[kiteki]

 
No I listened the 840 and 940 next to eachother, the 940 is a huge step up in sound quality, the 840 just sounds like a plain jane headphone like my MDR-V6.
 
 
 
 

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

No I listened the 840 and 940 next to eachother, the 940 is a huge step up in sound quality, the 840 just sounds like a plain jane headphone like my MDR-V6.

 
A huge step up in what ways exactly? SRH840 already has a close to perfect dynamic range and midrange transparency. The highs and lows and soundstage could be better I guess, but I did not find much of an improvement in those qualities on the SRH940, if at all. I think SRH940 doesn't sound any more open than the SRH840 although the brighter highs may give that illusion. I don't find the bass better with the SRH940 because it just lacks punch and I also didn't really hear any extra detail in the low end vs. the SRH840. The highs are the only area where the SRH940 seems like a more clear winner, but then again - the highs may sound better simply because they are louder and easier to hear on the SRH940. Just speculating.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kiteki /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
bad?

 
? Sorry I don't understand.

 

[kiteki]

 
Quote:

 
A huge step up in what ways exactly?
 

 
 
Detail retrieval, life-like vocals, silk, shimmer and shine, bass quality, musicality, microdetail.
 
 
The 840 just sounded like any old headphone to me, verging on dull and muffled in comparison to the 940.
 
The 840 had no striking qualities to me, i.e. another plain jane headphone like my MDR-V6, the 940 had striking qualities that makes you think "winner!!"
 
 
 

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

 
Detail retrieval, life-like vocals, silk, shimmer and shine, bass quality, musicality, microdetail.
 
The 840 just sounded like any old headphone to me, verging on dull and muffled in comparison to the 940.
 
The 840 had no striking qualities to me, i.e. another plain jane headphone like my MDR-V6, the 940 had striking qualities that makes you think "winner!!"

 
Well, to each their one. I personally find the dynamic range and midrange transparency to be standout features of the SRH840, especially when you take into account that they are closed headphones and retail for $199. SRH840 may also not strike you as exciting because it is primarily a monitoring headphone after all - no frequency is really emphasized or recessed. That's how I am hearing them too. Very mild emphasis on mid bass, very mild emphasis on the lower treble and that's about it. Pretty neutral sound IMO. BTW, here's a frequency response graph for the SRH840 from a Russian website (the first graph from the top). As you can see, it looks very different from that on Headroom. Go figure. There is also some crazy guy in the review section for the SRH840 claiming that they sound more natural than Denon D5000, ATH-W1000 and Sony R10. lol

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

 
. SRH840 may also not strike you as exciting because it is primarily a monitoring headphone after all -

The srh940 are advertised as monitoring headphone as well. Check your source as I've many times said. Out a sansa clip, the srh940 is lacking some refinement.
 
Quote:

As you can see, it looks very different from that on Headroom.

Probably a story of  "head-related transfer function" correction ,  that is not applied.
 
 

 

[Pianist]

Quote:

The srh940 are advertised as monitoring headphone as well. Check your source as I've many times said. Out a sansa clip, the srh940 is lacking some refinement.
 
Probably a story of  "head-related transfer function" correction ,  that is not applied.

 
I find the SRH840 doesn't have any real emphasis on any part of the spectrum. The SRH940 does have emphasis on the highs IMO. For me the SRH840 sounds more like a studio monitor, but then I am not a sound engineer so what do I know? The SRH940 just sounded too bright to me to be accurate.
 
Maybe you are right about the graph. The HRTF might not have been applied.

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

 
 The SRH940 just sounded too bright to me to be accurate.

 I  guess they are more accurate in term of detail retrieval, don't focus too much on the frequency balance, you can always try a good eq (dmg equality  ...).
My hd595 are perhaps more neutral, but I 'm unable to hear as much detail with them.
I  can always apply an eq on the srh940, while there's nothing to do on my hd595, to make them sound more refined.
 

 

[kiteki]

 
Quote:

 I  guess they are more accurate in term of detail retrieval, .
 

