Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but does anyone know if the SRH-940 and the SRH-1840 pads are the same?
On Amazon and Google they look identical. I know one is open and the other closed.
I'm guessing the SRH-940 pads are harder and designed for closed headphones.
I just don't want to buy some 940 pads and find they're identical to the 1840 pads. Probably are..
BTW, I personally found the 1440 too hot for my tastes ultimately, but If one builds a synergistic system around them, they can sound quite good (esp for their price). I ended up keeping the 1840 instead, which I think are the best in their price range still. Yes, the bass is a little slow and lean, no they're not as hyper-detailed as the HD800s, no they don't have the body/slam of the LCD-2/3 or even the HE6, but they sound balanced, forgiving, open and don't commit any major offences. I find them to be a jack of all trades headphone, one that I'd pick over the T1 or HD650. Actually, speaking of the HD650, the 1840 feel like a natural upgrade from them (except in some areas of bass, for reasons mentioned earlier).
Hey Shahrose, I'm just curious, have you read my mini-review of the SRH1840? http://www.head-fi.org/t/617007/mini-review-shure-srh1840
Would like to know if you share my opinion of the SRH1840. Seems like we've heard several of the same headphones but I'm not sure if we've ever heard any of them the same way.
Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but does anyone know if the SRH-940 and the SRH-1840 pads are the same?
On Amazon and Google they look identical. I know one is open and the other closed.
I'm guessing the SRH-940 pads are harder and designed for closed headphones.
I just don't want to buy some 940 pads and find they're identical to the 1840 pads. Probably are..
Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but does anyone know if the SRH-940 and the SRH-1840 pads are the same?
On Amazon and Google they look identical. I know one is open and the other closed.
I'm guessing the SRH-940 pads are harder and designed for closed headphones.
I just don't want to buy some 940 pads and find they're identical to the 1840 pads. Probably are..
So this might be a little crazy, but does anyone have both the 940 and 1840 and can tell me how similar the two headbands are? I'm only concerned with how the headband connects with the enclosure of the driver. I'm worried about the next time my 940 headband cracks and was thinking about seeing if I can get a replacement 1840 headband from Shure. And the graft that onto the 940. Of course I would have add a connector to the right enclosure to make it balanced but that will be easy.
So can anyone help me out and compare them?
Shure states that the SRH-1840 cable is reinforced with kevlar. I can vouch that this is certainly true. I decided to modify the spare cable for balanced operation and when I cut the cable, I found that each of the internal wires is wound around a kevlar core. The wire strands had to be unwound from the kevlar core for soldering. Even with surgical scissors, it was very difficult to cut the kevlar core free from the wire ends.
I cannot conceive of anyone breaking this cable. One could probably use it for towing!!
BTW, the conversion to balanced was successful. I cut the cable about 12" up from the TRS end and added Neutrik 4-pin connectors to each cut end to enable both balanced and SE use.
Hey Shahrose, I'm just curious, have you read my mini-review of the SRH1840? http://www.head-fi.org/t/617007/mini-review-shure-srh1840
Would like to know if you share my opinion of the SRH1840. Seems like we've heard several of the same headphones but I'm not sure if we've ever heard any of them the same way.
I read it now after you linked me. I think we agree on pretty much all points there. The only thing I can't comment on is the AD2K comparison as I've never heard one...I'll pick one up soon.
Would like to mention that the Dynahi gives the 1840s the kick in the balls it needs. The speed and impact is far beyond what I get from any other amp (including the M^3, GS-1, Violectric etc. etc.)
It actually takes on some properties of the HD800 but with a more up-front presentation.
I read it now after you linked me. I think we agree on pretty much all points there. The only thing I can't comment on is the AD2K comparison as I've never heard one...I'll pick one up soon.
Would like to mention that the Dynahi gives the 1840s the kick in the balls it needs. The speed and impact is far beyond what I get from any other amp (including the M^3, GS-1, Violectric etc. etc.)
