machoboy
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts
- 598
- Likes
- 62
Shootout Shure SRH840 vs M-Audio Q-40 vs Ultrasone HFI-580 vs AKG K240S
This is a pretty diverse group of brands. Shure was established in 1925, M-Audio in 1998. AKG leans toward the stubbornly retro school of design, while Ultrasound has all sorts of quirky technologies within their marketing repertoire. I'm coming off of dissatisfied ownership of the Sony MDR-V500 and Grado SR-60 and as you can probably gather from the test subjects, wanted something with some bass for a change. Each headphone in the test was burned in for roughly 50 hours. The output sources used in the test will vary wildly from my integrated desktop and laptop sound cards, to my budget M-Audio & Tascam interfaces, to my Pioneer and Harman-Kardon amplifiers and wide array of synthesizers. Let me start out by saying that all of these headphones surpassed the Sonys in nearly every area. The Grados held their own in a few areas, but their grainy, harsh sound doesn't suit me. I apologize for any typos/random sentence fragments. I threw this together in pieces in between studying (18 units of programming & math). So without further delay...OPENING THE BOX/INITIAL QUALITY IMPRESSIONS
"Winner": Tie between Ultrasone and Shure
M-Audio Q-40 (Paid: $140)The odds were stacked against the M-Audios just because of the name on them. Some people love M-Audio, and I admit they release some occasional gems, but they're also notorious for cutting corners in the least reasonable places in order to pack as much "cool factor" into a price-point as possible. I'm afraid that when it comes to build quality, the Q-40s are another casualty of this habit. After 2 days of ownership and 2-3 listening sessions, the foam inside of the ear pad has torn itself apart. I subsequently removed the entire pad, and I must say that these pads are unworthy of $40 headphones, much less $140 headphones. Luckily, Beyer pads are supposed to fit.
The detachable cable connection on these seems solid at first. A 3.5 screw-in jack... How can you go wrong? It actually did go wrong a couple times. You really have to screw it in hard or risk issues. It seems to screw in just barely enough to make full contact. The M-Audios also have two extremely thin, fragile wires hanging loosely outside of their frame, and although that's quite common nowadays, it's still a negative.
There are nice little touches such as metal folding hinges, but overall these aren't built like $140 headphones. In your hands, they feel like larger-than-usual $80 headphones at best. Packaging and accessories are pretty standard: Adapter, soft carry bag, manual. Aesthetically, I'm torn about the M-Audios. The branding text isn't as gaudy as it looks online, and the gunmetal finish is attractive, but the fake plastic mesh grill poorly disguising this closed-back headphone as an opened-back headphone is downright silly.
Ultrasone HFI-580 S-Logic (Paid: $120)
Initial impressions of build quality are very positive. The Ultrasones seem to use a mixture of various polymers/plastics and some of them (headband, speaker enclosures) seem a lot sturdier than others ("L" and "R" hinges are made of a cheaper, slippery plastic that looks different from the rest of the headphone). Like the M-Audios, these look less gaudy in person than they do online. The metal "radiation shields" look like tacky Harley-Davidson chrome in some photos, but in person, it's more like a BMW-ish anodized aluminum. I have to admit that I went from buying them despite their looks, to ultimately finding them quite attractive.
The 580s came in a similar package to the M-Audios; a standard cardboard box with a flimsy "peaking" window. Accessories included a soft carrying bag, adapter, extremely brief brochure-manual and 20-track showcase CD. A word about the carrying bag: It's made of a fuzzy material that gets dirty extremely quickly. I had it out of the package for about 15 seconds and already noticed everything from pollen to cat fur colleting on it. This is OK with me since I wish they didn't bother with soft bags anyway. Either include a protective hard case, or don't bother.
