[extrabigmehdi]

I   wanted to say that the frequency response of the srh940 presented by the website "goldenears.net" is very different from the one presented at headroom  (at least the peaks/holes do not match in the frequency responses).



From url:
http://ko.goldenears.net/board/1614576

The frequency response from headroom :


I  really like that the website golden ear suggest an ideal curve (golden ears target).

I've computed the difference between the ideal curve, and the average of left + right frequency response of srh940 (some programming ...)




I  believe the frequency response presented by the website "golden ears" reflect better the reality than the one from headroom. The region 200hz- 2khz seems quite flat according to "golden ears" , a difference of 6 db according to headroom.

 

[Headphoner]

Why do you think that the Golden Ear curve better reflects reality than the HeadRoom curve?
 

 
 
Originally Posted by extrabigmehdi /img/forum/go_quote.gif

 

I   wanted to say that the frequency response of the srh940 presented by the website "goldenears.net" is very different from the one presented at headroom  (at least the peaks/holes do not match in the frequency responses).



From url:
http://ko.goldenears.net/board/1614576

The frequency response from headroom :


I  really like that the website golden ear suggest an ideal curve (golden ears target).

I've computed the difference between the ideal curve, and the average of left + right frequency response of srh940 (some programming ...)




I  believe the frequency response presented by the website "golden ears" reflect better the reality than the one from headroom. The region 200hz- 2khz seems quite flat according to "golden ears" , a difference of 6 db according to headroom.

 

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

Why do you think that the Golden Ear curve better reflects reality than the HeadRoom curve?

Well I should say instead that the Golden Ear graph  reflects better the reality , when I position properly the headphones on my head (on  my review, I describe how cup position affects the sound) . I think now that the more than 11 db  treble peak at 9k , showed by the headroom graph is just too much. 6 db is  more realistic.
I  don't find that the mids region needs to be eq-ed , and on the golden ear graph it's flat.
I'm not convinced  by the "mid bass" hole that some user noticed, and it's even more obvious on the "golden ear" graph that there's not such things. However an overall bass boost below 200 hz can be nice for most modern musics (I guess that's not neutral) ,and  they are suggesting that with their "golden ear target"  green curve.

 

[Headphoner]

Interesting.  The reason I asked is that I used a parametric equalizer (and my ears) to flatten the HeadRoom curve and then to flatten the Golden Ears curve.  By this I mean that I inserted peaks where there were valleys and valleys where there were peaks.  Then I fine tuned each peak and valley by ear.  This fine-tuning included the center frequency, amplitude, and width of a peak or valley.  I found that the HeadRoom curve, when flattened, produced to my ears much more pleasing sound than did the flattened Golden Ears curve.  This suggests to me that the HeadRoom curve is closer to reality.
 
My methodology was crude, so I don't place a lot of confidence in my conclusion that the HeadRoom curve is closer to reality.  Nevertheless, the HeadRoom curve, when flattened, produced results that I like a lot.
 
There is one exception to the curve flattening.  For both the HeadRoom and Golden Ears curves, I added something not suggested by the curves.  I added bass boost starting at around 50 Hz and rising to around 15dB at 20Hz.  This boost begins so low that it seems to affect neither the tonality of the human voice (male or female) nor the tonality of any of the common musical instruments.  But the boost does seem to add air and reduce what I would describe as a high-end harshness that I didn't know was there until the boost.  It is amazing to my ears how the high frequencies sound more relaxed and airy with the bass boost.  If I begin the bass boost much over 50 Hz, then it reduces clarity and air, and messes things up.
 
I listen to classical, Broadway, and folk music.  To protect my ears when listening to phones, I avoid large, loud musical forces such as a full symphony orchestra.  When fine tuning the peaks and valleys, I generally listen to a single voice, male or female, adjusting the center frequency and width to maximize texture in the voice.  When adjusting the amplitude of a peak or valley, I listen for pleasing overall balance, harshness, and fuzz in the voice.
 
