[extrabigmehdi]

Jude clearly stated on a thread that he  like to spend time only with gears he likes.
So I  think he didn't like enough the shure open headphone, to review them.
 
I quote it, from jude:
 
Quote:

As I've said before, a lot of gear finds its way through my office (and anyone who's been to my office will confirm that as rather a conservative statement). With what time I've got, I spend overwhelmingly more time with the things I like. The things I don't like receive little more than the time or attention necessary to figure out I don't like 'em.
 
Anyone with the time or inclination to spend time with gear he doesn't like can do so. I generally don't.
 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/590405/sennheiser-hd700-not-what-i-expected/30#post_8076174

 

 

[idletime1213]

Quote:

VERY interesting review! (I'm surprised we actually have a legitimate review now.)
 
From that review, it seems that the SRH1840 is to the Hifiman HE500 as the Sennheiser HD800 is to the Audeze LCD-2, perhaps. In other words, more emphasis on treble and detail but overall similar levels of technical capability.

So that means the SRH1840 SHOULD be on par with the HD800, since I and many others find the HE-500 on par or at least competitive with the LCD-2.

 

[extrabigmehdi]

At least they imply in the headroom review that they find the srh 1440 a bit overpriced.

 

[Saintly]

Quote:

There are lots of people who would say that the LCD-2 are superior to the HD800.  I think they're pretty much equal but cater to different tastes.

 
I'm referring to objective technical aspects, not subjective FR preferences.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I'm referring to objective technical aspects, not subjective FR preferences.

I am too.
 
For one, the LCD-2 easily bests the HD800 in bass extension and tightness.  IIRC the imaging was similar but the HD800 clearly had the bigger soundstage.  Detail is harder to get a precise handle on without owning something for a bit and getting used to its FR because FR differences are easily perceived as differences in the level of detail.
 
The HD800's stock FR exaggerates this considerably compared to the LCD-2s because the HD800's mids are sucked out a bit and the low to mid treble is boosted.  You can make pretty much any headphone sound more "detailed" if you copy that sort of FR with a decent EQ.  Obviously that "detail" can't be what we're discussing because then "detail" would be the same thing as FR.  The different FR is just focusing your attention on a different part of the frequency range.

 

[ac500]

I think I'm a pretty good judge of true treble detail (mostly because I usually focus on the treble when it comes to detail, obviously mids/bass matter too) because despite finding DT880s bright, I found both my HD650 and SRH940 to be more detailed in the upper upper treble. Most people say the DT880s are more detailed than the HD650 but I only find them to seem that way due to being brighter, but they don't actually let me hear any more than I don't hear in the others.
 
My HD800s are by far the most detailed headphones I've ever heard in treble, but granted, the only other flagship I've heard is the LCD2 and I didn't listen long enough to try to analyze its detailedness. I just remember the LCD2 sounded so similar to my HD650, was very uncomfortable to the point of mild pain, and I didn't recall a particularly huge improvement in sound quality -- so it must be subtle.
 
I will say this though... when people say a headphone has "detail but you can't hear it because it's subtle", I'm suspicious. The definition of detail is being able to hear things you wouldn't with a lesser headphone. Of course boosting treble makes a headphone more sparkly, but a DT880 or treble boosted HD650 is sparkly but still the treble doesn't really give you any more information you didn't hear already -- at least to my ears. I'd like to treble-boost an LCD-2 and see what happens. I know this wouldn't be fair because EQ can reduce sound quality potentially, but it would be interesting anyway.
 
In terms of LCD2 vs HD800, I enjoyed the HD800 much more on my first impression than the LCD2, and now that I own it I am only liking it more and more (similar to how I grew to like the HD650 more and more over time). It's too bad the LCD2 ignores soundstage, because IMO that's one of the most important things my music listening. The problem is I'm not sure if dark headphones are even capable of good soundstage, by nature of their FR.
 
I don't like dark headphones. Going back from my HD800s to my HD650s sounds like going back to having normal ears to having your ears filled with wax, or having pillows stuffed in your ears. It's good for bassy songs, but for almost everything I really appreciate the HD800s greater neutrality (with my amp which removes about 2db treble).