The HFI-580 loses points here for having no detachable cord. These are quite compact for an around-the-ear headphone, yet their portability is greatly reduced by having a very long permanent cable attached. I would have ordered the PRO 550 which does have a detachable cord (and even a molded/padded case), but supposedly there's a dramatic difference in sound signature despite sharing drivers. I still plan to try out the PRO 550s some day. Minor complaints aside, the overall build quality of the HFI-580s exceeds their price. Made in Taiwan (like probably everything else reviewed), but dripping in German design elements.
AKG K 240 Studio (Paid: $80)
These are really on their own planet when it comes to build quality. It's neither good not bad, but it's in another decade. They look absolutely classic. To me, the 240s are the Ray-Ban aviators of headphones, and just as copied by rival brands. That said, they weigh almost nothing relative to their size. Some people like this, but after holding the boulder-like Shures, the AKGs feel like a children's toy. The headband is literally a headband. The other three are rigid frames with plush padding on the underside. These are just, literally, a headband, not much thicker than paper. You really have to keep in mind when this design originally came out to keep yourself from assuming that these are junk, because the actual build quality seems satisfactory for the price. It's just very different.
The detachable cable jack is the best of this bunch, but still pretty bad. This seems like a very popular area to cut costs. The AKGs come with essentially no accessories, just an adapter. This is fine with me because they were only $80. The "MKII" variation of the K 240 includes several accessories but costs toughly twice as much money on the street. For the same price, I could mod these, buy a molded hard case, and pick out my own pads & cables.
Shure SRH840 (Paid: $150)
Right from the start these appear to be the classiest headphones of the four and most worthy of their price tag. They include a soft carrying bag, adapter, manual and even extra ear pads. The Shures have the highest-quality, plushest padding to begin with, so throwing in an extra set is just an added treat.
I've used Shure SM58 microphones for years (watch this to see why) and I expected anything with Shure on it to be built pretty well. I know brands don't mean as much nowadays with all of the OEM mongrelizing, but you can really tell these are a Shure product. They like to use thick materials and tend to overbuild things. I prefer this, but I know some people consider these headphones excessively bulky and heavy. To give an idea, the plastic is dense and hard enough that you could mistake it for metal on a cold day.
Even though the Shures feel much more heavy-duty than the M-Audios, they suffer similar design flaws in the wiring area. The detachable cable connection works fine once you get used to it, but feels very cheap compared to the rest of the headphone, to the point that you wonder if its designed to "break away" and save the headphones in the event of a violent tug. I wasn't willing to test this theory. It also shares the Q-40's design when it comes to fragile wires dangling beside the folding hinges, something I will never understand nor find desirable.
COMFORT/ISOLATION
"Winner": Subjective
Comfort really depends on the individual, so allow me to just describe the general traits of each headphone.- The Shures are the heaviest, but also the most thouroughly padded in all areas.
- The Ultrasones are nearly as padded as the Shures, but lighter and more compact.
- The M-Audios were a bit "clampy" at first but that only took a quick stretch with the hands to resolve. Their main problem is that the ear pads are practically disposable kitchen sponges designed to be replaced by Beyerdynamics upon delivery.
- The AKGs are very light, even though they have the largest dimensions of all four (slightly larger than the Shures). The ear pads on the AKGs are cheap, but they do cost about half as much as the M-Audios and still edge them out slightly.
I could fall asleep in any of these headphones, and none of them are at all painful, but the clear loser due to poor materials (ear pads) is M-Audio. If you have your heart set on these, order them with some Beyerdynamic pads.
The winner here depends on your preference. If you prefer plush, leather-sofa headphones, even at the cost of additional weight, then go with the Shures. If you prefer to feel as though your headphones are filled with helium, then go with the AKGs. The Ultrasones are lighter than one would expect for something with metal plates attached to it and have generous, firm padding, resulting in a happy medium.