Quote:

Well I should say instead that the Golden Ear graph  reflects better the reality , when I position properly the headphones on my head (on  my review, I describe how cup position affects the sound) . I think now that the more than 11 db  treble peak at 9k , showed by the headroom graph is just too much. 6 db is  more realistic.
I  don't find that the mids region needs to be eq-ed , and on the golden ear graph it's flat.
I'm not convinced  by the "mid bass" hole that some user noticed, and it's even more obvious on the "golden ear" graph that there's not such things. However an overall bass boost below 200 hz can be nice for most modern musics (I guess that's not neutral) ,and  they are suggesting that with their "golden ear target"  green curve.

 

 

[Enter Darkness]

Well thats unfortunate. Who wants to buy my pair? I refuse to buy from shure now that they support sopa. I will boycott them until they change their mind.

 

[extrabigmehdi]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Headphoner /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I found that the HeadRoom curve, when flattened, produced to my ears much more pleasing sound than did the flattened Golden Ears curve.  This suggests to me that the HeadRoom curve is closer to reality

If you try to position the headphone differently just like I suggest on my review, correcting the headroom curve would sound wrong.

Quote:

There is one exception to the curve flattening.  For both the HeadRoom and Golden Ears curves, I added something not suggested by the curves.  I added bass boost starting at around 50 Hz and rising to around 15dB at 20Hz.  This boost begins so low that it seems to affect neither the tonality of the human voice (male or female) nor the tonality of any of the common musical instruments.  But the boost does seem to add air and reduce what I would describe as a high-end harshness that I didn't know was there until the boost.  It is amazing to my ears how the high frequencies sound more relaxed and airy with the bass boost.  If I begin the bass boost much over 50 Hz, then it reduces clarity and air, and messes things up.

That's curious. Perhaps it's the equalizer itself that induces this, try an other.
 
Quote:

Well thats unfortunate. Who wants to buy my pair? I refuse to buy from shure now that they support sopa. I will boycott them until they change their mind.

Proof ? Why a seller that has nothing to do with web hosting, or providing domains, would need to do this .
 
 

 

[pinkfloydfan]

I just read some comments on another forum that described the SRH940 as being VERY CLOSE sounding to the Sennheiser HD800? (WHAT) I can not believe that, is it true? has any body done any side by side comparisons, if it does sound close that is either very good design on Shure's part or very bad on Sennheisers.

 

[mcy9569]

Someone believe that SRH940 is quite easy to drive compare to similar level of other headphones, is it true?

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

I just read some comments on another forum that described the SRH940 as being VERY CLOSE sounding to the Sennheiser HD800? (WHAT) I can not believe that, is it true? has any body done any side by side comparisons, if it does sound close that is either very good design on Shure's part or very bad on Sennheisers.

The consensus is No. There was a user defending here that they are  similar, a certain oldshoe99.
 
 

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

Someone believe that SRH940 is quite easy to drive compare to similar level of other headphones, is it true?

They seem, but they benefit from a quality DAC (much more than my hd595 for instance) . Easy to drive is a slight exaggeration, you can't reach loud volumes when using an onboard realtek soundcard.
 

 

[ac500]

Quote:

I just read some comments on another forum that described the SRH940 as being VERY CLOSE sounding to the Sennheiser HD800? (WHAT) I can not believe that, is it true? has any body done any side by side comparisons, if it does sound close that is either very good design on Shure's part or very bad on Sennheisers.

No, it's not very close. It's just closer (in sound quality) than any other headphone I've heard under $900, including HD650, AD2000, DT880, and others.

 

[donedj]

Can anybody compare the SRH940's to Sennheiser HD600 and Beyer Dynamic DT 880
 
For classic rock music (70s and 80s)
Heavy Metal of 80s
Iron Maiden, Metallica etc
Top 40 - Current chart songs
Some techno, house
Occasionally rap and hip hop
 
 
I tested the SRH940 after my friend bought them. I liked the sound signature but the mids were a bit recessed or not as clear as they could have been (i thought). Especially in the vocals (listening to some rock tunes) they seemed to be a bit rough and appeared as if they are coming from way behind on the soundstage.
 
