Shure SRH 940 impression and support thread

[kiteki]

 
Well, just pure hypothetical, the shape of the outer ear may enhance certain frequencies, if Mehdi's ear enhances 2kHz and moving the 940 driver somewhere else changes that it might improve the sound for him.
 
I suppose, hypothetically, this doesn't happen with universal IEM's.
 
I know certain Ultrasones, the Sony SA-5000 and the Teslas have angled drivers, on the Tesla T5p the positioning of the headphone makes a HUGE difference, since the driver is very angled.
 

 

[ac500]

When I get these back from repairs I think I'm gonna think about possible mods to make it fit my head. The thing is, the headband is physically big enough to fit my head perfectly, it just bends weird so it flattens out near the top. If I could make some kind of brace to hold the headband bent at the top rather than flat, they might be comfortable.

 

[bcasey25raptor]

I don't have any of the comfort issues myself. Really comfortable to me. 

 

[ac500]

Yes yes I know, thanks for rubbing it in that I have a big head

 

[kiteki]

 
ac500, as for your USB cable and price = perforamnce comments, have a look at this lol - http://www.head-fi.org/t/584761/best-bang-for-your-buck-audiophile-products
 
 
By the way, I don't want to believe the SRH-940 has better mids and highs than the AD2000, that walks on my dreams, oh well. =p
 
From a couple high-end meets I've been to, I think a lot of the $1000+ headphones all share a similiar type of sound, I call it "reference sound".
 
Yeah, the finesse and articulation might be exquisite, such as on the Tesla T1 or STAX, but I'm not overly keen on that type of sound myself, I found with the SR-404 I could admire it, but it just sings at you until you fall asleep Zzzzzzzzzzz.
 
As for the cable lovers, just ask them why if they watch a concert or movie on blu-ray lossless, how come the cables improve the sound quality, and not the video quality?
 
Lastly, I think if we talked about headphones in Fashion-Fi, Profit-Fi and Studio-Fi, that would give the price/performance beliefs more credit.
 
You see, if the SRH-940 was Fashion-Fi, called "The Sounds by Miss Rihanna" and cost $600, it would SELL like MAD, and if it was Hi-Fi with lamb-skin and walnut housing at $700 I think it would be accepted there too.
 
 

 

[ac500]

> ac500, as for your USB cable and price = perforamnce comments, have a look at this lol - http://www.head-fi.org/t/584761/best-bang-for-your-buck-audiophile-products
 
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing on that page, but USB cables simply don't matter. Unless your audio is cutting out or getting static, USB cables do not make a difference. Bits are bits, jitter is a non-issue -- this has been confirmed both by the designers of USB (someone asked them) and literally everyone educated in the field on this site. Even people who claim they hear a difference say it's so small they can barely tell (thus self-indicating confirmation bias). This has been "debated" for hundreds of pages itself, so let's not start that here.
 
> You see, if the SRH-940 was Fashion-Fi, called "The Sounds by Miss Rihanna" and cost $600, it would SELL like MAD, and if it was Hi-Fi with lamb-skin and walnut housing at $700 I think it would be accepted there too.
 
Sadly, this is pretty much true I think. A lot of audiophiles are just as bad as Beats fans, just in a different way. The worst part about the audiophile bias is it's typically in the name of "sound" when in many cases it's placebo.
 
>By the way, I don't want to believe the SRH-940 has better mids and highs than the AD2000, that walks on my dreams, oh well. =p
 
I had bought the AD2000 on recommendation as an open-back headphone to replace the SRH940 because the SRH940 wasn't as comfortable. Ultimately, listening to female vocals on the SRH940 that made you think "wow", simply did not have that effect on the AD2000. In fact I found the HD650 better all around because its mids/highs are about the same as the AD2000, if not better, and the bass on the HD650 is much better all-around.
 
I tried the DT880 as well but it failed even worse (IMO HD650 AD2000 and SRH940 all have more true detail than DT880s, although it has some fake detail due to sounding bright).

 

[kiteki]

 
I just thought the name of the thread was funny considering they're talking about such expensive equipment, it gives an indication of what most of head-fi think is "best bang for buck" that's all.
 