In regards to isolation, the obvious losers are the AKGs, being a semi-open design. The other three are satisfactory. There are no big surprises here. Full-sized headphones don't offer earplug-like isolation, nor do they offer much of any isolation while turned down, but they do fill a sealed area with sound pressure and thus drown out most external noise once the volume is turned up. After experimenting with the Shures, Ultrasones and M-Audios back to back, isolation rankings were inconclusive. If I had to just barely edge out a winner then it would be the Shures, but not by much.
SOUND
Winner: ???
Of interest: Every headphone in this shootout sounds exactly how it looks. The AKGs sound retro and classic, but also a little archaic and fragile at times, the same way they look. They're the most amp-hungry of the bunch, which goes well with their large dimensions. The Ultrasones sound harsh and bright and metallic but also extremely firm and powerful, just like their aluminum finish. The Shures sound robust and neutral, but maybe a little bit boring, just like they look. The Q-40s sound like they were originally intended to be somewhat conservative, then had some "edgy" surprises thrown in as an afterthought and maybe went a little too bold with it, similar to their appearance.
BASS:
1. Ultrasone HFI-580 10/10
The bass on the HFI-580s is simply amazing regardless of the output source, and something I was not convinced a headphone could achieve until now. It's actually dangerous, as it can seemingly be turned up, and up, and up without distorting. This means that you can easily damage your hearing with these by thinking you're at normal volumes, then taking them off and realizing they're loud enough to listen to like a normal stereo. Good thing the Ultrasones have a "screeching siren" feature to warn you when their volume threshold has been violated. More on that in a moment.
2. TIE: M-Audio Q-40/Shure SRH840
8/10
In sheer quantity and depth, the Q-40 leads the pack in bass, but there were definitely some issues with that. First of all, the bass on these doesn't have the volume ceiling of the Ultrasones or the Shures (although it is still miles above that of the AKGs). Secondly, these can actually rattle and vibrate from their own bass and create that "subwoofer in the trunk of a used Civic" sound. For some, that's exactly what they're looking for; so much bass that it sounds like the plastic is going to come unglued and the drivers are going to fall out onto the floor, but I found it a little excessive. It was fun while using these straight out of my synthesizers, since I was able to control that woofing bass like an additional instrument, but it creeps up on the listener in normal musical applications. Amping does tighten up the bass slightly, but it's still a headphone that completely revolves around bass.
As for the Shures, they're not even "bassy" headphones per se, which makes it particularly impressive that I rank their bass as tied with the Q-40s. On a flat EQ, these might even sound a touch treble-biased. However, don't confuse that with the actual sound quality of the bass. It's simply amazing how a subwoofer seems to appear from thin air on a bass-heavy EBM recording, then vanishes completely (in a good way) when you switch to a piano sonata. If you're an EQ explorer, then the bass on the 840s can be turned up almost as much as on the Ultrasones before mud sets in. Surpsingly, bass is pretty consistent across amplification sources (or lack thereof).
4. AKG K 240 Studio
5/10
I've seen some label these "bassy" headphones, and I'm really not sure why. They have very rolled-off treble and moderate bass, so maybe that sounds bassy to some. The quantity is actually OK, but the distortion ceiling couldn't shelter a Barbie doll from the rain. Amping improves it a lot, but even then, it's still barely skimming above sea level. In summary, the bass gets very muddy very quickly as volume increases and is unremarkable to begin with. An amp is mandatory if you want to get any usable bass out of these, but it won't by any means make them competitive with the other three.
MIDS:
1. AKG K 240 Studio
8.5/10
As muddy and lackluster as the AKG bass is, so the mid-range is musical and satisfying. You really hear the texture of an electric guitar or analog syntheiszer chord on these. They're the best of the bunch for soft female vocals. I actually found myself drifting asleep slightly while listening to woodwind music with the AKGs on low volume. Between the light weight, semi-open design and smooth mids, these can have an enjoyable lullaby effect while also retaining energy for clean, mid-centric ('70s-'80s) mixes. Good to begin with but improves with amplification.
