[purrin]

Velour, which makes the HE400 sound less bassy and slightly more open. Not a huge difference as the fundamental characteristics of the HE400 don't change. It's still an HE400.

 

[dleblanc343]

I do not like the He-400's much, so therefore I'd also rank them under the HE-500's and SRH-1840's.
 
However, I've never tried them with velours so I'll try them right now with the store stock and compare to the shures again.

 

[CDjunkie]

Quote:

I have the rev2 HE400s. Compared to the HE500 and SRH1840s, they are laid-back in the upper mids (less of a bite with snares, female vocals etc.) In the mid/upper treble, the HE400 are brighter than the HE500 and slightly brighter than the SRH1840. All headphones are well behaved. I don't hear any nasties in the treble. The HE500 has the smoothest treble presentation, followed by the SRH1840. The HE400 treble can be a bit unrefined, but it's probably the most airy (that upper octave air that we almost sense more than we hear). Despite the uplifted mid/upper treble of the HE400, it always has laid-back feel because of the upper-mid/lower treble depression. The lack of attack of the HE400 (in comparison to the HE500 and SRH1840) does sometimes bother me. The SRH1840 is probably the most "aggressive", if you can even put it that way, in this regard.
 
The SRH1840 is the most "bass-lite" of the bunch. Do not expect bass power or slam. The SRH1840 does not reproduce the lowest bass registers. Although there is a certain warmth to the SRH1840's bass despite FR graphs. While it's treble is articulate and sweet, the SRH1840 bass and mids are the most muddy, ill-defined, and soft among the three. The HE500 has the smoothest mids out of all of them. The HE400 can sound nasal at times. The SRH1840 can be shouty. The HE400 wins in the bass in terms of control and articulation. The HE500 bass is slighty muddy in comparison to the HE400 bass, but still much better than the SRH1840's bass. Both HE400 and HE500 have similar levels of very good low bass extension. The SRH1840 stages the best, not unexpected since staging is not a ortho strong point.
 
YMMV.

 
 
This is about the only thing I have a difference in opinion on with the 1840s.  The treble of the 1840s are among the smoothest out there, very sweet and laid back while not recessed at all.
 
Ha ha.  here is another thing.  I find the 500s to have way more control in the bass region over the 400s.  While the 5LEs may have even more control than the 500s I find the 400s bass pretty boomy and loose. - at times..  To me the level of amplification will bring this out more.  

 

[purrin]

You should immediately get your HE400s checked out. More bassy definitely. Loose bass - sounds like an serious issue. Both HE400 pairs (rev2s) I had on hand had exemplary control in the bass, much better than two HE500s and even slightly better than the two HE5s I had on hand. Amps used in the direct comparison were BA and Dynahi using the same DAC and same recordings. I didn't not have an HE6 on hand for direct comparison though.

 

[kstuart]

Quote:

You should immediately get your HE400s checked out. More bassy definitely. Loose bass - sounds like an serious issue. Both HE400 pairs (rev2s) I had on hand had exemplary control in the bass, much better than two HE500s and even slightly better than the two HE5s I had on hand. Amps used in the direct comparison were BA and Dynahi using the same DAC and same recordings. I didn't not have an HE6 on hand for direct comparison though.

purrin -
Would it be fair to say that you find the HE400 v2 to be a better value purchase than the HE500 for someone who already has a flagship dynamic headphone and wants to try out planars ?  (I am getting that impression because people mention areas in which they prefer the HE400 to the HE500, the HE400 is the newer design, and yet it is only 60% of the price.)

 

[purrin]

off-topic so responding here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/605113/he-500-review-and-shoot-out/405#post_8842864

 

[dweaver]

I may have a new headphone I like for general purpose use especially portability wise in the MDR-1R but I have to say I still find the 1440 to be my best headphone from a sonic perspective. It's bass may not be as strong as some headphones I have owned but it is more than adequate for almost all of the genres I listen to and I don't think anyone does mids and treble as good as the Shures do at their price point.

 

[jasonb]

Got to briefly try out an SRH1840 today at a local pro audio shop. The source was only my iPhone 4, no extra amplification. I was actually impressed, they were quite fun and bassy sounding. Definitely not worth the $650 price tag they had on them though. They weren't that much better than my $240 Q701.

 

[miceblue]

Quote:

Got to briefly try out an SRH1840 today at a local pro audio shop. The source was only my iPhone 4, no extra amplification. I was actually impressed, they were quite fun and bassy sounding. Definitely not worth the $650 price tag they had on them though. They weren't that much better than my $240 Q701.

They're bassy? I haven't listened to them in-person, but going from what people have said in comparison to the SRH940, the SRH1840 is actually more bass light...and I thought the SRH940 was pretty lean on bass.
 
I'll be getting a K 701 in the near future, so I'm looking forward to it even if it's just slightly worse than the Q 701 and thus the SRH1840 as well.

 

[jasonb]

I've been listening to a Q701, so they seemed bassier than the Q701.
Quote:

They're bassy? I haven't listened to them in-person, but going from what people have said in comparison to the SRH940, the SRH1840 is actually more bass light...and I thought the SRH940 was pretty lean on bass.
 
I'll be getting a K 701 in the near future, so I'm looking forward to it even if it's just slightly worse than the Q 701 and thus the SRH1840 as well.

 

[miceblue]

Quote:

I've been listening to a Q701, so they seemed bassier than the Q701.

 
Interesting to hear. I've read that the Q 701 is bassier than the K 701, which has more bass than the SRH940, which has more bass than the SRH1840, but I could be wrong. XD
 

 

[jasonb]

Strange. My source was just an iPhone 4 with the EQ set to off. I didn't have an amp with me. My initial impression after only a couple minutes with it was that is was a bit bassy. 
 
Take all of this with a grain of salt though, cause I seriously only played with it for like 3 minutes, with just an iPhone.
Quote:

 
Interesting to hear. I've read that the Q 701 is bassier than the K 701, which has more bass than the SRH940, which has more bass than the SRH1840, but I could be wrong. XD
 

 

[R-Audiohead]

Under powering can lead to distortion that can be perceived as bassy....  Low frequencies need a lot of power relatively to allow the driver to recover properly.
 

 

[obobskivich]

Under powering can lead to distortion that can be perceived as bassy....  Low frequencies need a lot of power relatively to allow the driver to recover properly.

 

Aye. Rane estimated sometime ago that the 50/50 split in power relative to frequency sits around 250hz. Bass needs power and displacement.

 

[purrin]

Under powering can lead to distortion that can be perceived as bassy....  Low frequencies need a lot of power relatively to allow the driver to recover properly.

 

Exactly. Also keep in mind the srh1840 inherently has high bass and mid distortion.