Shure SRH 940 impression and support thread

[tdockweiler]

Quote:

So far, only tdockweiler found the srh940 "somewhat warm". But I  guess it would depends of what "warm" means. The treble is not recessed, so that's not that.
 

The SRH-940 is one strange headphone to me to describe. I've rarely had a headphone that's a mix of something bright and analytical yet somewhat warm and very full and textured in it's mids. How the heck does that work? The only thing that reminds me of this sound was the Audio Technica ATH-AD2000.
 
SRH-940 seems like a weird combo of an HD-600 and a poorly amped K702. Something brighter and energetic and fairly laid back and warm, like an HD-600.
 
One thing I noticed is that the SRH-940 sounded much worse (and not as warm) without an amp. With my setup, the SRH-940 sounded a tiny bit less warm than my HD-598!! The Micro Amp loves the SRH-940 and the Airhead should offer a similar sound (maybe). The Micro Amp is slightly warm, but not enough to ruin something like an HD-650.
 
I don't know if it's just me, but the SRH-940's sound seems to change a lot with different amps/DACs. Even more than my HD-598.
 
BTW I also think the SRH-840 is warm too

But I guess this makes more sense. I didn't really realize this at first until I compared it to my DJ100 and the KRKs. Then it's very noticeable. I generally hate headphones that are too warm. HD-598 is the warmest headphone I can stand I think. Maybe the HD-600, but that headphone bores me to death. Not that it's bad.
 
 
 
 
 

 

[extrabigmehdi]

 
Quote:

SRH-940 seems like a weird combo of an HD-600 and a poorly amped K702. Something brighter and energetic and fairly laid back and warm, like an HD-600.

 
From this description, I  guess it would be either better to get an hd600 or a well amped k702 (I  assume that a poorly amped k702 sucks) than the srh940.
 
Quote:

 
I don't know if it's just me, but the SRH-940's sound seems to change a lot with different amps/DACs. Even more than my HD-598.

I  tried the srh940 with different "cheap" sources (mp3 players, tablet etc..) and I  noticed differences each time. The only "good source"I  have is my xonar stx , and the srh940 are  much better with it.
But the sound of srh940 is  also sensitive to the placement of ear cups on head.
It's not surprising that different users , have different impressions at the end, for the srh940.

 

[kiteki]

 
extrabigmehdi, I think you might like the AKG K701 with a Matrix M-Stage, then you are taking a clear departure from the SRH-940 sound which you don't seem to be very enamoured with.
 

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

Yep - warm - but not in the traditional sense of the way most people use "warm" on Head-fi.
 
To me - warm means forward and intimate mid-range.  To a lot of others, warm is normally associated with dark (bassy, treble-light, but liquid mid-range).
 
The SRH 940 had gorgeous mids - that were definitely forward and smooth - but for me the highs were almost sweet (for the want of a better description), a touch airy and dry - but not grainy or sibilant.
 
Hope that makes sense.
 
I would have kept it (I liked the obvious colouration) if it wasn't for the strange sounding lower mids and bass.  For me - the mid-bass especially just didn't gel - and I was looking for an allrounder.  Thankfully I've since found it with the HM5.

 
Wow, by that definition of warm I definitely agree that they are indeed "warm"
 
I define warm in the more traditional sense (although not necessarily dark), but certainly "liquid" mids and generally a slower (but laid back) signature - hence, I do not find the 940 warm by my definition of the word.
 
I'm also in the club that thinks the treble is certainly detailed, but not monsterously so like many are describing, this even being the case on the analytical D100.  Midrange detail is average at best, and honestly some details become less forward as we dive down into the lower frequencies (low mids down).
 
Treble detail - Excellent (not perfect)
Midrange detail - average at best
Low mid detail - moderate, a tick below average (at best)
Bass texture - above average
 
For the price I think the SQ is a pretty good value though to be fair!
 
Just my impression...
 
 

 

[kiteki]

 
ac500, you asked me how the SA-5000 compares to the HD800 in details right?  I didn't answer because it's a bit difficult to compare them from memory.
 
Here is an A/B comparison for you - http://www.head-fi.org/t/571081/the-diary-entries-of-a-little-girl-latest-memoir-o-pn-u/3075#post_8050316
 
 

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

 
ac500, you asked me how the SA-5000 compares to the HD800 in details right?  I didn't answer because it's a bit difficult to compare them from memory.
 
Here is an A/B comparison for you - http://www.head-fi.org/t/571081/the-diary-entries-of-a-little-girl-latest-memoir-o-pn-u/3075#post_8050316
 
 

I'd like to compare the SA5000 to the SP-1
 
 

 

[ac500]

I remember asking how the SA5000 compares with the SRH940 a long time ago, because I'm still looking for a detailed headphone that fits my head comfortably. Maybe I should try an SA5000... I've tried buying literally every other suggestion from that thread (AD2000, DT880).
 
I don't see much of a detailed comparison on that thread you linked, but the fact that people claim it is very good on okay equipment, possibly near an HD800 on okay equipment, then it makes it a very interesting option for me -- since it sounds like that implies it's better than an SRH940 in terms of detail.

 

[kiteki]

 
I don't think anyone has ever said AD2000 or DT880 in that thread.
 
IIRC I had the headband on SA-5000 at the maximum setting sooooo you might not like it at all.
 
The real leather is really good though.
 