It actually takes on some properties of the HD800 but with a more up-front presentation.
The Dynahi's still my favourite amp; the 1840 sounds best to me with it.
IME, the B22 is good for when you want a dark+warm, diffuse, relaxed, distant presentation from your music. Like me, you also found the 1840 can sound a bit slow/rounded at times, without enough incisiveness/aggression (and I'm not referring to tone). This doesn't lend itself well to the Beta's sound sig.
The one good thing the Beta and P/V do for the Shures is add bass, but it's easy to tell the 1840 doesn't handle heavy bass as well as the HD800, and certainly not as well as the HE6.
Another thing...I feel there can be a lack of density or body to the 1840's sound at times, and this is really mostly evident with amps that draw out/stretch the soundstage like the B22, M^3, some tube amps and the Peak/Vol to some extent. I feel the Gilmore amps have a more compact, but solid sound with more impact...just what the 1840 needs.
As an aside, I ordered a UPOCC cable for the 1840 a few days ago...lets see what that does, if anything.
This is a good read guys. I'm glad it didn't involve any measurements, charts and graphs. I to enjoy the 1840 after being recommend it by Shahrose months back. However, I hear things different on my B22. What Shahrose describe sounds like my M^3. I guess it's the bright a _ _ DAC I use with the B22, the XDA-1. While the Buffalo gives a warm sorta sound compared to the XDA-1. The XDA-1 x B22 combo is less slow and rounded with more aggression. I'm still not certain if there's a difference or not between a Fully Balanced 4-channel B22 and a 3-channel single ended B22. I have a SS Dynahi being made as soon as I can score some much needed parts. Asr compared the 1840 to the LCD-2.2 many times and his assessments sound about right. However, I would like to know how the HE500 compares. As I'm interested in this Headphone. Any thoughts?
This is a good read guys. I'm glad it didn't involve any measurements, charts and graphs. I to enjoy the 1840 after being recommend it by Shahrose months back. However, I hear things different on my B22. What Shahrose describe sounds like my M^3. I guess it's the bright a _ _ DAC I use with the B22, the XDA-1. While the Buffalo gives a warm sorta sound compared to the XDA-1. The XDA-1 x B22 combo is less slow and rounded with more aggression. I'm still not certain if there's a difference or not between a Fully Balanced 4-channel B22 and a 3-channel single ended B22. I have a SS Dynahi being made as soon as I can score some much needed parts. Asr compared the 1840 to the LCD-2.2 many times and his assessments sound about right. However, I would like to know how the HE500 compares. As I'm interested in this Headphone. Any thoughts?
Re: the HE500 vs SRH1840. I owned the old and new HE500 and sold them both in favour of the Shures. The only area HiFiMANs are better are in bass weight, slam and overall body. Sounds significant, but the 1840 beat them in almost all else IMO.
As for the Beta22, I believe you Darryl. Synergy makes a big difference. A dryish, cool, fast DAC can compensate significantly for the Beta's signature.
I used to own a balanced Buffalo32s so I know. If the XDA-1 is even brighter (or drier)...it may actually be too harsh with the Gilmores, but nice with Ti's amps.
Regardless of the DAC though, there's no doubt the Hi is faster, more focused, transparent and impactful than the Beta. Which one sounds better, however, is often dependent on the signal being fed and the headphones being used.
I actually like the Beta. If I didn't, I'd have gotten rid of it. It was my previous favourite amp with the 1840s.
Any other amp recommendations Sharose (or anyone else) for the 1840s? I get the impression that my Burson is ill-equipped to control these drivers well enough.
Any other amp recommendations Sharose (or anyone else) for the 1840s? I get the impression that my Burson is ill-equipped to control these drivers well enough.
Any other amp recommendations Sharose (or anyone else) for the 1840s? I get the impression that my Burson is ill-equipped to control these drivers well enough.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