 
However you look at it, it seems like the SRH-940 is a real winner for female vocals, almost everyone is saying that.
 
 

 

[ac500]

I'd be curious how you think these compare with the Sony SA5000, in terms of detail. I still haven't really heard a more detailed headphone except HD800s than the SRH940 (and I haven't heard the HD800 extensively enough to judge very well).

 

[Alexium]

I have found SRH840 to be the most balanced, monitor and beautifully sounding phones of those I've heard. However, I don't have much experience - GMP 8.35D, Sennheiser HD580, SRH840 are pretty much all I've heard. Now, I want to switch GMP 8.35D for something better. How do you think, should I buy 840, 940 or something else? Is the price difference between 840 and 940 justified? What are other true sounding (monitor sounding, reference) phones in 940's price range?
I realize it's all very subjective, but I really appreciate any answers. I have a hard time digging through 190 pages of this topic, and there are no other extensive discussions on SRH940, from what I can tell.
 
P. S. I'm especially interested in comparison of 940 with HD650.
 
P. P. S. i am of course familiar with this comparison, but I want more opinions,

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

I have found SRH840 to be the most balanced, monitor and beautifully sounding phones of those I've heard. However, I don't have much experience - GMP 8.35D, Sennheiser HD580, SRH840 are pretty much all I've heard. Now, I want to switch GMP 8.35D for something better. How do you think, should I buy 840, 940 or something else? Is the price difference between 840 and 940 justified? What are other true sounding (monitor sounding, reference) phones in 940's price range?
I realize it's all very subjective, but I really appreciate any answers. I have a hard time digging through 190 pages of this topic, and there are no other extensive discussions on SRH940, from what I can tell.
 
P. S. I'm especially interested in comparison of 940 with HD650.
 
P. P. S. i am of course familiar with this comparison, but I want more opinions,

Check KRK KNS-8400 for a monitor sound

 

[ac500]

Quote:

I have found SRH840 to be the most balanced, monitor and beautifully sounding phones of those I've heard. However, I don't have much experience - GMP 8.35D, Sennheiser HD580, SRH840 are pretty much all I've heard. Now, I want to switch GMP 8.35D for something better. How do you think, should I buy 840, 940 or something else? Is the price difference between 840 and 940 justified? What are other true sounding (monitor sounding, reference) phones in 940's price range?
I realize it's all very subjective, but I really appreciate any answers. I have a hard time digging through 190 pages of this topic, and there are no other extensive discussions on SRH940, from what I can tell.
 
P. S. I'm especially interested in comparison of 940 with HD650.
 
P. P. S. i am of course familiar with this comparison, but I want more opinions,

 
I wrote a SHR940 vs HD650 review on the HD650 thread a while back. I'll see if I can find it.
 
Audiohead: Is the KRK more detailed than the SRH940? For it's price, that would be impressive.

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

 
I wrote a SHR940 vs HD650 review on the HD650 thread a while back. I'll see if I can find it.
 
Audiohead: Is the KRK more detailed than the SRH940? For it's price, that would be impressive.

I do not have the KRK on me anymore, but from memory--
 
In a sense the KRK did.  Detail retrieval was easier in the treble on the 940 no doubt, but I honestly thought the KRK did a better job of catching lower midrange harmonics... much in the same way I feel the SP-1 actually does a better overall job at detail retrieval than the 940.  I'd probably give the upper hand to the 940 as far as imaging and soundstaging is concerned, so if you consider those as aspects of detail the argument might be a little different
 
I understand the praises of the 940 for detail retrieval in the treble ranges, but overall I just don't think it is necessarily a detail beast top to bottom
 
For the price, I would agree the KRK is an impressive headphone. 

 

[extrabigmehdi]

I  don't understand the way people are reasoning or rate stuff.
I  see that R-audiohead has rated the sound quality of srh940 as 5/5 and the sound quality of the KRK KNS-8400 as 3.5/5 (according to his reviews).
And yet he still prefer to recommend the KRK KNS-8400, when Alexium was just asking if the srh940 are good, and if the price difference with the srh840 is justified.
This makes me think of the review of ashurei who disliked the srh940 for the lack of bass, and still rated the audio quality as 5/5.
 