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I will say this though... when people say a headphone has "detail but you can't hear it because it's subtle", I'm suspicious. The definition of detail is being able to hear things you wouldn't with a lesser headphone.

 
Well that's pretty obviously impossible but that's not what I was saying.  The headphones exist for your ears so if you can't hear it at all then it isn't there.
 
I'm saying that on a darker 'phone like the HD650 that the detail is there if you listen for it as compared to something else on the same general level which is brighter and pushes the details in your face.  The HD650s are something I owned for a while in the past so I can attest to that.
 
The HD800's treble peak is even better suited to that than the Beyer's though.  I've heard the 880 and owned the 770 and 990.  Their treble peaks are all in the 9-10kHz region.  That's high enough that it only emphasizes higher harmonics on most instruments and adds more "sparkle" than "detail".  The HD800's treble peaks a few kHz lower where there's actually a lot more stuff going on there.  You'll hear stuff you probably didn't notice before.  It will probably be harder to hear it on a different headphone and barring EQ it might even be impossible to hear it on a different headphone.  That doesn't actually make it more "detailed" in my book because that same thing can happen if you boost any frequency band over another.
 
I have a great example of this.  My XB700s have insanely deep and insanely boosted bass.  On some live albums I can hear what sounds like people moving equipment around backstage, shaking the floor, and probably being picked up by the drum mics.  I 'd never heard that on any of my other headphones including ones with more and deeper bass than the HD800s so I know I wouldn't hear it on them either.
 
Does that make the XB700's bass more detailed than the HD800's?  

 

[extrabigmehdi]

The hd800 sound as good as the ksc75 with boosted treble.

 

[ac500]

In some ways I envy having ears sufficiently impaired that KSC75 sounds as good as an HD800.
 
> Does that make the XB700's bass more detailed than the HD800's?  
 
That's a good point that volume does matter if you wouldn't ordinarily have ears capable of hearing it. Or it could mean the HD800 isn't reproducing the sound the XB700s are at all, but I doubt it. It's probably just quieter.

 

[gelocks]

Quote:

 
I have a great example of this.  My XB700s have insanely deep and insanely boosted bass.  On some live albums I can hear what sounds like people moving equipment around backstage, shaking the floor, and probably being picked up by the drum mics.  I 'd never heard that on any of my other headphones including ones with more and deeper bass than the HD800s so I know I wouldn't hear it on them either.
 
Does that make the XB700's bass more detailed than the HD800's?  

LOL!!!
What?!?!??!
On which track(s) did you hear that?!?!
 
I'm still waiting for more reviews and still nothing...
 
 

 

[extrabigmehdi]

Quote:

I'm still waiting for more reviews and still nothing...

Buy therm and tell us what you think... Or come back in a  month or two, and see if the situation has evolved.

Obviously some people are scared by the idea of an open version of the srh940.
 
 

 

[Saintly]

Quote:

I am too.
 
For one, the LCD-2 easily bests the HD800 in bass extension and tightness.  IIRC the imaging was similar but the HD800 clearly had the bigger soundstage.  Detail is harder to get a precise handle on without owning something for a bit and getting used to its FR because FR differences are easily perceived as differences in the level of detail.
 
The HD800's stock FR exaggerates this considerably compared to the LCD-2s because the HD800's mids are sucked out a bit and the low to mid treble is boosted.  You can make pretty much any headphone sound more "detailed" if you copy that sort of FR with a decent EQ.  Obviously that "detail" can't be what we're discussing because then "detail" would be the same thing as FR.  The different FR is just focusing your attention on a different part of the frequency range.

How you perceive the bass has a lot to do with the volume at which you're hearing it.  For any given listening volume, you're going to be hearing more dB of bass from the LCD-2 than you are from the HD 800.  
 
Imaging was similar on the HD 800 and LCD-2?  Not sure if serious...
 
We're talking about absolute detail and it is not the same thing as FR.  Yes, absolute detail exists separately from perceived detail due to FR.  The K701/702 have similar FR as the HD 800 but please try to convince me they are on par detail-wise.  Also, EQ some HD650s or LCD-2s for that matter and tell me you get the same resolution as the HD 800 even if you did manage to get their FR to match. 
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

LOL!!!
What?!?!??!
On which track(s) did you hear that?!?!

