[superlowfi]

To be fair it wasn't just the frequency response graph, there were also some very exotic-looking (and pretty!) distortion graphs posted which caused a similar fervor. 

 

[ubs28]

  To be fair it wasn't just the frequency response graph, there were also some very exotic-looking (and pretty!) distortion graphs posted which caused a similar fervor. 

 
True, it has a higher distortion graph in comparison to headphones like the Sennheiser HD800. But these Shure SRH 1840 can be driven straight out of Retina Macbook Pro or a Apogee One and still sound good, something you can't do with headphones like a HD800. For most open headphones that are competing against the Shure SRH 1840 you need to invest in expensive DAC + AMP.
 
I'm not hearing the distortion myself. However I'm going to upgrade to the AKG 812 Pro since it apparently rivals the Sennheiser HD800 while it's also very easily driven the like the Shure SRH 1840. It's probably my perfect reference headphone if what they say is true

 

[viralcow]

   
Hi viralcow - I just want to mention, I saw your feedback on these headphones and it was valuable to me. You clearly gave them a fair shot and didn't like them. Fair enough. But according to the content of this thread, your approach was the exception, not the rule. Many responses in this thread have been simply "the graphs aren't good enough for me, this headphone is trash", or "I listened to them and confirmed the graphs LOWFI!" (ie. self-fulfilling prophecy type of opinion).
 
It is interesting to me how some of the most negative (and heated) criticism of these came from the crowds that actually produce the graphs (Tyll + Purrin). I do not claim to have a trained ear for frequency response and distortion, but when in doubt I would tend to "trust the experts". I ordered them and if they aren't up to my pedestrian and plebeian standards I will return them, but I will try not to color my impression of them based on some very "pretty pictures".

 
I actually don't dislike the 1840s. I think they are wonderfully tuned, and if I wasn't such a detail-whore I'd be happy with them.

  1) I find it hilarious that people on this forum can claim a headphone to be terrible based on a frequency response. No human ear is the same, we all hear frequencies differently. 
2) These are probably one of the most neutral headphones out there is which is a more objective way to judge the frequency response graph. You can always EQ to change the neutral frequency response to something warm or whatever you want. If you want more bass, just add it.

 
Distortion was the main issue, not frequency response. And it's not some graph thing either- it's actually audible in the low frequencies. And I agree, it's common knowledge that graphs can be very misleading, so anyone who bashes a headphone based on graphs alone is dumb. But I'm just saying, the people behind this, like Tyll and Purrin, aren't doing blind graph-bashing. 
 
Their opinions, like anyone else's, should be taken with a grain of salt though. Trust your own ears, as the saying goes.

 

[superlowfi]

   
But I'm just saying, the people behind this, like Tyll and Purrin, aren't doing blind graph-bashing. 
 

 
To be fair, my comments were meant to be tongue in cheek but that might not have come across very well. To re-iterate and be clear both Tyll and Purrin did "let their ears be their guide" and listen to them before officially rendering their opinions, and have been consummate professionals. Neither did blind graph bashing, but that was the inevitable fall out from the peanut gallery after the circulation of the "pretty pictures".

 

[gelocks]

I've been reading up on the negative impressions of the 1840 and quite frankly it baffles me. Then again, most of these are from when they were $700 which I will say was far overpriced. These seem about right at the current price.

 
Yup... that was actually my main "con" for the headphones.
At the time I also had the Sennheiser HD600s and the Shure's actually sound very similar in nature to the HDs... so for the price it made more sense to keep the Senns. But they do sound pleasant indeed and at $400 they definitely compete!

 

[Change is Good]

To any 1840 owners out there who are curious about the new 1540 pads adding more bass impact:
 
I am selling a pair so PM me if interested. I can assure that it adds significant lower body as I have tried it with my 1840... as have others

 

[ubs28]

   
Yup... that was actually my main "con" for the headphones.
At the time I also had the Sennheiser HD600s and the Shure's actually sound very similar in nature to the HDs... so for the price it made more sense to keep the Senns. But they do sound pleasant indeed and at $400 they definitely compete!

 
I bought mine for $450 and it works great on my Apogee One (yes, a soundcard )or even straight out of my Retina Macbook Pro. With the Sennheiser HD600 you need to be buy something better than an Apogee One to drive them properly which adds to the price. 
 