@Alexium
Sorry I 've never heard the srh840 nor the hd650. Some people prefer the srh840 over the srh940, because of the mid bass hump (nice for hip hop, techno, ....), and also for some reasons , some people perceive the srh940 as bright, while other not.
Technically the srh940 are superior, but that doesn't mean you'd like them better than the srh840.

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

I  don't understand the way people are reasoning or rate stuff.
I  see that R-audiohead has rated the sound quality of srh940 as 5/5 and the sound quality of the KRK KNS-8400 as 3.5/5 (according to his reviews).
And yet he still prefer to recommend the KRK KNS-8400, when Alexium was just asking if the srh940 are good, and if the price difference with the srh840 is justified.
This makes me think of the review of ashurei who disliked the srh940 for the lack of bass, and still rated the audio quality as 5/5.
 
@Alexium
Sorry I 've never heard the srh840 nor the hd650. Some people prefer the srh840 over the srh940, because of the mid bass hump (nice for hip hop, techno, ....), and also for some reasons , some people perceive the srh940 as bright, while other not.
Technically the srh940 are superior, but that doesn't mean you'd like them better than the srh840.

Okay, don't jump to conclusions based on one sample.
 
I recommended the KRK as a better monitor.  Notice how I still own the 940 and do not own the KRK.  I prefer the SRH-940 for my collection, and I do think the sound is great.  I do not think the sound is balanced, and I think balance is a big part of being a good monitor.  Recommendations are all about context.  Who cares what I prefer overall if you're looking for something specific?  I prefer to recommend things based on specific needs (by recommending something with specific strengths that suit those needs) rather than "Oh I like this so it is better".
 
Maybe this will explain the discrepancy you pointed out.
 

 

[ac500]

Anyway as for the comparison of HD650 vs SRH940, here's what I'd say:
 
First, they're very different in sound, so difficult to compare: the HD650 being smooth and bassy, the SRH940 being crisp and trebly. Both have excellent reproduction of frequency across the spectrum, so the SRH940 has great bass and HD650 has great treble. It's just that the HD650 specializes in bass and thus blows the SRH940 out of the water in that area IMO. Similarly, the SRH940 specializes treble and upper mids and blows the HD650 out of the water in that area.
 
Which is best for you depends entirely on preference, and I have both because my preference changes from application to application. For example, HD650 is perfect for movies due to impactful bass and smooth enjoyable listening. SRH940 is sometimes better for some complex music and video games (BF3) to accurately reproduce the complex treble "crack" effect of gunfire -- however it gets fatiguing (as real gunshots tend to be) and I often go back to my HD650s for casual playing. HD650 wins on soundstage, but not by a massive lead.
 
 
HD650 bass is superior because it can effortlessly maintain rumble, slam, impact, etc. beautifully, whereas the SRH940 seems to lack energy in this area comparatively. Also the SRH940 cannot produce massive bass rumble as the HD650 can when called for, but rather prefers a more "polite" bass. IMO "polite" bass is not realistic, since bass by nature needs to be rumbly/impactful etc., and the HD650 pulls this off without sacrificing clarity.
 
SRH940 treble is superior because extremely high frequencies 10+khz do not drop off or become muffled as with the HD650. If you have upper range hearing loss, go for the HD650, because this range isn't important to you. However if you have good hearing, the majority of fine details in music and sound effects occur in the upper frequencies (since they represent fine quick changes in air pressure), and as a result the SRH940 conveys an absolutely impressive amount of detail the HD650 simply cannot reproduce. 
 
Detail isn't everything, and timbre, etc. are important as well. The HD650 generally wins here I'd say in producing natural organic tibre and preserving the realistic character of the sound. The SRH940 however is not bad at all, and for some things (violins, female vocals) it sounds much more like real life simply because the veil is lifted from every other headphone I've heard (except for HD800s).
 
Also to be honest, the Beyerdynamic DT880 sounds veiled compared to the SRH940. The SRH940 has true detail, not fake detail. DT880 is brighter than the SRH940, yet it fails to have the crisp detailed highs the SRH940 has.