[Pratt]

Quote:

Many a fool has stated, 'I wish not to argue', after having curtly argued their case. They allude to privileged knowledge but do not share it, for they have not the time for that either. Those who generously contribute to the education of strangers are, indeed, often short of time; their moral quest commands them onward.

Thank you ever so much, but I'm well aware of this, being a philosophy major and, much more importantly, being a reader/studier of it (and various other "intellectual" fields such as pseudo science/science) for over 15 years. Thus I know how to reason properly, thank you.
 
Therefore I take the stance to simply not engage those who I know to be demonstrably wrong, just as many evolutionary biologists will not argue with creationists/ID proponents, for it is a complete waste of time, like arguing whether the earth is flat or not. The material is there (in the case of physical burn in some on this very site for crap's sake) to research to ascertain whether or not such phenomena exists or not (thus it is hardly esoteric; nay it is public and easily accessible) for those who wish to argue otherwise, and if proponents of such false claims choose not to consider it dispassionately, this is due to their intellectual lacking (stubbornness, ignorance, irrationality, etc.). The burden of proof is on them to show how magic supersedes the constraints of physical reality and those that claim it does not and indeed even can not in principal are hardly obliged to counter their unfounded claims point by point. Many, alas, will never listen no matter how self evidently true the evidence is against their positions. Thus engaging such types is an exercise in futility and, yes, I simply have better things to do.
 
I would expect you to be keenly aware of all of this if you are indeed as educated and rational as you pretend to be via your frankly elitist (and somewhat convoluted) prose.
 
I will say no more on the issue: back to the thread!
 

 

[Digital-Pride]

And so the debate "that has no end" concludes this round!  Will this debate ever be resolved?  Maybe not in our lifetimes!

 

[200poundsofamp]

Quote:

Quote:

He gave me more the impression of nitpicking that really not liking them. And in the comments it's as if he is discouraging people to get them, because of his idea of what an "average user" should be looking for.
Also he rank the k701 as the worst when comparing hd650, k701 & dt880 (see the all school trio review).
 

 
Fair enough. But reserved praise is still a poor excuse for hype, we still need some people saying a $500 cable and some cotton balls turns these into he-500's or something.
 

Pratt, since you listen to Rush are you noticing a little mid bass hole in these things, or does that only exist on paper?

 

[Rainbow Randy]

The debate over burn-in is indeed over. We have a man here who has incontrovertible proof which debunks it entirely. What's more, any contrarians are little better than 15th century ignoramuses who place superstition over fact. Oh, the glory of our times!

 

[baka1969]

A combustion engine has a break in period. It shouldn't be a stretch to say that dynamic headphones (and speakers) have a break in period. They have physical moving parts. The material goes through a stress and destress while moving. I can't say for certain how long takes for the moving parts of the driver to seat and set but since it moves in and out similar to a piston it has to break in. It's physics not mystical powers.

 

[ACDOAN]

I have only one question, please. Just a simple yes or nay. Forget about the pricing. I have the SRH 840 in my collection. Here is my question:
 
Do the SQ improvements of the SRH 940, if there is any worth the purchase?

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

I have only one question, please. Just a simple yes or nay. Forget about the pricing. I have the SRH 840 in my collection. Here is my question:
 
Do the SQ improvements of the SRH 940, if there is any worth the purchase?

x2

 

[Mad Max]

 
Quote:

I have only one question, please. Just a simple yes or nay. Forget about the pricing. I have the SRH 840 in my collection. Here is my question:
 
Do the SQ improvements of the SRH 940, if there is any worth the purchase?

People who have picked up 940 and compared them to their own headphones have said yes several times in this thread in one way or another.
SRH840 isn't the greatest headphone of all time, there's plenty of better options out there depending on how much you are willing to pay.  It seems 940 is one of them, and within the same brand which is really no surprise.

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

 

People who have picked up 940 and compared them to their own headphones have said yes several times in this thread in one way or another.
SRH840 isn't the greatest headphone of all time, there's plenty of better options out there depending on how much you are willing to pay.  It seems 940 is one of them, and within the same brand which is really no surprise.

the srh840 may not be the best option but for $200 is one of the best available. at least thats what everyone says. i quite like mine but i am awaiting a new one from shure.
 
 

 

[dleblanc343]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, won't argue about it that's for sure Btw, cool display pic, Rush is amazing
 
Quote:

You have a right to your opinion and I respect that, but anecdotal, unquantified personal testimony can not discredit scientific fact which overwhelmingly proves that burn in does not exist (at least past a VERY minimal break in point which is a couple of hours at the absolute most and more like a few seconds). I will not argue this for it is like arguing whether or not gravity or evolution are fact. I only mentioned my position on burn in so no one would ask me if I was burning these in or not, not to start anything.
 

