[Mad Lust Envy]

How is the HE400 competing with the 1840s, while the higher priced HE4 competing with the lower end model? The HE400 has like ONE impression. ONE person said they preferred the HE400 to the HE4, and already people assume it's just better.... lol. Because we ALL have the same taste. Sorry, but this actually does irk me.

People are so quick to compare headphones that don't even sound alike or cater to the same genre/people/tastes...

 

[Nick01]

phew...just finished reading this thread....quite active it is

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

People are so quick to compare headphones that don't even sound alike or cater to the same genre/people/tastes...

It's what we do. People need to know what to consider.
 
Right now I'm eyeing the 1440. After recently buying the Audeze LCD-2, HE300 and still enjoying the SRH940, I'm not really interested in shelling out another $700 for the 1840. But I'm willing to experiment with $399...
 
I think....
 
Help me somebody.

 

[achristilaw]

Quote:

It's what we do. People need to know what to consider.
 
Right now I'm eyeing the 1440. After recently buying the Audeze LCD-2, HE300 and still enjoying the SRH940, I'm not really interested in shelling out another $700 for the 1840. But I'm willing to experiment with $399...
 
I think....
 
Help me somebody.

Do the Walter Huston dance (from "Treasure of the Sierra Madre") while exclaiming, "need dem' phones!" "need dem' phones!"....."need dem'.........!" 
 

 

[ac500]

"Headphones? We ain't got no headphones. We don't need no headphones! I don't have to show you any stinkin' headphones!"

 

[miceblue]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jude /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
 
I've spent far more time with the SRH1840 than the SRH1440, and I did see the Shure graphs you're talking about (the ones shown in Shure's Tokyo presentation).
 
 
That said, the SRH1840 has more treble than neutral, but doesn't sound, to my ears, the way their graphs look (with how graphs look to me being established primarily by HeadRoom's graphs and Tyll's graphs (Tyll also does HeadRoom's graphs).
 
 
I will say more about the SRH1840 (and maybe the SRH1440) before I leave for CES.
 
 
Expect U.S. pricing to be as follows (accompanied by the existing Shure over-ear line prices for the sake of comparison):
 

1. $699 for SRH1840
2. $399 for SRH1440
3. $299 for SRH940
4. $199 for SRH840
5. $99 for SRH440
6. $59 for SRH240

Thank you for the update Jude! I hope to read an overview of what you think of the 1840's and maybe how they compare to the 1440's.
 
When you say the 1840's have more treble than neutral, do they sound anything like the SRH940's at all? Some have said that the 940's sound coloured as a result of the treble range.
 

 

[EddieE]

The graphs in the presentation are uncompensated and averaged - so if you're looking for a comparison look at the lower cluster of lines on the Innerfidelity charts rather than the higher line.
 
From broswing a few graphs there and comparing the uncompensated lines to the presented 1840 FR - I think it looks kind of close to similar in frequency response to one of the Lambda models of Stax headphones - a frequency response I personally really like.
 
EDIT -
 
Just had a little go on my lunch hour at putting the 1840 and SR-404LE lines next to each other, and to make the "stretching" match each other a bit more closely... OK I kind of proved myself wrong in the process as there are some significant differences between the two, but the point that you shouldn't consider the 1840 to be crazy bright from that graph remains the same.
 

 

[funkmeister]

Sorry it's taken me so long to circle back here.

 
Quote:

 
You complain about coloration yet you have to EQ the AKGs?  The T1 and HD 800 are considered relatively neutral and do in fact have more resolution than the AKGs.  If you're uncomfortable accepting that because you refuse to spend the money on them, that's fine.  Just realize that the truth is not quite as you described it.
 
 

 
Yeah, I complain about color. I have to EQ a little bass into the K171 to level it more. In the K142HD I have to take out about 5dB of mid/high bass because it's got the weird hump. Both cans need a slight boost at 4kHz and a taming at 8kHz, then a slight counter to the treble roll-off. Where EQ isn't possible (like watching internet videos) then I much prefer the K171.
 
