The 1840 is very neutral, maybe he got way too used to his denons, I bought mine for just 600 and quite happy with ita neutrality, I think they are reference and meant for professional recording
I've had the D5k, 1440 and 1840... and honestly I do agree the shures are priced higher than what they're worth, but the same can be said of the D5K. And it's the MSRP we're talking about here. The K701s were also sold for $350 when they came out, too.
Are they worth $70? I don't know if you're trolling. And trying to compare the 1440 to the D5k is also dumb since they have completely opposite sound signatures.
I also have quite big Zoo of phones: Grado 125, Senn 555, Stax SR5nb, Stax 3new.
Shures are significantly less transparent than Grado and I can hardly believe they can be used for classical. In case one can`t stand Grado slight coloration, SR5nb for around 200$ are much more realistic and resolving with better bass.
For rock I would prefer Denons without doubt, and most likely for jazz. Anyway, slow sound of Shures reduce number of genres they can be used for. And for old recordings Stax 3new are much better because of their "vintage" sound signature.
In my opinion, if someone can listen to Shures without significant questions, HD555 also can be used in such a situaion because they are much closer to each other compared to other headphones I mentioned.
With your logic, the K701 would also be too grainy for classical. Ruling out genres altogether seems like the last thing to make sense to me, considering how subjective our preferences are. As for distortion I can clearly hear it in direct comparisons on both the 1440 and the 1840, but it's never stopped me from enjoying the headphones.
Just to compare, I find the 1840 on the warm/bassy side (I'm sure the distortion adds to that though in general I like a cold-neutral sound sig), so it's no wonder the D5k was pretty underwhelming despite being a $600+ set of cans. I'm not stubbornly denying the 1840's problems, either. When I first heard it I immediately preferred the K701 in almost every aspect. Soundstage, detail retrieval, overall clarity seemed better on the K701's. But the 1840s have grown on me since then. The highs are less fatiguing, the sound is less analytical and smoother, the center soundstage is more cohesive with better imaging. All in all, a much more musical set of cans. Are they worth $700? Not even close. For the ~$400 that I got them for, they are quite amazing, actually.
I no longer own the 1840s even though I liked them. In fact, I thought they were among the best (overall) in their price range at their MSRP.
Anyways, some parting thoughts before I leave the thread for good. For the new folks: Listen to experienced folks. Check what people are comparing the headphones to and what they have actually owned. Check their ancillary equipment to see if they are even feeding the headphones properly. Not all opinions are equal, or atleast should be seen as equal here. Not if you want to make the right decision, about any gear.
DavidMahler has the experience to back up his listening impressions, and unlike many, he isn't limited by his setup (look for yourself). His ranking among flagships can be found here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/634201/battle-of-the-flagships-50-headphones-compared#user_SRH1840
I agree with what he has said, but will also add that a fast, punchy amp like the Dynahi or even Dynalo gives it great imaging and acceptable bass impact, reducing the smearing that occasionally reveals itself as a weakness.
Well, to make it clear, they are definitely little bit more transparent than HD555, have little better instrument separation and better heights. Defference is not day and night, it is quantative, not qualitive.
Perhas the biggest their problem is that they are absolutely emotionless, i.e. I can not reach emotional contact with singer. I don`t know how to explain that, but I can achieve that in D5k easily, as well as is STAX. But Shures are totally dry. Perhas for someone emotional contact is not the thing they are looking in music, in such a way Shures are ok.
Equipment also matters much, because it separate state of "listening for pleasure" from "listening for analyse" /because it is not possible to have any pleasure at some point/.
this was brilliant for rap imo, first time I put on EPMD, I was just
, for rap vocals and none-bassy hip-hop(de la soul type of hip-hop) this was brilliant, Rakims's My Melody suffered hard when the bass just wouldn't kick as hard as it was supposed to, I haven't tried RZA productions yet but will soon...
the things that's holding me back is how good rock vocals are in this while going through semi-screamo rock songs...BTW I only listen to japanese rock, I am pretty it makes a difference in how good vocals come out overall as I have been accustomed to their language more than english... other more operatic singing during metal instrumentals I found was quite good, operatic female vocalists are the only times it felt lifeless otherwise female vocals were nice
well there's my first initial impressions of the headphones after about a month of listening to them, that's without amp and dac and just laptop and foobar, still waiting on my M&M from schiit
Sorry, don`t listen to rap/hip-hop or Japanese music. For male vocals I tested them on Bob Dylan, B.B. King with Clapton, Nirvana, Pink Floyd and others. All I can say that they can not separate sarcasm, joy or sadness. They actually good for understanding how people are singing, i.e. singing technick, but not what they introduce in their words. Maybe that is why they are so good for rap? Same experience I had with AKG 272, very close in vocal reproduction style. Maybe they are purely studio phones?
I am using not off-the-shelf commercial products in my system and not interested with them. Names and numbers will not tell anything, but I consider my equipment quite transparent. To compare with, I also have Adcom GDA-600 DAC, but I think it is pretty useless in music listening, two steps ahead of my own DAC. As for amp, I heard rumors that it was beaten only with Betta 22, but I have some suspitions about transparency of that experiment. To beat it with guarantee one should use tube amp with good OPTs.
1440's sound very similar to Grado SR80's and 125's, so they do rock music pretty good.
They have a lot more detail than SR80's for sure, and do sound better in separation and mid quality than 125s imo, but are they worth 3 times the price of 125s? Well I don't think they are. But they are good for 250 or so, and no place will be able to sell that for that price.
Agreed with much of what has been written about the 1840 here lately. For the low price that I was able to buy a pair, I had to try it for myself because I do prefer nearly flat frequency response. What the charts don't tell you though is impact, and one of the biggest weaknesses of the 1840 (especially compared to the Denon DX000 series) is lack of bass impact. Their headstage is shockingly narrow for an open can, but I do find that there is better layering and greater depth than with the 650, 701, and 880.
Detail, resolution, and especially imaging are superior to the 650 and slightly above the 701/880, but if I had to choose regardless of price, I would stick with the Beyers. For $400, the Shure is poor value ($700 retail is a joke) when the AKG and Beyer can be had for $200 or less. The 1840 does some things very well but is completely lifeless and disengaging. There is nothing special about them, and the materials used are inadequate for a $700 MSRP headphone.
I can see why some people like them. They can be decent for monitoring purposes.
Originally Posted by applebook /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The 1840 does some things very well but is completely lifeless and disengaging. There is nothing special about them, and the materials used are inadequate for a $700 MSRP headphone.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
