Shure SRH 940 impression and support thread

[R-Audiohead]

I'll reinforce the above (ac500's comparison) by saying the extension of the 940 on both ends is quite impressive.  I noted this as one of the headphone's most impressive qualities initially, and I still feel this way... even if I feel like the sound is a little colored.

 

[ac500]

What I'm still curious about is if there's anything under $900 that has more detail (better highs and upper mids) than the SRH940. The KRK was suggested, but it seems it's just better balanced at the cost of worse detail.
 
DT880s were suggested by some people, but again they're just better balanced, they're quite a bit less detailed and I found the highs to be rather mediocre (not as good as HD650s or SRH940s).
 
I'm not a treblehead in that I don't like a LOT of treble, but I find that quality treble is the #1 factor in a detailed headphone -- and detail is kind of important in hifi. If bass was all that mattered, I wouldn't think so low of Beats.

 

[AzraelDarkangel]

Anyone mention the Audio-Technica A900X yet? Someone suggested they were superior to the SRH940s in another thread.
 
Quote:

What I'm still curious about is if there's anything under $900 that has more detail (better highs and upper mids) than the SRH940. The KRK was suggested, but it seems it's just better balanced at the cost of worse detail.
 
DT880s were suggested by some people, but again they're just better balanced, they're quite a bit less detailed and I found the highs to be rather mediocre (not as good as HD650s or SRH940s).
 
I'm not a treblehead in that I don't like a LOT of treble, but I find that quality treble is the #1 factor in a detailed headphone -- and detail is kind of important in hifi. If bass was all that mattered, I wouldn't think so low of Beats.

 

 

[ac500]

Would that be better than Audio Technica AD2000s? Because I bought AD2000s and found them roughly equivalent to the detail of HD650s.

 

[tdockweiler]

 
Quote:

What I'm still curious about is if there's anything under $900 that has more detail (better highs and upper mids) than the SRH940. The KRK was suggested, but it seems it's just better balanced at the cost of worse detail.
 
DT880s were suggested by some people, but again they're just better balanced, they're quite a bit less detailed and I found the highs to be rather mediocre (not as good as HD650s or SRH940s).
 
I'm not a treblehead in that I don't like a LOT of treble, but I find that quality treble is the #1 factor in a detailed headphone -- and detail is kind of important in hifi. If bass was all that mattered, I wouldn't think so low of Beats.

 
KRK KNS-8400 definitely has more detail than the SRH-940 IMO (even the 6400 does). I think people exaggerate the detail of the SRH-940. Basically the KRK gets almost everything except the bass better than the SRH-940. It's just not as full bodied as the SRH-940's sound, but that's not a negative for me. Depends on what one likes.
 
BTW the KNS-8400 has more sub-bass than the SRH-940, but overall the headphone sounds lighter in the bass than the SRH-940. The $150 KRK is far more clearer sounding too.
 
If someone can hear something on the SRH-940 that's not there on the KNS-8400, I'll personally mail them a check for $50

If there's anything that's nearly impossible to hear in a song on most headphones, but is there on say the HD-800 or SRH-940, please let me know. People generally say something is more detailed, but without actually comparing them and giving references tracks. I don't believe specific details usually go missing.
 
Also...a good DAC really pushes the last bit of detail out the the KRKs. I was surprised how much the HRT Music Streamer II helped the level of detail on the KNS-8400.
 
BTW what's considered the most detailed headphone ever made under $500? Most detailed headphones i've heard were the DT-880, Koss A/250 and the KRKs. Q701 is pretty detailed, but I don't think it's any sort of detail monster, but close.
 
Forget to mention it, but I feel that a recabled HD-598 is comparable in detail to an SRH-940 easily. With stock cable..probably not. IMO a recabled HD-598 is far more detailed than an HD-600 and HD-650. I even compared all of them for many hours.
 

 

[AzraelDarkangel]

No idea if anyone has compared them, not that I've seen yet. So far the overriding opinion on the A900X of the 2 or 3 I've seen is that they are super clean "glass" like and super detailed "make all my other headphones sound veiled" and such. But I'm still waiting for more reviews to pop up. In another thread someone said he had a friend who said the A900X was "superior in every way" compared to SRH940. I can't remember who said that though.
 
Quote:

Would that be better than Audio Technica AD2000s? Because I bought AD2000s and found them roughly equivalent to the detail of HD650s.

 

 

[ac500]

Interesting. If they're anything as comfortable as the AD2000s, and they sound as good at least, that would be a good alternate for me due to the SRH940s comfort issues.
 
 
Is it released for purchase yet?
 

 

[AzraelDarkangel]

Quote:

Interesting. If they're anything as comfortable as the AD2000s, and they sound as good at least, that would be a good alternate for me due to the SRH940s comfort issues.
 
 
Is it released for purchase yet?
 

Yes but only a few people have them so far. There's a thread about it but no really recent posts so it's buried a bit. Of course I'm wary of that "flavor of the month" syndrome. We'll see what's up when more reviews come out. 

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

What I'm still curious about is if there's anything under $900 that has more detail (better highs and upper mids) than the SRH940. The KRK was suggested, but it seems it's just better balanced at the cost of worse detail.
 
DT880s were suggested by some people, but again they're just better balanced, they're quite a bit less detailed and I found the highs to be rather mediocre (not as good as HD650s or SRH940s).
 
I'm not a treblehead in that I don't like a LOT of treble, but I find that quality treble is the #1 factor in a detailed headphone -- and detail is kind of important in hifi. If bass was all that mattered, I wouldn't think so low of Beats.