None of the EQ is anything like what I'd call drastic. I make subtle adjustments based off frequency response analysis and not my own ears... because hearing adapts and deceives within certain tolerances. After I've got it tuned, the EQ on/off A/B testing is really interesting. I have to say that once you have these AKGs tuned with EQ... have a listen to Trevor Pinnock conducting Vivaldi's Concerto for 2 Violins, 3rd Movement. Even if you don't like classical, this one will show you what music is all about. There is now nothing I listen to that doesn't sound good with the EQ on... and I listen to everything but slash metal and screaming.
 
So... I'm a total mixed bag and I totally want to hear the Shures.

 

[achristilaw]

 
Quote:

Thank you for the update Jude! I hope to read an overview of what you think of the 1840's and maybe how they compare to the 1440's.
 
When you say the 1840's have more treble than neutral, do they sound anything like the SRH940's at all? Some have said that the 940's sound coloured as a result of the treble range.
 

   
  You guys have to take time out and learn whet an un-amplified instrument sounds like in real space...I'm betting it will shock most of you. I feel that it's "band" being dropped from many High School curriculum's isn't helping matters. BRASS reproduction via this phone is dazzling!!
 
  Opinions will differ. But the definition of neutral has "changed" over the years apparently. Any deviation from the recording is coloration....and non-neutral. A recordist would need an instrument like the 940......
 
  Actually, the 940 is neutral (IMO)....and other phones are more colored. If your gear in the chain is "sound" and the material is commensurate they are quite natural. The fact is they are revealing! Revealing the flaws of the source, amp and materials being used. If you listen to acoustic instruments, recorded in real space...I don't hear the treble coloration's at all. From pipes to flute and clarinet visiting top registers, the upper levels of piano and violin to my favorite Soprano....ALL most natural. That BRASS !!!
 
  It seems the vogue today to hide deficiencies with phones rolling off the treble and fattening the bass. As a result you tend to pump up the volume and play thump-a-lump. Tube outputs are to colored for my tastes...as they deviate from neutral.

 

[DVDRey]

 
Quote:

It seems the vogue today to hide deficiencies with phones rolling off the treble and fattening the bass. As a result you tend to pump up the volume and play thump-a-lump.

 
I don't know if there are generalities, emphasized treble are also often used for hide some deficiencies imo.

 

[electropop]

@achristilaw
 
Yes it is quite interesting. Given the tons of different instruments (from headphones/speakers and mics to played instruments) and spaces, not to mention ears, that produce music, it wouldn't surprise me that the actual median for all the recorded music in the world would be anything but "flat". People should learn to listen to music more rather than look at graphs and draw conclusions from those. I mean, it's always boys with toys and no one can't deny the fun in that (or scientific discussion), but music itself only has absolute value 

 
 

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

 
  You guys have to take time out and learn whet an un-amplified instrument sounds like in real space...I'm betting it will shock most of you. I feel that it's "band" being dropped from many High School curriculum's isn't helping matters. BRASS reproduction via this phone is dazzling!!
 
  Opinions will differ. But the definition of neutral has "changed" over the years apparently. Any deviation from the recording is coloration....and non-neutral. A recordist would need an instrument like the 940......
 
  Actually, the 940 is neutral (IMO)....and other phones are more colored. If your gear in the chain is "sound" and the material is commensurate they are quite natural. The fact is they are revealing! Revealing the flaws of the source, amp and materials being used. If you listen to acoustic instruments, recorded in real space...I don't hear the treble coloration's at all. From pipes to flute and clarinet visiting top registers, the upper levels of piano and violin to my favorite Soprano....ALL most natural. That BRASS !!!
 
  It seems the vogue today to hide deficiencies with phones rolling off the treble and fattening the bass. As a result you tend to pump up the volume and play thump-a-lump. Tube outputs are to colored for my tastes...as they deviate from neutral.

Differing opinions then.  I used to play the guitar, I've also been involved with piano from a young age (both my mother and her mother used to play - my grandmother actually taught as well).  I've also been to many live concerts - especially classical - although not recently.  And IMO the SRH940 was coloured.  The HD600 is more realistic.
 
