Latest Thread Images

Shure SRH 940 impression and support thread
Sep 17, 2011 at 7:09 PM Post #1,638 of 3,855


Quote:
tyll hertsens said:
Sure I have a fairly strong opinion of which sounds better, I've heard them both at the same time numerous times.
 
And sure it's fair to compare the two because people are interested, and they're buying the 940 just because it's more expensive and people assume it must be better than the 840.
 
Also, I get lots of folks who view InnerFidelity and the InnerFidelity YouTube channel that are not hobbyists and are not aware of what I might say in these threads. So yeah, I'd like to weigh in on the two product and let people know what I think. That's my job.
 
No, I don't think there's a chance the 940 will best it. I've heard them and think the 940 was a dissapointment.  I talked to Todd at TTVJ when he heard them and he said he was dissapointed.  All the sales guys at HeadRoom think they're not as good as the 840. I like the 840 and think it's one of the better choices in it's class ... the 940 not so much. 
 
Click to expand...

Well, this is a bit disturbing. Why the review from headfonia is ranking the srh940 as better, at least from a "monitoring perspective"  (I hate this expression, which means nothing for the average guy) :
http://www.headfonia.com/shure-srh-940-detail-monster/
And the review even implies sometimes that the srh940 could be more detailled than the hd800.
Even the review imply they are better than the dt880, I quote :
 
Quote:
and in a way, the SRH-940 gives me almost the same detailed sensation I hear on the Beyerdynamic DT880 headphone, except with better mids and vocal reproduction.
Click to expand...

 I hate the moderating "in a way", in that sentence, which could mean everything.
 
Could you use the same setup as this review ? (DAC/Amp: Fostex HP-A3, CEntrance DACMini)
And do at least 100 h of burning.
 
Sep 17, 2011 at 7:17 PM Post #1,640 of 3,855
Hey now, let's leave Mike out of this thread's MADNESS!  Sorry, been wanting to say that for a bit now.
tongue_smile.gif

 
Sep 17, 2011 at 7:55 PM Post #1,641 of 3,855


Quote:
extrabigmehdi said:
Well, this is a bit disturbing. Why the review from headfonia is ranking the srh940 as better, at least from a "monitoring perspective"  (I hate this expression, which means nothing for the average guy) :
http://www.headfonia.com/shure-srh-940-detail-monster/
And the review even implies sometimes that the srh940 could be more detailled than the hd800.
Even the review imply they are better than the dt880, I quote :
 
 I hate the moderating "in a way", in that sentence, which could mean everything.
 
Could you use the same setup as this review ? (DAC/Amp: Fostex HP-A3, CEntrance DACMini)
And do at least 100 h of burning.
Click to expand...


Totally depends on the listener though.  I've owned the SRH840, SRH940 and DT880.  For my money - rating the headphone's whole presentation (balance, comfort, SQ etc), my ranking would be DT880 > SRH840 > SRH940.
 
Everyone's going to have a different viewpoint.
 
I'd love to see a direct comparison from Tyll though.
 
Ultimately (again because the SRH940 is a polarising headphone - pretty much a like/dislike thing) - I'd suggest people try it themselves and make up their own minds.
 
 
Sep 17, 2011 at 8:15 PM Post #1,643 of 3,855


Quote:
extrabigmehdi said:
That's clear, but I think they are picky about the source too.
 
Click to expand...

 
My own .....
Desktop > E7/E9
Desktop > Audio GD NFB-12
iPod Touch G4 > GoVibe PortaTube
iPod Touch G4 > Fiio E11
 
Would still rank exactly the same DT880 > SRH840 > SRH940.
 
Pretty sure this has less to do with source and more to do with overall presentation, and personal preference.
 
Sep 17, 2011 at 9:03 PM Post #1,645 of 3,855


Quote:
extrabigmehdi said:
 
frown.gif
. Would you go as far as Tyll by saying that the srh940 is a "poor sounding headphone" ? A bit annoying the raving reviews vs the ones that almost consider them as junk.
Click to expand...


Yup - that's why I called them polarising.  No - I don't think they're junk. or poor sounding.  Un-natural, or odd sounding would be my call.  I still think the mids were stunning - but quite coloured (very warm).  It was interesting at first to hear the clarity and go "wow" - but the more time I spent with them, the more "off" they sounded.  They simply don't suit me.  Others may absolutely love them.
 
I think if the context Tyll was trying to convey was that they are poor as in un-natural sounding, I'd agree with him.  But if you bought these solely for jazz, classical, and female vocals I think you'd be pretty happy with them.
 
The secret is not to let anything said here colour your own thoughts.  If you love them - more power to you - enjoy them.
 
Sep 17, 2011 at 9:11 PM Post #1,646 of 3,855
According to shure , when compared to srh840 :
 
SRH940 has a flatter frequency response and lower distortion.
 
For flatter frequency, that's ok, overall frequency response is more flat.
 
But for lower distortion, I don't see which graph show this.  I would think the contrary by looking at this:
 

 
False advertising ?
 
 
 
 
Sep 17, 2011 at 11:17 PM Post #1,647 of 3,855
 
I just want to say (again) I listened to both the 840 and 940 side by side in a shop for 10 minutes and preferred the 940 in sound (+also in construction and looks).
 
IIRC it was basically it was a plain jane average HP something alone the lines of a Sony MDR-V6, versus a silky silver detailed headphone with excellent vocal reproduction, air and nice with strings.
 
 
I don't agree with Tyll's comments but I'd like to see a review so I have a better idea of where his comments are coming from.
 
 
 
 
 
Sep 18, 2011 at 2:28 AM Post #1,650 of 3,855
While I don't understand the premises or preferences for any hobbyist here, I thought the 840 was not really good as well. Sure I liked them briefly when I upgraded from my HD25-1. But if many others seem to think the 840 is just as good technically as the 940, minus the coloration difference, I'm not that convinced I'd be... convinced of the 940. For a lot of my music, which is lots of jazz, fusion and progressive stuff from the 70s (very "mid-oriented", so to speak), the 840 hid most of the musical information under its bass and a somewhat sharp treble (though didn't annoy me as much). Take Zappa's Waka/jawaka or Grand Wazoo, for instance, you're missing many of the instruments and notes hit the correct pitch. Separately, I'm sure they'd convince and make tabbing them much easier, but when 20 tracks are playing simultaneously, it's just a mess with the 840. Took them out of their bag to confirm this, and against my K272 they don't have a chance.
 
Now, I'm not criticizing tone or anything else besides what to me is musical accuracy. With relatively simple music (pop, folk, techno and tonal music in general), the difference might not be as drastic. It leads you to listen to sound instead of music and there everyone can have their personal opinions. But when it comes down to discerning harmonically, melodically and rhythmically rich, modal music, I think the difference in performance becomes much more clear, more concrete and objective. Again, performance, not preference.
 
Can anyone, who has them both, maybe put on some above mentioned music and compare them in this manner? Of course it goes without saying, that ultimately I need to hear them for myself. But just to get a sense of things. If the 940 do this better, they would be to me (and I would say objectively to all) the better headphone. One can like whatever he wants when it comes down to personal enjoyment; I'm not saying everyone should have similar tastes in music as I do. But what I am saying, is that this method puts headphones on the same line and more objectively measures their performance. 
 
For instance, the KNS6400 looks better on paper than the 8400, but the latter one crushed it in this aspect, as it should as the more expensive model (no, I'm not letting the price factor affect my judgement 
regular_smile .gif
). Again, tonal differences/preferences/female vocal gushing aside of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top