Do people not listen?  You seem like a person who is careful of what they say and one who listens critically.  IF you're referencing my comment here, I'd like you to re-read it carefully.  I do NOT think the overall detail is worse in the KRK, if by detail you mean the ability to hear everything, subtle or not.  I define detail as just that... as how well I can hear all of the (in electropop's words) "musical information".  Sure, it is easier to hear on some headphones versus others, but that also means there is an emphasis (in many cases at least).  A 'phone can be just as detailed but also be balanced, meaning that it DOES NOT emphasize anything as much as a non-balanced 'phone. Just because it may not be as easy to hear all the details, that doesn't mean they're not there ("there" meaning audible).  It could even matter more from the source/Dac/amp at that point.  For example, I think the 940 does a better job from a relatively worse amp or dac at revealing details than the SP-1, but when the SP-1 is given an improved dac and amp it becomes more detailed than the 940.  Since the SP-1 is more balanced to begin with than the 940, it seems to reproduce a more natural sounding timbre as a result of the added detail.  This of course only means the SP-1 scales better than the 940 to my ears.
 
I think colored headphones really have a disadvantage when it comes to detail retrieval, honestly.  A headphone that is not as balanced has a hard time evenly displaying all the harmonics associated with an instrument IMO.  To me, this effects the presentation of the timbre and the less organic it becomes, the less accurate and detailed it becomes to me.  Missing or misrepresenting harmonics IS leaving out musical information, and thus detail.  Does the SRH-940 sound sweet?  I sure think so... I also think the 940 suffers from its coloration when it is in the context of monitors and "detail monsters".
 
ac500, that may have come off a bit harsh.  I apologize.  I mostly appreciate your comments and insight around this community because I do think they are for the most part intellectual.
 
If you weren't referencing my comment or have some different definition of detail OR I misrepresented something by what I said previously I also apologize for that.
 
I hope I cleared up my stance on the KRK, 940, etc
 

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

 
 
KRK KNS-8400 definitely has more detail than the SRH-940 IMO (even the 6400 does). I think people exaggerate the detail of the SRH-940. Basically the KRK gets almost everything except the bass better than the SRH-940. It's just not as full bodied as the SRH-940's sound, but that's not a negative for me. Depends on what one likes.
 
BTW the KNS-8400 has more sub-bass than the SRH-940, but overall the headphone sounds lighter in the bass than the SRH-940. The $150 KRK is far more clearer sounding too.
 
If someone can hear something on the SRH-940 that's not there on the KNS-8400, I'll personally mail them a check for $50

If there's anything that's nearly impossible to hear in a song on most headphones, but is there on say the HD-800 or SRH-940, please let me know. People generally say something is more detailed, but without actually comparing them and giving references tracks. I don't believe specific details usually go missing.
 
Also...a good DAC really pushes the last bit of detail out the the KRKs. I was surprised how much the HRT Music Streamer II helped the level of detail on the KNS-8400.
 
BTW what's considered the most detailed headphone ever made under $500? Most detailed headphones i've heard were the DT-880, Koss A/250 and the KRKs. Q701 is pretty detailed, but I don't think it's any sort of detail monster, but close.
 
Forget to mention it, but I feel that a recabled HD-598 is comparable in detail to an SRH-940 easily. With stock cable..probably not. IMO a recabled HD-598 is far more detailed than an HD-600 and HD-650. I even compared all of them for many hours.
 

I mostly agree with you here, and I think your definition of detail is on par with mine.
 
I thought the KRK actually sounded more full-bodied though, since it had some low mid character to it that the 940 seems to lack.
 
I just thought it was worth noting for others that myself and tdock have a close agreement on the 940 sound versus the KRK sound.
 
Good to see I am not the only one who thinks the 940 detail is fine, but not necessarily monsterously detailed.  Maybe I'm not so crazy after all 

 

 

[ac500]

See, but what perplexes me is that people claiming the DT880 has more detail than the SRH940. That makes absolutely no sense to what I'm hearing. Do you people even hear 15+khz and how important it is to the fine detail I'm referring to?
 
The DT880 actually had some of the most sibilant and grainy upper treble I've heard (15+khz), not even close to the quality of the SRH940 or even HD650.
 

 

[achristilaw]

It's so laughable....

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

See, but what perplexes me is that people claiming the DT880 has more detail than the SRH940. That makes absolutely no sense to what I'm hearing. Do you people even hear 15+khz and how important it is to the fine detail I'm referring to?
 
The DT880 actually had some of the most sibilant and grainy upper treble I've heard (15+khz), not even close to the quality of the SRH940 or even HD650.
 

I have nothing to say about the detail levels of the 880.  I've heard the 770 quite a bit though and I'd definitely say it is behind the 940.  The treble in the 770 was airy, but a little sibilant and sounded really stranded/peaky.  If the 880s treble is anything like the 770s, I'd have to agree with the fact that the 940 is more detailed than the 880.  Somehow I feel like the 880s treble is a little more even sounding than the 770s, so my speculation holds little value in assessing if the 880 is more or less detailed than the 940.

 

[Lorspeaker]

dt880 < 940
 

 

 

[Alexium]

Quote:

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.

I also asked for other monitor headphones, so it's OK.
 
And you have a good point. Better for others doesn't mean better for me, and superiror to 840 (better headphones I've heard so far) also doesn't mean I'll like them more. Which leads to a conclusion - one shouldn't buy phones (or any acoustic system, for that matter) without prior listening. But in my city there's no 940's, as far as I can tell. Tough decision...