2. Shure SRH840
7/10
Compared to the organic-sounding, perhaps even tube-like mids on the K 240, these sound obviously solid state/digital, but they're still very good overall. There is a little bit of upper-frequency sibilance invading the sound quality of the vocals, but nothing dramatic.If I don't seem enthusiastic about the Shure mids, it's because I'm not. The K 240 was the only real performer at these frequencies.
3. M-Audio Q-40
6/10 (More like a tie with the AKGs after additional burn-in + EQ)
Edit: After more experimentation, I actually think the M-Audios have better mid-range than the Shures and on par with the AKGs. This surprised me quite a bit. However, because the Q-40s have so much bass, and their mids are quite dark sounding, you only get to experience them briefly before the "woofer" sound overtakes them again. If you EQ the bass down these have AMAZING mid range, damn near perfect. Try it if you have a pair.
The mids on these sound a little bit muffled. Not "scooped" or "v-shaped", just muffled. In fact, everything about the Q-40 sounds muffled except for the extremely open and often decadent bass. This isn't always a bad thing however. The slight muffling allows the Q-40s to rival the sheer quantity of the HFI-580s when it comes to bass without relying on a agonizing treble as a counterweight. Instead, the Q-40s seem to sacrifice "sparkle" and "brilliance" in favor of a simple sound signature recipe: Extremely exaggerated bass and everything else kept ruler-flat. I've seen people describe this as "dark" but that's not quite accurate. I considered using the word "boxy" but it seems to explicitly negative. Lets just put it this way: If you're a "basshead" who can't live without that enclosed subwoofer sound, and your only demand when it comes to the rest of the sound signature is that it's tame enough to avoid hearing fatigue, then these are for you. If you're someone who wants a home theater "hi-fi" sound with sparkling treble and dramatic imaging them these are not for you... At all.
4. Ultrasone HFI-580
4/10
The only mids these seem to have are a painful spike in the upper mids which competes with a painful spike in the upper treble. The amazing bass and terrible upper mids/treble are both so loud that they end up with a Grand Canyon sort of sound, with two impenetrable slabs of audio separated by absolute nothingness. I tried rolling the 580s into a "frowny" EQ, but it was no use. The entire sound of these headphones revolves around their heavy bass. The dentist's drill treble seems to be thrown in as an afterthought, just to make sure songs sound like something other than that heavenly "BUMMMMMMMPH". The island of mid-range the Ultrasones does have borders on treble territory itself and tangles with an even higher frequency spike. More on that in a moment.
TREBLE:
1. Shure SRH840
8/10
I had a difficult time ranking the treble in this shootout. I'm schizophrenic when it comes to highs. I always want a sparkly hi-fi sound, but I never want the fatigue that comes with it because I listen to headphones for extremely long periods of time.
The 840s somehow manage to have the most extended and detailed (by far) treble in the test without being the harshest. They're also very EQ-friendly and amp-versatile, since the Shure is so balanced overall that rolling one frequency down a little doesn't throw off the entire sound. They can occasionally become bright or harsh on certain recordings, but it's the revealing type of harsh treble that makes one think, "They recorded this a little poorly. Lets adjust this a little". Contrast this to the Ultrasone brand of harsh treble that makes you say "(expletive)" or simply "OWWW". I enjoyed these as instrument monitors ranging from guitar to electric piano. It's eye-opening how the Shures retain the same basic sound and volume across 88 keys and travel through the octaves without any red flags. Shure, or whoever was responsible, really put a lot of R&D into these and intended them to be the SM58 of headphones: An industry standard.
2/3. TIE: AKG K 240 Studio and M-Audio Q-40
7/10
If you're familiar with the K 240 then you're probably thinking I'm mistaken, but hear me first. At face value, these have barely any treble definition, but after playing with the EQ I find that the culprit is actually the muddy and easily distorted bass which curses the 240s and refuses to stay within its already-too-large pigpen. When I could find rare, pure treble moments in my playlist, the highs of the K 240s actually sounded reminiscent of their celebrated mids: Very smooth and natural. Keep in mind that a general rule regarding volume sensitivity with the K 240s stands across all frequencies. No amp, and these sound bad. Too much amp, and these sound bad, However, hook the 240s up to a good amp and keep the volume down and they will impress.