This is the only possible way older headphones will sound different to new. Even then it is fairly insignificant. (Yes I've heard both new and old cans of the same models with pads broken in or not, switched on them and blind).
 
 
Trust me, I thought the AKG 702's were clear too until I heard these!
 
I did listen at the same volume level, both through my AV 123 X Head amp which has two headphone outs and my Matrix M Stage and Cowon D2 set at the same volume. With the latter gear it takes a bit of time to switch cans, but not more than 20 seconds at the most. The 702's were much quieter at the same volumes.
 
I agree the 702's have enough bass as well. The 940's have more though imo and it is also tighter and more articulate. This is nice, although I was satisfied with the 702's bass. The 940's are more speaker like to me than the 702's as well because, although the sound stage isn't as wide, they are simply the more refined and sophisticated can imo. I also have very neutral "hi-fi" monitors (and have heard dozens more) and the 940's sound more like them than any other can I've heard. Again, they have more of a refined and sophisticated sound like "hi-fi" monitors than the 702's.
 
 
I'd say detail head! 

 
 
So I've been listening to these, about 20 hours now I guess, and still really enjoying them. No major flaw has appeared in that time, but nor have they been sounding better to me since when I first listened to them. In fact, a few minor flaws have become more noticeable the more I get used to these cans. These would be that there is a slight resonance that can cause these cans to sound slightly chesty. Probably due to the closed design. Also the treble, while not harsh, can be a bit sheeny or sharp. Finally these are slightly dry or crisp. But these are minor flaws and not fatal. These also are dependent on the source material: these are revealing cans, even more than my 702's, so well recorded material will sound great while lesser produced material will sound worse than with more forgiving phones. This is the blessing and curse of all "hi-fi" nuetral/resolving/transparent gear of course.
 
The overall sound is one of clarity and detail yet balance and composure with good PRaT. I can't say I've heard more micro detail than ever before through these cans, but that's probably because I have and have heard very resolving speakers. They certainly are the most detailed headphones I've ever heard and thus accentuate those nuances and subtleties and background sounds more than others. I can hear almost all of these details in the 702's for instance, but they are harder to hear, they don't come out as much as with the 940's. But again, this detail is still not overly distracting from the main flow of the music, no it just adds to it and makes you appreciate the little flourishes artists put into their material, flourishes that are missed or at least not as brought out with less resolving gear. I am a lover of drums for instance (Rush is my favorite band) and the cymbal work these cans detail is phenomenal, but again not distracting. Bass is also very articulate and textured which is also great as I am a lover of bass guitar (again, Rush lol). Clarity, balance, and neutrality reigns on all levels and with all material I've thrown at these, from classical to metal, synth pop to singer/songwriter.
 
In more comparison to the 702's I found the AKG's to be darker, hollower, more distant, duller...yes really! The 940's are better balanced, more forward, have more detail, are more refined, with better, deeper, even richer bass. In my mind the 940's are clearly superior, though the 702's are still a good can.

I'm not afraid to add that while listening to the 940's I lost count of how many "wows" and "omg's" I uttered, as well chills I experienced in the midst of summer. Impressive!
 
Very happy with these cans!

 
Btw, they sound fine straight out of my D2 or with my FiiO E5 amp.

 

 

[ACDOAN]

This is what I can extract from Heafonia:
 
1. The SRH 940 are a monster detail.
2. The SRH 940 are brighter but dryer than the SRH 840 .
3. The SRH 940 vocals are more present than the SRH 840.
 
Not too bad improvements. As medications, there are always side effects. So they are more details and brighter but dryer and the mid is more present.Sounds like not a lateral move but a step up. 
 
I keep that in mind once the price drop.
 
Thank you,

 

[Mad Max]

 
Quote:

the srh840 may not be the best option but for $200 is one of the best available. at least thats what everyone says. i quite like mine but i am awaiting a new one from shure.

That's what everyone says, but everyone tends to echo a lot of things.  At least here there are some comparisons, not to be taken literally, but the general conclusion you can draw is that they are higher-end, and no, they are not going to be competing in the ~$200 bracket, so no use comparing them to 840 in that sense.  One is noticeably better than the other overall, that's really all you need to know, and the difference in price is less than 2x that of SRH840, so you can conclude it is good or at least worth a try.  =]

 

[ACDOAN]

 

[Rawrbington]

that graph tells my uneducated eyes that they are flatter, with less treble roll off.
is that about right when put over your ears?

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

that graph tells my uneducated eyes that they are flatter, with less treble roll off.
is that about right when put over your ears?

Flatter, but this doesn't explain why the srh940 would be detailed. Nor does it provide any indication about the bass quality. I wouldn't buy this headphone by looking at this graph, they are other headphone that looks much flatter like the denon AH-D2000.