Guess we have different ears

 

[ac500]

Having a different internal sound signature of your head shouldn't change much. It's like asking someone how they see "red". Instead, just like a color blind person will see things differently, only someone with hearing deficiencies would hear things differently. The thing is, I think most people have slightly different ranges where they 
 
Honestly I think that the main difference is because people have different hearing ranges. In other words, if HD600s have a perfect FR up to say 15khz, but a horrible recession to the extreme high treble above 15khz, then someone who can only hear up to 15khz very sensitively will find the HD600 perfect. If on the other hand the SRH940 has a somewhat colored FR up to 15khz but great above 15khz, then someone who can hear up to 20khz sensitively will find the SRH940 sounding more natural.
 
I do not find the SRH940 to be perfectly neutral either. I found my DT880s much much more neutral -- yet instruments sounded blurry, muffled, yet sibilant, and like they were dead and completely dry. Not even slightly realistic. Not because the sound signature was wrong, but rather it wasn't detailed enough, and it didn't present the upper frequencies correctly. The SRH940 gets 15khz+ right to my ears, and that's not something I've found in any other headphone YET (not DT880s, not AD2000s, not HD650s, etc.). I'm still looking.
 
HD650 I prefer for piano, but I find it way too muffled and unlifelike even with equalization to enjoy violin and brass the same way as the SRH940 presents it. SRH940 sounds astonishingly close to real life where the HD600/650 cannot - far upper treble 15khz+.

 

[Digital-Pride]

Quote:

Having a different internal sound signature of your head shouldn't change much. It's like asking someone how they see "red". Instead, just like a color blind person will see things differently, only someone with hearing deficiencies would hear things differently. The thing is, I think most people have slightly different ranges where they 
 
Honestly I think that the main difference is because people have different hearing ranges. In other words, if HD600s have a perfect FR up to say 15khz, but a horrible recession to the extreme high treble above 15khz, then someone who can only hear up to 15khz very sensitively will find the HD600 perfect. If on the other hand the SRH940 has a somewhat colored FR up to 15khz but great above 15khz, then someone who can hear up to 20khz sensitively will find the SRH940 sounding more natural.
 
I do not find the SRH940 to be perfectly neutral either. I found my DT880s much much more neutral -- yet instruments sounded blurry, muffled, yet sibilant, and like they were dead and completely dry. Not even slightly realistic. Not because the sound signature was wrong, but rather it wasn't detailed enough, and it didn't present the upper frequencies correctly. The SRH940 gets 15khz+ right to my ears, and that's not something I've found in any other headphone YET (not DT880s, not AD2000s, not HD650s, etc.). I'm still looking.
 
HD650 I prefer for piano, but I find it way too muffled and unlifelike even with equalization to enjoy violin and brass the same way as the SRH940 presents it. SRH940 sounds astonishingly close to real life where the HD600/650 cannot - far upper treble 15khz+.

 
Hmm, AC500, do you think the warmer sound of your NFB-12 is possibly making an already warm headphone in the HD650, a little too warm and perhaps obscuring higher end detail?

 

[ac500]

I don't think so. Because if I EQ the HD650 to boost the treble, the HD650 is still blurred while the SRH940 is not. The NFB12, if dark at all, definitely doesn't sound blurry on the SRH940 so it's definitely not hiding detail.
 
If it was purely due to the HD650 being laid back, then the HD650 would clear up when I add a big treble boost. I've tried both removing the foam on the HD650 and boosting treble with a high quality equalizer, and while these both effectively make the HD650 sound neutral/bright, and make it seem more detailed and crisp -- the added detail is all fake. Don't get me wrong, the HD650 is very detailed. But the SRH940 is just astonishingly more so, above 15+khz, to my ears. 
 
It's hard to describe a "blurred" sound in the context of treble, but that's the best I can describe the HD650. Honestly I don't like it - it's a sign of lower quality treble by nature. Not to say the HD650 has low quality treble, because like I said it's very good, the SRH940 just beats it by a lot in the really high frequency range.
 
But if you had a headphone with HD650 quality bass and lower mids, combined with SRH940 quality upper mids and treble, then you'd have basically the perfect headphone, and that doesn't exist.