As for the Q-40s, the treble is merely unremarkable, but that's arguably a good thing. There are just so many loudspeaker designs out there with a "scooped" or "V-shaped" sound, using exaggerated treble to compensate for the prerequisite exaggerated bass. The Q-40s are refreshing in that they use they take a totally different approach, massive bass with everything above it being totally flat and linear. Worthy of the name "Studiophile"? Not really. In fact, I would never wish these upon my worst enemy when it comes to mastering. If these were a car stereo then Elvis's Christmas album would sound like a competition bass mix. They find bass everywhere. Worthy of the name "Headphone for people who like monster bass but also like relaxed treble for extended listening sessions"? Much better.
4. Ultrasone HFI-580
1/10
Painful. When I first tried these out I thought, "The reviewers were really exaggerating. The treble on these isn't that bright/shrill/piercing/harsh". However, it really creeps up on the listener. Turn these up. Everything sounds good. You settle into checking your email or some stock prices. Suddenly, you feel like something is wrong. At first you can't place your finger on it. Then it hits you... Where there used to be a guitar solo, there is now your 8th grade gym teacher blowing a whistle into a garbage can surrounding your head. Burn-in did nothing to resolve this issue. These have the most rapidly fatiguing treble I've ever experienced. it's also very difficult to roll down the treble on these with an equalizer. The bass and treble are constantly fighting for dominance, and even though the bass usually wins, when the treble finally gets it's moment in the spotlight don't be surprised if you're traumatized. These are low ohm, high sensitivity, loud headphones in the first place so I didn't find any of my amps to be a solution either. I actually consider these headphones unbearable because of their random treble assaults, which is sad, because they have by far the best bass I have ever heard in a headphone, period.
I know these graphs rarely tell an accurate tale about how a headphone sounds, but this is one exception and perfectly illustrates the strange upper-mid range "dual peak" of the Ultrasones. When both of those peaks are triggered simultaneously by a recording, prepare for pain.
So the winner is...?
If this were a sloppily-written yet official magazine review then the Shure SRH840 would walk away with it pretty effortlessly. They're tied for the best build quality and either first or second place in each sound category. By closed-back standards, they have exceptional imaging and soundstage is there with the semi-open AKGs and better than my Grados. The soundstages of the Q-40s and HFI-580s were unremarkable. The 840's isolation is on par with the other closed pairs, perhaps slightly superior. They're transparent and detailed and create a sense of trust for referencing/mixing because of their consistency across all genres. If you could only have one pair of jack-of-all-trades headphones on a desert island then these would not be the worst choice you could make. Amp & EQ recommended but not required.
However, my personal favorite? Much tougher decision. I'm finding myself using the Shures almost exclusively now for recording and mixing (mostly electronica), but the K 240s are getting long hours of bedtime & study listening because they're so forgettable in a good way. The Q-40s are entertaining when fed directly from electronic instruments and I really enjoy the combination of their mild overall sound, yet intentionally wild bass response, but I'm tempted to either return or mod them given the disintegrating ear pads.
The Ultrasones... I stay away from them while admittedly missing their bass.
Rankings:1. SRH840
2. Q 40
3. K 240
3. hfi 580
EDIT - Updated the "mids" section for the Q-40. I still think they're built cheaply for $140 headphones and that the bass is a too extreme, but they now officially sound like their price.
The result is dumbfounding. As stupid as it sounds the result is phenomenal. The planar driver in the Fostex is very good; when the dampening is correct inside the cup you realize the diamond in the rough. I don't think they are great un-modded, in fact if the intention is to use that way, I'd highly discourage that route. The beauty is in the transformation.
