[dweaver]

I have listened to both SRH1440 and 1840 and like Dale prefered the sound of the 1440 over the 1840. But I listen at lower volume levels so appreciate the extra energy of the 1440, at louder volumes or with a warmer amp the 1840 becomes a more compelling option. As for price. They are worth it if you like their sound. BTW I was loaned the 1840 but paid full MSRP for the 1440's.

 

[dweaver]

.

 

[KamijoIsMyHero]

Quote:

I have listened to both SRH1440 and 1840 and like Dale prefered the sound of the 1440 over the 1840. But I listen at lower volume levels so appreciate the extra energy of the 1440, at louder volumes or with a warmer amp the 1840 becomes a more compelling option. As for price. They are worth it if you like their sound. BTW I was loaned the 1840 but paid full MSRP for the 1440's.

i thought he preferred the 1840, he kept it as his go-to reference headphones apparently, I haven't seen his 1440s since his last review about them

 

[dweaver]

that could be, I thought he liked the 1440 more but he may have changed his mind. I actually like the 940/1440/1840 but only own the first two. But I think the 1840 is the best built of them all and I would love to have the 1440 drivers inside that frame...

 

[steelmonkey]

Quote:

 
Yeah, seems ideal for monitoring and mastering. There is plenty of detail and resolution too. It sounds very transparent to me. 

Unfortunately, they can not even close to be detailed in midrange, compared to something really midrange-detailed like DT911, so useless for classical and live instruments. You can have another opinion untill you make a/b comparison which I did

 .
Loosing some important details in midrange is that surprisingly causes it to sound analitycal and overdelailed ( which they actually aren`t), but this is not live sound reproduction.
Seems like I am not only one who consider 250$ price fair soundwize

 

[kstuart]

Quote:

Quote:

 
Yeah, seems ideal for monitoring and mastering. There is plenty of detail and resolution too. It sounds very transparent to me. 

Unfortunately, they can not even close to be detailed in midrange, compared to something really midrange-detailed like DT911, so useless for classical and live instruments. You can have another opinion untill you make a/b comparison which I did

 .
Loosing some important details in midrange is that surprisingly causes it to sound analitycal and overdelailed ( which they actually aren`t), but this is not live sound reproduction.
Seems like I am not only one who consider 250$ price fair soundwize

You must have a different concept of what constitutes "detail", because most reviewers consider the SRH1840 to have as much detail as anything up to and including its price range.   It is also more even and natural in response, very well balanced between all the frequencies.   It is particularly excellent in stability and clarity of imaging, providing a particularly three-dimensional sound quality.
 
As Mike Ting of Headfonia stated:
Quote:

To me, the 1840 at $699 makes for a highly recommended upgrade path for people currently on $300 headphones, especially if you like your Senn HD600/650s but have always found them lacking a tiny bit of clarity

 

[steelmonkey]

I don`t care about any review untill I have this small things on my head called ears

 . Speaking about quantity of details regardless quality 1840 might be called detailed phones. But when it comes to quality, things get much worther. And for me music is not an unrellated set of small sounds, but things may differ, of course. For example, as I already wrote, they can show singing tehnic, but they surprisingly loose emotions and humour.
And hey, they are really "claustraphobic" for sure. But I agree that imaging is among their strong sides nevertheless.
 
BTW, just got Beyer DT911 for around 400$ and I feel it is a steal. It is two heads away from Shures, vocals are unbelievable. So, 200$ for Shures might be OK as they are new, not >10 years second hands.

 

[viralcow]

Quote:

You must have a different concept of what constitutes "detail", because most reviewers consider the SRH1840 to have as much detail as anything up to and including its price range.   It is also more even and natural in response, very well balanced between all the frequencies.   It is particularly excellent in stability and clarity of imaging, providing a particularly three-dimensional sound quality.
 
As Mike Ting of Headfonia stated:

 
I don't know, I found the 1840 to have slightly less detail than the K701.
 
But that's not saying much since the K70X's are known to be detail monsters...

 

[TheWuss]

I don't post much lately, but had some musings on the SRH1840 to share.
 
You see, my ridiculous love for the SRH840 led me to the SRH1840.
 
when i first owned the 1840, i was quite taken with the 3D sound.  "Finally, an open 840," i thought.
This presentation was addictive - and the fact that it yields this holographic sound without being played from expensive sources and amps - this was a huge plus for me.
 
but, after many months with the headphone (i owned two pair at one time), i would say that it has fallen a few notches on the totem pole for me.
 
in fact, while i still believe it has a better "presentation" than other sub-$700 phones, the technicalities can easily be out-done at this price point.
 
this, in particular, is what i'm referring to:
 

 
(I hope Tyll doesn't mind me posting this)
 
These % THD+noise plots don't look terrible.  But, when you consider that the graph is exponential with a factor of ten, that means that the distortion level below 1000 hertz climbs up into the 7 to 8% range.  And, that is just not good enough.
This translates as graininess in the sound.  and while lesser equipment (iPad, iPod, etc.) can mask these artifacts, the SRH1840 doesn't hold up when played through high-end equipment.
 
