[emilsoft]

 
Nothing could be further from the truth. I own both and the HD800 beats the Shure SRH 1840. 
 
The HD800 definitely reinvented hi-fi sound, I still haven't heard a better headphone than it. But the Shure SRH 1840 is pretty impressive, especially considering the price. 

 
I agree with that, the HD800s are unique and better technically, but the Shure's might be more flat but certainly not better. Do you not find the Shure 1840 a bit rough/papery sounding due to the slight bass distortion - as much as I like them, this distortion (which i can certainly hear testing with a sweep tone) i think might be unacceptable at this price level, unless it subsides with significant burn in (I hope!)

 

[emilsoft]

Yep, these will have to go back. I will be returning them under warranty as defective - the bass should not distort to such an extent. For some dance tracks which have more bass, the distortion is significant enough at normalish listening volume to be certainly noticeable, it makes the bass sound saturated and only when the volume is down to low the distortion is not there. This is completely unacceptable for a flagship and especially as these are touted as studio reference, I have no idea what Shure were thinking releasing these headphones which such a huge fault and they should be ashamed given their great pro heritage (not to mention making them rather expensive)
 
Mind you - to someone who is not listening out for distortion the sound can be pleasantly saturated - harmonic distortion after all can sound nice.  It's a real shame as their frequency balance is brilliant. C'mon Shure, back to the drawing board, get the 1840 drivers improved but keep this frequency curve and you'll have my money, but don't sell me defective  headphones..
 
Ridiculous

 

[dazzerfong]

  Yep, these will have to go back. I will be returning them under warranty as defective - the bass should not distort to such an extent. For some dance tracks which have more bass, the distortion is significant enough at normalish listening volume to be certainly noticeable, it makes the bass sound saturated and only when the volume is down to low the distortion is not there. This is completely unacceptable for a flagship and especially as these are touted as studio reference, I have no idea what Shure were thinking releasing these headphones which such a huge fault and they should be ashamed given their great pro heritage (not to mention making them rather expensive)
 
Mind you - to someone who is not listening out for distortion the sound can be pleasantly saturated - harmonic distortion after all can sound nice.  It's a real shame as their frequency balance is brilliant. C'mon Shure, back to the drawing board, get the 1840 drivers improved but keep this frequency curve and you'll have my money, but don't sell me defective  headphones..
 
Ridiculous

It's not defective: bass distortion is really that bad. Read here to see the distortion figures: they're fairly bad, especially around the bass area.

 

[emilsoft]

I guess what is shocking is that Shure have had the balls to sell these for such a long time at such a high price - they should either drop the price by at least 70% or release a new model fixing this problem and take these off the market as it's embarrassing for them considering they have some nice iems. No wonder they don't specify the THD figures.. I'm not buying a guitar amp speaker, it's supposed to be a reference high quality headphone

Yes, in which case Shure are making them defective out of the factory - it's like buying a new Ferrari with permanently flat tires. Ferrari can say that's how it's supposed to be but it won't fly. To me it's broken and has to be returned


sorry i got a bit angry as I really wanted to like these

ps - thanks for the read @dazzerfong, very interesting

 

[dazzerfong]

I guess what is shocking is that Shure have had the balls to sell these for such a long time at such a high price - they should either drop the price by at least 70% or release a new model fixing this problem and take these off the market as it's embarrassing for them considering they have some nice iems. No wonder they don't specify the THD figures.. I'm not buying a guitar amp speaker, it's supposed to be a reference high quality headphone

Yes, in which case Shure are making them defective out of the factory - it's like buying a new Ferrari with permanently flat tires. Ferrari can say that's how it's supposed to be but it won't fly. To me it's broken and has to be returned

sorry i got a bit angry as I really wanted to like these

ps - thanks for the read @dazzerfong, very interesting

If not for the distortion and anaemic bass, they're actually not a bad package. I mean, what high-end headphone comes with spare pads and cables?

 

[emilsoft]

  If not for the distortion and anaemic bass, they're actually not a bad package. I mean, what high-end headphone comes with spare pads and cables?

Everything else is great yes, very comfortable, looks lovely, package is great..  Shure wanted to cover the stink with plenty of perfume and lipstick.
 
Looking at the article you linked, looks like for me it's a situation of go HD800, or go home.. 

 

[dazzerfong]

  Everything else is great yes, very comfortable, looks lovely, package is great..  Shure wanted to cover the stink with plenty of perfume and lipstick.
 
Looking at the article you linked, looks like for me it's a situation of go HD800, or go home.. 

Well, not really: that article just shows what the author thinks are his benchmarks for a 'decent' headphone. I mean, objectively the HD800 is the 'perfect' headphone, but it doesn't account for people's different tastes. Me, I think it has a slight metallic edge to it that bothers me just a bit.

 

[ubs28]

   
I agree with that, the HD800s are unique and better technically, but the Shure's might be more flat but certainly not better. Do you not find the Shure 1840 a bit rough/papery sounding due to the slight bass distortion - as much as I like them, this distortion (which i can certainly hear testing with a sweep tone) i think might be unacceptable at this price level, unless it subsides with significant burn in (I hope!)

