[mutabor]

Quote:

 
Now that I have the 940, 840 and 440...

You said that 840s are uncomfortable headphones and that 940s are much better. What can you say about 440? Ho long can you listen to them without discomfort?

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

That's true, a binaural recording sounds extremely good on earbuds... so are you saying full-size headphones ellicit an artificial soundstage?
 
I know this isn't the right thread, but I find it interesting.
 

I say the sense of space is blown out of proportion on headphones which place the driver away from the ear..
 

 

[ac500]

Interesting, so we have multiple confirmations now of the SRH940 being more detailed than AKG701s, as well as a variety of others. A few people (myself included) also find it vastly more detailed than the DT880, while some have claimed otherwise although I never see them around here so maybe it was just a brief subjective test. The SRH940 is also more detailed in highs than HD650s.
 
HD800s are generally agreed as much better than the SRH940 which is my brief listening impression, however I did not have enough time or a silent room to compare reliably so I don't take my own word for it.
 
> The "soundstage" is fake, exaggerated. Pulling the drivers a distance from your ears is akin to placing loudspeakers 30 feet apart. Some cool effects but all wrong. If you don't hear the recording's soundstage on a pair of earbuds, then there is none
 
I wonder if different ear sizes make a difference. I was noticing my ears brush against my HD650s drivers even, and that's the ONLY headphone aside from HD800s that even come close to fitting my head. Perhaps for some people the HD800 sounds as natural soundstage as HD650s do to normal people.

 ​

In any case, ultimately I like the soundstage of the HD800 -- I really don't care how "natural" it is technically, it just sounds far more natural to me than any other headphone I've heard.​

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

A few people (myself included) also find it vastly more detailed than the DT880, while some have claimed otherwise although I never see them around here so maybe it was just a brief subjective test.

For me (DT880 vs SRH940) it was over a 3 week period.  I found the two roughly equal on detail.  940 might appear to be more detailed due to the airy presentation and skew toward the top end.  DT880 was far more balanced.  But for me - same level of detail was present in both.  There was nothing I could find new (in the music) that wasn't apparent in both cans.
 
My preference was for the DT880 (comfort and SQ) - but I realise I'm in the minority here 

 
Just wanted to let you know that it wasn't a short impression/comparison though.

 

[dL.]

Quote:

You said that 840s are uncomfortable headphones and that 940s are much better. What can you say about 440? Ho long can you listen to them without discomfort?

The 440's are comfortable mainly because they are much lighter and the clamping force is also much lighter.
 
dL

 

[PomPWNius]

If I am listening to a hard rock song by, say, rise against, would the vocals be pristine, clear, and the main focus of the song? 

 

[kiteki]

Link to a youtube track, and then someone can listen to it for you with their 940 ;]

 

[ac500]

WHY do people link to youtube songs here? With all the an*l attention to minute details in sound, claims of cables making subtle differences, etc., how is it that Youtube sound isn't completely discouraged here? Youtube audio is BAD. It's not as bad as some things obviously, but even at youtube's so-called "HD", it's not great.
 
Actually I remember directly comparing a youtube game trailer to a true HD downloaded version, and the difference in audio was striking, particularly for the SRH940, which is very good at revealing subtle details such as compression artifacts.
 
It doesn't even work to compare sound signature either. I find probably the most striking difference in badly compressed audio vs. good audio (other than the obvious reduction in detail) is a big reduction in real deep bass. Somehow it manages to make bass less impactful, or at least much worse and more blurry.

 

[SanjiWatsuki]

If I recall, Youtube in HD only gets up to 128kbps and 156kbps in 1080p. Regardless of the details like that, you're right -- Youtube audio quality is pretty bad. 
 
Quote:

WHY do people link to youtube songs here? With all the an*l attention to minute details in sound, claims of cables making subtle differences, etc., how is it that Youtube sound isn't completely discouraged here? Youtube audio is BAD. It's not as bad as some things obviously, but even at youtube's so-called "HD", it's not great.
 
Actually I remember directly comparing a youtube game trailer to a true HD downloaded version, and the difference in audio was striking, particularly for the SRH940, which is very good at revealing subtle details such as compression artifacts.
 
It doesn't even work to compare sound signature either. I find probably the most striking difference in badly compressed audio vs. good audio (other than the obvious reduction in detail) is a big reduction in real deep bass. Somehow it manages to make bass less impactful, or at least much worse and more blurry.

 

 

[ac500]

128kbps isn't really bad, not half as bad as what I'm hearing. I think then the main problem with youtube is probably compression issues -- a lot of the time even videos are badly recompressed which compounds compression artifacts making them worse and worse. I've seen a few properly compressed videos which are quite good quality even at 320p etc., but anyway sadly most music doesn't sound so great like you said for whatever reason is causing it.

 

[SanjiWatsuki]

Older Youtube videos have even lower quality. The stuff before 2011 can get as low as 60kbps MP3 apparently. 
 
Quote:

128kbps isn't really bad, not half as bad as what I'm hearing. I think then the main problem with youtube is probably compression issues -- a lot of the time even videos are badly recompressed which compounds compression artifacts making them worse and worse. I've seen a few properly compressed videos which are quite good quality even at 320p etc., but anyway sadly most music doesn't sound so great like you said for whatever reason is causing it.

 

 

[John In Cali]

Ya ive tried uploading a little part of an electronic song i made and it sounded like complete crap.

 

[kiteki]

 
ac500 I think you've only watched videos where someone recorded a song on TV with their mobile phone, and then uploaded it to youtube, I agree, that quality isn't very good, the guitars sound off.
 
I ripped this one to FLAC, now it sounds much better.

Spoiler: pop%20song

 
 
 
@John in Cali yeah that's happened to me too.
 
 
Anyway, it's important to have a reference point, that's the simple answer, if we all used the same DAC, same Amp and same internet radio station, then there'd be much more consensus and uniformity around here when discussing headphones, that's for sure.
 
Like someone said a few pages ago, tdockweiler I think, people talk about detail and don't link to songs, right?  If someone is hearing detail, warmth or bass extension and they're listening to a youtube track, they should link to it, it's that simple.
 
We're not really assessing music quality around here most of the time, we're assessing sound quality, there is a difference.  Listening to the SRH-940 on a cassette tape walkman, not very good recording quality, I bet it will still sound great.
 
So, I think having pure lossless collections and stuff, and looking for high recording quality like Linn Records and so on, that's actually a slightly seperate path.
 
 

 

[PomPWNius]

Well heres one of my favorite songs. How will this sound on the shr940?

 

 

[3mnich]

try this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDNVmc5qtQw&feature=bf_next&list=AVGxdCwVVULXfJss2qH_i0XcXQrT4y3yGU&lf=list_related

 or something else with the label Stockfisch Records on Youtube