Of course the most comfortable headphone ever made in the past 200 years is the Sony XB1000, it is like walking around with two king size beds on your face.
 
However... the sound quality leaves something to be desired...

 

[staxxx]

Quote:

I remember asking how the SA5000 compares with the SRH940 a long time ago, because I'm still looking for a detailed headphone that fits my head comfortably. Maybe I should try an SA5000... I've tried buying literally every other suggestion from that thread (AD2000, DT880).
 
I don't see much of a detailed comparison on that thread you linked, but the fact that people claim it is very good on okay equipment, possibly near an HD800 on okay equipment, then it makes it a very interesting option for me -- since it sounds like that implies it's better than an SRH940 in terms of detail.

 
I thought the SRH-940 was plenty detailed (from what I've read)? The SA-5000 has bad build quality and a microphonic cable. Consider that before you purchase. I agree with that A/B comparison, except for the last part. Also you get a pretty cool looking stand.

 

[staxxx]

Quote:

Of course the most comfortable headphone ever made in the past 200 years is the Sony XB1000, it is like walking around with two king size beds on your face.
 

Haha, I found the XB700 to be the most comfortable.

 

[ac500]

A lot of people recommended those, actually: http://www.head-fi.org/t/571343/comfortable-open-flat-neutral-highly-detailed-and-resolving-headphones-500
 
> I thought the SRH-940 was plenty detailed (from what I've read)? The SA-5000 has bad build quality and a microphonic cable. Consider that before you purchase. I agree with that A/B comparison, except for the last part. Also you get a pretty cool looking stand.

 ​

It's detailed enough, just too small for my head. The SA5000 is out though since people who the SRH940 fit (kiteki) have to fully extend the SA5000.​

 ​

I'm starting to believe the only alternate for me really is the HD800, HD700, or SRH1840.​

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

I remember asking how the SA5000 compares with the SRH940 a long time ago, because I'm still looking for a detailed headphone that fits my head comfortably. Maybe I should try an SA5000... I've tried buying literally every other suggestion from that thread (AD2000, DT880).
 
I don't see much of a detailed comparison on that thread you linked, but the fact that people claim it is very good on okay equipment, possibly near an HD800 on okay equipment, then it makes it a very interesting option for me -- since it sounds like that implies it's better than an SRH940 in terms of detail.

You should try the SP-1 or GMP 450 PRO sometime.
 
It could be a crapshoot, because it seems to be pretty picky with the source/amp, but if you're looking for uber detail from TOP TO BOTTOM...
 
The open version, the GMP400 (I've heard the previous QP400) is detailed as well, but as a bit more of a treble tilt.
 
It's pretty tough to drive too, claimed at 300 ohm (although some sources suggests it is closer to 410 ohm) and the sensitivity is 93 dB/mW if I remember correctly.
 

 

[kiteki]

 
The SRH-940 has fake vocals, it's like listening to someone talking when you have earplugs in.  It's actually the worst vocals I've ever heard.
 
 
The SA-5000 has really excellent vocals, they sound quite realistic (more than HD800, easy) and they are sharp and resonate right in your face.  I remember listening to Bjork - Hunter, and the sub-bass vibrates in the leather, while Bjork is singing right into my nasal cavity.
 
So, I liked female vocals on the SA-5000, Celine Dion, Bjork, such music... Classical was pretty good too, because it had such fine details of the string instruments, however, it can't create a holographic image very well, such as... if a violin is playing, you will hear the intrinsic detail of the string, but you can't imagine the dimension of the violin, or where the bow is... such stuff... unless my sources weren't up to scratch.
 
It was my first real headphone, after the Koss PortaPro, then for some reason I signed up on head-fi, that was a fatal error.

 

 

[staxxx]

Quote:

 
The SRH-940 has fake vocals, it's like listening to someone talking when you have earplugs in.  It's actually the worst vocals I've ever heard.
 
 
The SA-5000 has really excellent vocals, they sound quite realistic (more than HD800, easy) and they are sharp and resonate right in your face.  I remember listening to Bjork - Hunter, and the sub-bass vibrates in the leather, while Bjork is singing right into my nasal cavity.
 
So, I liked female vocals on the SA-5000, Celine Dion, Bjork, such music... Classical was pretty good too, because it had such fine details of the string instruments, however, it can't create a holographic image very well, such as... if a violin is playing, you will hear the intrinsic detail of the string, but you can't imagine the dimension of the violin, or where the bow is... such stuff... unless my sources weren't up to scratch.
 
It was my first real headphone, after the Koss PortaPro, then for some reason I signed up on head-fi, that was a fatal error.

 

Interesting. At my work we sometimes use the Shure 440/840 and while I don't care strongly for each, they're both good studio monitors and both sound very normal with vocals. Are you alone on this for the 940? Or others agree?

As for the HD 800 vs SA-5000, I vastly prefer the SA-5000, some guys argued against me in 2 other threads on the HD 800's superiority. Anyway, I think the HD 800 sounds more natural, because on a "quick listen" on both, the noticeable difference I've heard is that the HD 800 has more body + is less bright. When doing critical listening, the SA-5000 is more detailed.
I try not to be bias and I respect your opinion, just goes to show how all our ears are different.
 
 

 

[kiteki]

 
I was joking about the SRH-940, it's b-casey that said that, over the last few pages.
 
I can only compare the HD800 and SA-5000 from memory so I don't have accurate information at all.