidelity graphs), the boost is much more prominent (and radical compared to the hole with the 940) than with the SRH840, yet the 840 seem much muddier and bassier. In what I say, what goes against bcasey, is that graphs don't really tell everything and drawing conclusions from them isn't justified. I agree with you that his statements were not rational whatsoever and I hope you understand this is not directed at you but rather this community and standing head-fi paradigms concerning the way we explain ourselves.
 
Of course one has to have listened to something first before saying anything, but placebo still remains a variable. 
 
Have to say again though, that I'd hope people listened to music and its integrity rather than FR-differences and "sound". Not sure about people here, but I can get used to differences in FR just fine, as long as they're within acceptable limits. Many other factors have an impact to a much greater degree...

 

[electropop]

Quote:

brb getting my Audio Technica ONTOs. Best headphones in the world according to my ears. Perfect neutral signature and nobody can dispute that.

Hah. Exactly! What makes this place fun, conflicting and educational at the same time 

 
No way I could say you're wrong. But having googled the model in question, I detect a healthy dose of sarcasm in your post! 

 

[Blue Boat]

 
Quote:

Hah. Exactly! What makes this place fun, conflicting and educational at the same time 

 
No way I could say you're wrong. But having googled the model in question, I detect a healthy dose of sarcasm in your post! 

 

 
 
 
 

Originally Posted by electropop
 
Not sure about people here, but I can get used to differences in FR just fine, as long as they're within acceptable limits. Many other factors have an impact to a much greater degree...
 

 
Have you tried the Etymotic HF5? They're uber neutral, for $100. 
 
 
 
Okay let's get back on the topic now.

 

[electropop]

Quote:

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Have you tried the Etymotic HF5? They're uber neutral, for $100. 
 
 
 
Okay let's get back on the topic now.

I haven't tried any etymotics, but I've always been curious. But as I said, absolute neutrality doesn't come first but distinguishing musical information, eg. notes representing an individual pitch or musical cues such as phrasing and small differences in volume and even timbre, does! The srh840 didn't do it properly, but I've yet to try the 940 and an open-back sure seems promising.