[ac500]

I think these headphones have become my all-time favorite...

 

[baka1969]

Ya i think i read that earlier in the thread, so i tried with both cups and just one, i didn't find much of a difference.

Thanks for giving it a try and your impressions. From my experience I found the mod helps bridge the gap between the 940 bass and 840 bass. YMMV. As was the case.

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Just discovered a new video review from website thedspproject.com. The sr940 are more neutral than the srh840, but the srh840 are more fun.
 
 

 

[ac500]

Thanks for the link.
 
I like flat sound signature. And as for revealing - if a headphone doesn't reveal flaws, it won't reveal the subtleties of a well-mastered FLAC either.

 

[DarkAndroid]

Was looking at this thread and I thought that I hadnt used my SRH 940 in a while so I brought them out of its case for a bit of listen time....coming from my Audio Technica M50, the main thing I've always found underwhelming with them was apparent even more to me, which is the lack of bass. I wont call it a flaw, because these are supposed to be "monitor" headphones and maybe Shure created them like that intentionally in order to create a flat sound signature, but on the box of the M50 it claims they are monitor headphones too! It makes me wonder if there is really any such thing as a "flat" sound signature in a headphone or even monitor speaker because you would need another "perfect" source that produced an ideal flat sound which you could use as a reference to compare against, which I dont think could exist because everybody's hearing is different anyway. What sounds flat to one person may sound "trebled" to another person.
 
But anyway, out of the SRH 940, HD 598 and M50, Ive played Someone Like You - Adele several times, and each time I do I can always tell that it sounds the best through the SRH 940. Her voice comes through crystal clear through the SRH 940, while on the HD 598 her voice sounds really good but sounds oh-so-slightly muffled compared to the SRH 940. Maybe its that Sennheiser "veil" they always talk about.
 
Another song that sounds really good on the SRH 940 is White Nights by Oh Land. Her voice comes in very clear through the SRH 940 compared to the other headphones, but again the lack of bass of these cans is apparent in the drum and bass lines of the song. Probably unsurprisingly, this is where the M50 really shines over the other cans; with the right source and EQ, I can feel the "thump-thump" of the drums and bass in this song which makes it come alive in a way that the SRH 940 cant.
 

 
I usually use my iPhone to listen to music nowadays, and make use of an SRS iWow adapter through the line out. This is probably the single most effective piece of audio equipment I have bought in the quest to make my music sound better. I hardly even use my E7/E9 with the computer anymore ever since getting the iWow. The adapter dramatically improves the sound quality of the music, in all aspects but especially in terms of bass quality and quantity, which helps the SRH 940 a bit since it is such a bass-light headphone, but when I use the adapter with the M50 the difference is night and day. The M50 actually vibrates on my head if I pair them with the adapter and listen to a bassy track.

 
I also use the Equ app on the iPhone to further increase the sound quality of the music, since the default iPhone equalizer can be insufficient at times.

 
Dont know if this is an ideal EQ curve, but as you can see its a slightly u-shaped EQ curve boosted across the whole frequency spectrum, which I use for all the headphones and earbuds I listen to with my iPhone. The boosted lower end frequencies again help improve the bass response and impact in the SRH 940 a bit more, but not by much, which may be the way its supposed to be.
 
This is not to say that the SRH 940 doesnt handle bass well, I can hear that it does have really good bass extension which people have said, but its impact that we are talking about here. Impact. If only the SRH 940 had more bass impact....
 
I've not heard the SRH 840 before but going by what others have said, it seems to have the bass response and impact that the SRH 940 lacks, even if its in the form of an undesirable "mid-bass hump". The SRH 940 is such a detailed headphone with what I would describe as a treble-leaning sound signature, which I like, but if there was a way Shure could create a headphone with the treble and detail of the SRH 940 and with the bass impact of a headphone like the M50 or the SRH 840 as some have said, and perhaps the comfort of the HD 598, that would be the ultimate headphone.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

I like flat sound signature. And as for revealing - if a headphone doesn't reveal flaws, it won't reveal the subtleties of a well-mastered FLAC either.

Correct. And the 940 is designed for studio work, where you want to hear everything, warts and all. By the same token, many people want to hear what's going on in the music rather than what's happened in the recording process. But the 940 seems to cover both grounds.
 