Sorry I don't remember because I hardly listen to the XB700s anymore.  If I come across it again I'll try to write it down.
 
In a sense, the XB700s are brutally revealing of the low frequency contamination that pervades the modern world and I pretty much keep them around for that reason.  If I need to hear low frequencies clearly and I don't want to record it and run an FFT or play it through a bass boosted EQ on something normal then I go to the XB700s.
 
On one track I remember hearing a semi truck driving right past the $DEITY condemned recording studio.  How does that stuff get in to the final mix?  Simple.  No one else heard it!  I doubt anyone would hear as deep into the bass in even in the most high end mastering studio and you can with the XB700.  Not unless their subs go down to 4Hz because I can still feel the pads vibrating on my ears at that frequency.  Its still quite strong at 10hz and that's at least 2 octaves lower than most studio monitor speakers will go without a very well integrated subwoofer system.  How low the XB700s can go is limited a lot by the DAC and amp because many are inclined to roll off and/or start acting funny at that low of a frequency.  I get slightly different results on different equipment.  It might go lower on different equipment.  To be clear when dealing with such low frequencies I'm talking about the vibration I can feel through my ears and face and not the higher order harmonics which are audible since the fundamentals can only be felt and not heard.
 
Of course I don't go around saying that this makes the XB700's bass the most detailed ever.  Its just boosted a lot while still being reasonably clear and very efficient.  There's no reason that you couldn't make another phone do that sort of thing via EQ and even make it end up doing it clearer and cleaner.  Most dynamics don't like going that low and even fewer like it if you try to make them do by EQ so putting that kind of boost on the HD800 might be a bad idea for the drivers.  The LCD-2s will take that a lot better.  They're rated for more than 130dB at 15 watts with less than 1% THD and the distortion in the bass doesn't rise with volume like the HD800s.
 
That's why there has to be a difference between FR and actual detail even though FR can have a large effect on which details you might perceive.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

How you perceive the bass has a lot to do with the volume at which you're hearing it.  For any given listening volume, you're going to be hearing more dB of bass from the LCD-2 than you are from the HD 800.  
 
Imaging was similar on the HD 800 and LCD-2?  Not sure if serious...
 
We're talking about absolute detail and it is not the same thing as FR.  Yes, absolute detail exists separately from perceived detail due to FR.  The K701/702 have similar FR as the HD 800 but please try to convince me they are on par detail-wise.  Also, EQ some HD650s or LCD-2s for that matter and tell me you get the same resolution as the HD 800 even if you did manage to get their FR to match. 

Its more than just volume.  The graphs I posted above will back that up with square waves and how the HD800's distortion at lower frequencies rises with volume.  The bass is the LCD-2's strength and one the HD800's weaknesses.  The "weakness" is relative though since its still probably at the top of bass quality for dynamic 'phones.  Its not bad, the LCD-2 is just better in that area.
 
I remember the imaging being quite good on both but its been a while since I heard either.  I remember the conclusion I made when I heard them one after the other more than I remember what I actually heard so I can't really compare it to anything else.  I could be wrong though.
 
I wouldn't try to to say that the HD650s or K701s have the same sort of inherent detail as the HD800s do but I think the LCD-2s likely do and are certainly in the same ballpark.
 
I'm not trying to knock the HD800s or anything.  Stock I though they were technically brilliant but not my style and after seeing some numbers on how effective the Anax mod is at taming its treble peak and my tastes recently shifting towards soundstage the HD800 recently replaced the LCD-2 at the top of my wishlist for when I can use open 'phones enough to justify the price.

 

[gelocks]

 
Quote:

Buy therm and tell us what you think... Or come back in a  month or two, and see if the situation has evolved.

Obviously some people are scared by the idea of an open version of the srh940.
 
 

I would buy them but $700 is too rich for me... (and having owned a couple of Shures,
I KNOW that the "street" prices COULD be lower than that!!)