I compared the Shure SRH 1840 in a shop against many headphones and I even preferred the Shure SRH 1840 over the HD700 as it was too coloured.

 

[ubs28]

To all those people who think a $400 Sennheiser HD600 is comparable to a Shure SRH 1840, think again. You need to buy a serious amplifier for a Sennheiser HD600 which is not free. Look at the graph below. 
 
Blue = Sennheiser HD600
Red = Shure SRH 1840.
 
In other words, the Sennheiser HD600 requires a serious amplifier while the Shure SRH 1840 does not need it. The Shure SRH 1840 probably has the best impedance graph of all the headphones since other headphones have impedances that are all over the place which makes them very hard to drive. 
 
(Personally, I like headphones that are easy to drive so I can use them with my Retina Macbook Pro everywhere easily)
 
Hopefully the AKG 812 Pro is like the Shure SRH 1840 in terms of impedance.
 
 

 

[Brooko]

  To all those people who think a $400 Sennheiser HD600 is comparable to a Shure SRH 1840, think again. You need to buy a serious amplifier for a Sennheiser HD600 which is not free. 

 
May I ask if you've owned both - and had both at the same time?  Just for the record (I - like Gelocks - have.  And I do agree with his thoughts.)
 
The HD600 is not as hard to drive as anyone thinks.  Although it is 300 ohm and has an impedance peak around 100 Hz - it's surprisingly easy to drive.  It does scale far better with amplification - but it sounds excellent even out of a DAP with reasonable power.  I know with my HiSound Audio Studio V3 - the HD600 is very good.
 
You don't need to buy a serious amplifier with the HD600 - but it will benefit the more power you give it.
 
Interestingly enough - after owning both, I also chose to keep the HD600 and sell the SRH1840.  I loved the neutrality of the 1840 - and if they were the same price, I would need to think carefully about which was better for my preferences.  But for actual 'natural' rather than 'neutral' sound - the HD600 is very hard to beat.  IMO the 1840 (while voiced similarly) still does not convey the same natural tone and timbre.  YMMV.

 

[ubs28]

   
May I ask if you've owned both - and had both at the same time?  Just for the record (I - like Gelocks - have.  And I do agree with his thoughts.)
 
The HD600 is not as hard to drive as anyone thinks.  Although it is 300 ohm and has an impedance peak around 100 Hz - it's surprisingly easy to drive.  It does scale far better with amplification - but it sounds excellent even out of a DAP with reasonable power.  I know with my HiSound Audio Studio V3 - the HD600 is very good.
 
You don't need to buy a serious amplifier with the HD600 - but it will benefit the more power you give it.
 
Interestingly enough - after owning both, I also chose to keep the HD600 and sell the SRH1840.  I loved the neutrality of the 1840 - and if they were the same price, I would need to think carefully about which was better for my preferences.  But for actual 'natural' rather than 'neutral' sound - the HD600 is very hard to beat.  IMO the 1840 (while voiced similarly) still does not convey the same natural tone and timbre.  YMMV.

 
If you say that you don't need a serious amplifier as a Sennheiser HD600 owner, I'll take your word for it since graphs don't tell everything.

 

[gonkulator]

  This forum is just as good at steering people wrong as it can right. In the past I've seen some claims of ATH-M50 sound better than SRH840. I've owned both those headphones and till own SRH840 and there is no way in hell the M50 sounds better than the SRH840. 
 
+1

+1

 

[Change is Good]

 

 

[Change is Good]

*deleted*

 

[donedj]

after a year with 1440s i can clearly state that they are amazing headphones. they are very detailed, clear, and do every genre i throw at it. i am not a basshead as i look for clarity rather than boom boom, and these are just perfect with edm, rap, r&b etc. they shine with rock as well, better than my grado sr80is for rock, but of course they cost 3 times more. i wish i had the chance to compare them to higher end grados such as sr325s for rock music. one day i hope.

 

[jibzilla]

   
I bought mine for $450 and it works great on my Apogee One (yes, a soundcard )or even straight out of my Retina Macbook Pro. With the Sennheiser HD600 you need to be buy something better than an Apogee One to drive them properly which adds to the price. 
 
I compared the Shure SRH 1840 in a shop against many headphones and I even preferred the Shure SRH 1840 over the HD700 as it was too coloured.