 

[miceblue]

 
Quote:

on the box of the M50 it claims they are monitor headphones too!

For clarification, just because it says that on the box doesn't necessarily mean it's designed for that activity. I actually started a thread about this a while back and one of the replies was:
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wnmnkh
 

BUT, in practice, so many headphones fail at what they are advertised, while others can do other areas..... with some exceptions, all are nothing more than marketing talk.

 
For instance, the Beats by Dr. Dre headphones advertise: "the vast majority of headphones can’t accurately reproduce the intricacies produced in the studio. Simply put, Studios can." or "Beats Pro is the reference headphone designed by audio professionals for audio professionals. Particularly, those who prefer a clean yet forceful sound."
..............well the majority of people here know what to say to that, so please don't deviate from the topic.
 
In short, don't always trust what the box says. Their advertised purpose might or might not be true. In the case of the M50's and the 940's, I think most people here can agree that they are intended for studio or monitoring use. Shure actually advertises that the 940's are for critical listening, studio work, and mastering.
 

 

[DarkAndroid]

Quote:

 

For clarification, just because it says that on the box doesn't necessarily mean it's designed for that activity. I actually started a thread about this a while back and one of the replies was:
 
 
For instance, the Beats by Dr. Dre headphones advertise: "the vast majority of headphones can’t accurately reproduce the intricacies produced in the studio. Simply put, Studios can." or "Beats Pro is the reference headphone designed by audio professionals for audio professionals. Particularly, those who prefer a clean yet forceful sound."
..............well the majority of people here know what to say to that, so please don't deviate from the topic.
 
In short, don't always trust what the box says. Their advertised purpose might or might not be true. In the case of the M50's and the 940's, I think most people here can agree that they are intended for studio or monitoring use. Shure actually advertises that the 940's are for critical listening, studio work, and mastering.
 

 
yeah of course I know that just because the box says "accurate" or "monitoring" or "reference" on it, doesnt mean the headphone is good for that purpose, hell, I've even seen some $20 Sony headphones that claimed to be studio monitor quality, which we all know cant be true. The Shure SRH 940 is a monitoring headphone, which means it should have a flat sound signature, but I'm pretty sure if you ask people around, majority will say that the SRH 940 leans toward the treble end of the sound spectrum. Which isnt bad, because it seems that enables it to be more detailed and have a sparkly clear sound, which is good in the studio for hearing all the subtle details and nuances in whatever audio you are producing, things that you might miss if you had used another less detailed headphone or even a studio monitor. Some people swear by Beats By Dre headphones so I wont knock them here, but yeah you are right, to say that they are monitoring or reference headphones is a joke. No audio engineer or producer in his right mind would use it for serious work in the studio.

 

[kiteki]

 

 ​

Excellent review.

It's nice to see they voice my exact thoughts on the 840 versus the 940.
 
 

 

[kiteki]

 
p.s. I listened to all the Skullcandy headphones again yesterday and I DO NOT like the Aviator.
 
 

 

[electropop]

Did you use an amp?

 

[John In Cali]

Quote:

 
p.s. I listened to all the Skullcandy headphones again yesterday and I DO NOT like the Aviator.
 
 

Me too, well only the aviators that is.  They sound veiled and very closed the different instuments were just mumbled together.  Didn't try an amp though, i might go back with my cMoy.

 

[electropop]

Yeah you need an amp to really open those Aviators up! ... 

 

[kiteki]

 
I didn't use an amp, I was at an electronics outlet with 46 different headphones on display all connected to a source with demo tracks hidden behind the display, I briefly listened to all 46 headphones mostly listening to the track "Last Nite" by The Strokes.
 

 
All those Sennheisers really sucked  I think under the HD600 and HD25-1 II I Sennheiser is just another brand focusing on marketing, cheap sound and cheap plastic.
 
The Aviators were 'okay' sounding, yes they have decent balance and resolution and they are a cool fashion statement/design, in the end they sounded too detached/lifeless to me and I couldn't stand how vocals took a backseat in the performance, my favorite Skullcandy was most definitely 100% the Skullcandy "Uprock".
 
 

 

[oldshoe99]

It isn't just what's on the box that people should be wary of (i.e. not believe).  They should also refuse to believe that the 940 is bass-light, no matter that they read it 1000 times on this forum.  Because it simply is not true.