Yup, monitor does not have to equal flat FR.
 

 

[donunus]

Quote:

I  can always apply an eq on the srh940, while there's nothing to do on my hd595, to make them sound more refined.
 

This is very true. The 595s are less refined yet sound more balanced in its tonality but their grain can never be eq'd out. The Shures although a little thin sounding can be eq'd to perfection due to its great extension on both extremes and smoothness in sound. But then again if the cans were just used to listen for pleasure instead of monitoring, we wouldn't really need as much microscopic detail to look for recording/mastering defects because music in real life isn't as bright and detailed as the Shures anyways
 

 

[baka1969]

 
I find the SRH840 doesn't have any real emphasis on any part of the spectrum. The SRH940 does have emphasis on the highs IMO. For me the SRH840 sounds more like a studio monitor, but then I am not a sound engineer so what do I know? The SRH940 just sounded too bright to me to be accurate.
 
Maybe you are right about the graph. The HRTF might not have been applied.

I've found the 840 to have a mid bass hump. Although not as prevalent as the M50's, I still think it's not neutral bass. In contrast I think the 940 is bass light. I don"t believe the bass is neutral. In contrast I think the 940 is bass light. IMHO it's these two differences that help perceive the treble variations between the two Shures.

 

[donunus]

That is true. The 840 is more balanced but... less seamless. I wouldn't call the 840s to have a bass hump for example if some deep bass came along with the midbass they had. The treble of the 840 is about the right amount too but sounds drier than that of the 940s because it is less extended and the peak is focused more on a specific area of frequencies. 

 

[baka1969]

I know charts aren't the cure all, but it does seem to confirm what I hear. A mid bass hump.

 

[200poundsofamp]

Quote:

 
My last comment "Why can't accuracy be fun?", was merely a question pointed to 200poundsofamp's comment two pages back. Done nothing questionable. I don't see a single thing here that would've required for me to listen to the 940... Still interested though But on the other hand, preliminary experience with the KNS8400 seemed so good, I might not even order these, mainly due to the portability issue... 

Hey, not saying that accuracy is bad, just that for the bands he listed it's probably not a priority. And the 940s really let you know when you give it a garbage recording, they do no favors to a style of music that's usually produced with neutered dynamic range and is bright to begin with. Personally I'd take the Grado, or for something closed the srh840 anytime for stuff like that.

What I thought the 940s were best with was recordings with actual ambience, or music that took advantage of its vivid imaging. For a lot of studio work it doesn't really have the best sound signature, and the level of detail can be kind of disconcerting. So instead of hearing the nuances that make you feel like you're there you typically just hear the edges of samples and how things were mic'ed.
 
Quote:

BTW, here's a frequency response graph for the SRH840 from a Russian website (the first graph from the top). As you can see, it looks very different from that on Headroom. Go figure. There is also some crazy guy in the review section for the SRH840 claiming that they sound more natural than Denon D5000, ATH-W1000 and Sony R10. lol

That site seems surprisingly accurate. These all seem dead on to me.

Hope they measure the 940 sometime. I bet it would measure flatter vs the 840 apart from the treble, meaning less peaks and dips, only with the entire response tilted upwards. At least that's how the 940s sounded to me, I guess preferences could vary between the two if you want to see the forest or the trees.

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

I know charts aren't the cure all, but it does seem to confirm what I hear. A mid bass hump.

Well, we could talk of a small mid-bass "hole" for the srh940. At least Brooko complained that the midbass was lacking, it seems he sold his headphone partly because of that. Probably the headphone would be more musical,  if the 60hz - 200 hz region of the graph  was a "straight line" (not necessarily horizontal).
 

 

[kiteki]

 
Looking at that graph, apart from the spike around 9kHz there's not much treble emphasis on the SRH-940? Especialy compared to the SRH-840, they both measure the same, except for the 940 being more accurate above 11kHz.
 
So obviously the 940 isn't just "an 840 with boosted treble" as someone in this thread suggested.
 
Once again the 840 is crap compared to the 940 imho.