Never tested the HD600 or DT880

 

[ac500]

SRH940 needs a good DAC/amp, but so does the HD600. Properly amped, the SRH940 sounds more detailed and better quality treble than my HD650 and DT880 (and AD2000). Now soundstage and coloration may or may not be to your preference, but the SRH940 has unmatched highs, upper mids, and detail IMO -- take that for what it's worth.
 
I love the SRH940 for techno, so much more than my HD650s anyway, but that's just me. Bass is more than satisfying (although I'm not a basshead), and the intricate crystal clear highs carry complex electronic beats brilliantly. With an HD650 (and the same will be true for the HD600), you'll find a bit less "energy" in complex electronic sounds, guitar, etc. due to the comparatively less detail.
 
I haven't tried much of the other genres you mention because I don't listen to them much. The HD600 is probably more well-rounded (less colored), less fatiguing, and certainly more comfortable -- but based on my extensive comparison with the HD650 (and DT880), the SRH940 is hard to beat if you're looking for a really detailed sound.

 

[tdockweiler]

Quote:

Can anybody compare the SRH940's to Sennheiser HD600 and Beyer Dynamic DT 880
 
For classic rock music (70s and 80s)
Heavy Metal of 80s
Iron Maiden, Metallica etc
Top 40 - Current chart songs
Some techno, house
Occasionally rap and hip hop
 
 
I tested the SRH940 after my friend bought them. I liked the sound signature but the mids were a bit recessed or not as clear as they could have been (i thought). Especially in the vocals (listening to some rock tunes) they seemed to be a bit rough and appeared as if they are coming from way behind on the soundstage.
 
Never tested the HD600 or DT880

Based on memory the HD-600 has a larger and more airy soundstage. Less forward (and more relaxed) mids with more texture and weight to them. Any stringed instrument is especially good on the HD-600. The mids on the SRH-940 are a little thinner (no, NOT thin), but still very well textured (with a good amp). The HD-600 is a bit warmer and has much less treble. I think the SRH-940 has a slight edge in sound clarity and detail. People can disagree, but I always felt that with the stock cable, the HD-600 was very, very slightly muffled. No, not veiled. I'm sick of that word!
 
I'd say the HD-600 has more bass and sounds more balanced to my ears. This doesn't mean much, since I don't want a completely neutral headphone (not that one seems to exist).
 
I also think the SRH-940 has the HD-600 beat when it comes to female vocals (I listen to a lot of vocals), but the HD-598? Not a chance!
 
I think I prefer the SRH-940 to the HD-600, but I'm not a huge fan of the HD-600, but owned it 2-3 times. HD-598 is one of my favorites though. I guess I'd probably take the HD-600 only because it's open and sounds pretty good.
 
SRH-940 compared to the DT-880 would be too complicated to compare. Sound like almost complete opposites. Well, close.
 
IMO the mids of the SRH-940 are not even remotely recessed. To me that's like saying the DT-990 doesn't have enough treble.
 
Ok, some of this might not make sense, but remember, this is with my amp and DAC. The SRH-940 did sound a bit worse without an amp and straight out of a portable device. It really deserves a good amp/dac.
 
Don't ask me how, but the SRH-940 with my setup reminds me of a weird mix of an E9 amped K702 and an HD-600

 

[kiteki]

 
If looking at sound alone, the SRH-940 is underpriced, and the HD800 is overpriced, and they happen to have a similiar signature, so they are not that far away from eachother, which is vocally expressed in several reviews.
 
For portable closed-back, the SRH-940 must be one of the best there are, I haven't seen any comparisons to the ~$300 Audio Technicas, Sony's or Denon's though, ES88 and Z1000 come to mind, I'd also like to know how the Creative Aurvana Live fares up.