That's not because of bass distortion but because it's simply not a high-end headphone. The HD600 or X2 also lack the clean and clarity that even my Shure SE846 is able to deliver. The bass distortion only adds a warm bass.
 
The Shure SRH 1840 isn't necessary flatter because it misses sub bass frequencies which the HD800 is able to produce. So overall, the Sennheiser HD800 is more neutral. However if you ignore the sub-bass region, then the Shure SRH 1840 is probably the most flat headphone ever produced in my opinion. 

 

[ubs28]

  Well, not really: that article just shows what the author thinks are his benchmarks for a 'decent' headphone. I mean, objectively the HD800 is the 'perfect' headphone, but it doesn't account for people's different tastes. Me, I think it has a slight metallic edge to it that bothers me just a bit.

That's what you got an EQ for. The HD800 is very easy to adjust. 
 
Considering that the $3000 HE-1000, the $4500 Abyss, T1 and AKG K812 also perform poorly on THD measurements, I think it's not fair to give so much slack to a $450 mid-fi headphone which does other things very good. 
 
Yeah it's not a Sennheiser HD800, but that is the most succesfull high-end headphone of all time. 

 

[superlowfi]

 
Nothing could be further from the truth. I own both and the HD800 beats the Shure SRH 1840. 
 
The HD800 definitely reinvented hi-fi sound, I still haven't heard a better headphone than it. But the Shure SRH 1840 is pretty impressive, especially considering the price. 

 
Funny you talk about "truth". There is no truth beyond your own enjoyment of your own headphones. If you like the HD800 better, more power to you.
 
There are far too many people who take the leap from "I don't like this headphone" to "This headphone is bad for everyone". I don't make that leap and neither should you.
 
To me, the HD 800 was incredibly, extremely gimmicky. It, to me, came off as an attempt to try to invent something "new" in the headphone world. It is different, and I can understand why some people like it, but to me, the SRH 1840 is a more pure, more enjoyable headphone, that recreates the music much closer to a natural and enjoyable presentation.
 
In every sense of music enjoyment, the HD 650 is a far better headphone, to me, than the HD 800.

 

[emilsoft]

   
Funny you talk about "truth". There is no truth beyond your own enjoyment of your own headphones. If you like the HD800 better, more power to you.
 
There are far too many people who take the leap from "I don't like this headphone" to "This headphone is bad for everyone". I don't make that leap and neither should you.
 
To me, the HD 800 was incredibly, extremely gimmicky. It, to me, came off as an attempt to try to invent something "new" in the headphone world. It is different, and I can understand why some people like it, but to me, the SRH 1840 is a more pure, more enjoyable headphone, that recreates the music much closer to a natural and enjoyable presentation.
 
In every sense of music enjoyment, the HD 650 is a far better headphone, to me, than the HD 800.

I do think the 1840 does a lot well, but the distortion oh man, even if it were to make me coffee and caress my ears with bunny fluff every day I would still think about that distorted bass.. If a speaker manufacturer released an expensive speaker that distorts like this at low volume they will be smashed, not to mention in the pro audio (which the Shures are supposed to be).

 

[emilsoft]

 
That's what you got an EQ for. The HD800 is very easy to adjust. 
 
Considering that the $3000 HE-1000, the $4500 Abyss, T1 and AKG K812 also perform poorly on THD measurements, I think it's not fair to give so much slack to a $450 mid-fi headphone which does other things very good. 
 
Yeah it's not a Sennheiser HD800, but that is the most succesfull high-end headphone of all time. 

Not matter how much it does right, having this kind of distortion is simply not acceptable.. 450$ is not chump change either

 

[emilsoft]

 
In every sense of music enjoyment, the HD 650 is a far better headphone, to me, than the HD 800.

 
I'm planning to get an HD 600 once I get rid of the Shure 1840 as a close to neutral replacement (that doesn't distort like crazy), but I might give the 650 a listen too.

 

[ubs28]

   
Funny you talk about "truth". There is no truth beyond your own enjoyment of your own headphones. If you like the HD800 better, more power to you.
 
There are far too many people who take the leap from "I don't like this headphone" to "This headphone is bad for everyone". I don't make that leap and neither should you.
 
To me, the HD 800 was incredibly, extremely gimmicky. It, to me, came off as an attempt to try to invent something "new" in the headphone world. It is different, and I can understand why some people like it, but to me, the SRH 1840 is a more pure, more enjoyable headphone, that recreates the music much closer to a natural and enjoyable presentation.
 
In every sense of music enjoyment, the HD 650 is a far better headphone, to me, than the HD 800.

Really? The HD650 had trouble even keeping up with the performance of my Shure SE846. The HD800 was the clear winner out of all the headphones I tested using the $2000 HDVD800 DAC + AMP (the criteria was that it had to beat the Shure SE846, else there is no point in buying the full sized headphone). 
 
The HD650 and HD600 are more in the ballpark of the Shure SRH 1840 rather than the Sennheiser HD800. 

 

[wersus]

I still enjoy listening my SRH1840 way more than HD650 or HD600 and measurements can't take that away from me.