And they shouldn't, no.  But they really don't even hold up compared to the humble 840 - which sounds compartitively grainless when played side-by-side with the 1840.
 
Funny, when i listen to the SRH1840 on something like the iPad or iPhone, it still creates a very pleasing listening experience.  and i appreciate it for this.  This is where it shines.
 
So, while my pair is still staying with me for casual listening on lesser devices, i would no longer recommend the SRH1840 for folks looking to replace something like a K702 or HD650 in a desktop rig.
You might like the presentation more, as I do, but it will not scale nearly the heights of some other cans...
 
cheers,
The Wuss

 

[kstuart]

There is nothing audible that is even remotely like 8% distortion.   There is no venue in which one would take one set of measurements as being definitive of anything.   Either the measurement is not reflecting anything related to the actual audio response of the headphone, or else the measurement process was faulty.  I suspect both, actually.

 

[purrin]

The 8% distortion on the IF graphs is at 90db / 100db SPL which is really loud.
 
I do find the IF measurements indicative of what I hear though. The lower mids on down are on the blurry side compared to many other headphones, which is often an indicator of highish distortion. My own measurements (90db SPL, but A weighted = lower volume than IF's) seem to corroborate IF's measurements. Just because one can't hear the high distortion (relative, again the key word is relative, to better performing headphones in this aspect), doesn't mean IF's measurement process is faulty, or the measurement does not reflect what other people may be able to hear. As TheWuss intimated, audible differences are more likely noticeable on better equipment.
 

D2 = 2nd order HD, D3 = 3rd order HD, etc.
 
3rd and 5th order harmonic of the SRH1840 are on the high side. How that highish distortion extends into the midrange is atypical. Compare to HD800, which is a much cleaner and more precise sounding headphone in the bass and lower mids:

 

[steelmonkey]

Quote:

this, in particular, is what i'm referring to:  

 

This explains much. First of all, relatively high THD numbers should not lead to conclusion that there are unavoidable problems with component, very clear and musically transparent tube amps proove this. Problems are - THD is highly frequency dependent and nonmonotonic, which doesn`t tell anything about sound but indicates there are technical problems in construction. THD dependence on sound pressure level is also very different at different frequency, which is also not the best option. For example, D5000 THD is relatively signal independent. So, I believe, construction is accoustically flawed.

 

[purrin]

Very clean and transparent tube amps tend to have lowish distortion in the bass << 1% @ below 100Hz and very low distortion throughout the rest of the band ~ 0.1% driving normal loads within their power spec (citing the ECBA's distortion, which I have measured). Tubes amps with slow and muddy bass tend to have highish bass distortion numbers.
 
Transducers tend to have distortion a magnitude higher than amps. Just because a headphone has measurably high distortion doesn't mean it necessarily sounds bad, even if the distortion if audible. Also, it's important to understand how bass distortion actually manifests. It sounds nothing like guitar distortion or nasty clicks and pops. Bass distortion in some cases can actually be pleasing because it imparts a warmth to the sound.

 

[applebook]

The mid distortion measured here didn't really bother me that much with my music. Maybe if I had lived with the cans for months, I would feel differently, but I quickly gave up on them because I felt that they were significantly inferior to the much cheaper D2000 in too many areas. 
 
I agree that the 1840 has very holographic imaging though, far superior to [size=small]the mid-range cans, which all sound pretty flat to me.[/size]

 

[HiFlight]

The mid distortion measured here didn't really bother me that much with my music. Maybe if I had lived with the cans for months, I would feel differently, but I quickly gave up on them because I felt that they were significantly inferior to the much cheaper D2000 in too many areas. 

I agree that the 1840 has very holographic imaging though, far superior to [size=small]the mid-range cans, which all sound pretty flat to me.[/size]

I guess I may be an atypical listener as I very much enjoy the 1840 primarily due to the excellent imaging. I think accurate imaging is a powerful psychoacoustic factor that in my case is more important to my listening enjoyment than the higher measured distortion, which I probably can't hear anyway. Most all of my live listening venues likely have more distortion/frequency rolloff and sonic artifacts than does the 1840 under the worst of conditions. I should also point out that I don't listen at high volume levels, so this probably is also in my favor with the 1840.