[tdockweiler]

Interesting impressions and they're total opposite of what my pair sounds like. I'm really picky about muffled, grainy or an unclear sound. I always felt my KRK KNS-6400 was one of the clearest sounding headphones I've ever had. Not up to DT-880 levels, but pretty close! Always felt crystal clear, but a tiny step down in overall sound clarity from the KRK KNS-8400. I compared them both and it was like comparing the sound clarity of the HD-600 to the HD-650. It took specific songs with a huge soundstage to tell the differences. Mostly acoustic music. I also found the 6400 to have more detail than the 8400. That was a real shock for me.
 
One thing I've noticed about the KRKs is that they may be harder to drive than I originally thought. Driving them from a Fuze and I have to crank them to max volume. Weird. I wouldn't be surprised if the SRH-440 was fuller and funner. I just prefer how the KNS-6400 sounds and tried the SRH-440 about a year ago. So, I don't agree with your comments on the 6400, but almost nobody on Head-fi has the same impression of a headphone  You should have taken the 6400 home and given them more time.

Not sure if you used them in store or bought them. I loved the KNS-6400 so much that I bought another 8400 just to compare. My 2nd 8400 sounded way better than my first. Less treble happy for sure. The 8400 still suffered from slightly laid back mids.
 
Now more weirdness. I compared my KNS-6400 to the SRH-940 (posted notes in my DJ100 thread) and felt the 6400 beat out the SRH-940 in sound clarity, level of detail and soundstage size and accuracy. I was actually very disappointed in the soundstage of the SRH-940. It was actually only slightly better than the SRH-840 IMO. The KRK I have often fools me into thinking it's semi-open. It's especially good for movies. The SRH-940 is most definitely more musical (to probably 90% of people, but not me) and has a fuller sound and is more textured. For listening to music for fun, it's hard to suggest the KRKs, but I love them and I don't run a studio. As mentioned before, the SRH-940 SEEMS like it has more bass than the 6400, but the 6400 probably extends lower.
 
Thanks for the impressions. I hope more people check into the KRKs since I think they deserve it. I want someone who runs a studio or has a ton of studio monitors to review them. Maybe compare them against the DT-48 or something. Based on what I've read, some think the 6400 is flatter/more neutral compared to the 8400. Other people say the opposite. Seems 3-4 people now think the 8400 is much more musical than the 6400 (more body/fuller sound?). Seems nobody on Head-Fi ever has the same opinion luckily!
Quote:

I'm not sure about the KRKs though... I think they really missed the boat with
those (at least with the 6400). I've had some VXT-6 and Rokit 8s (in the end I ended up with Tapco Monitors)
and I really liked these cheap monitors for recording sessions at my house or at my friends studio.
 
Anyway, I was hearing a lot of good things about them and went to my local musicshop
and they had them (along with some Sonys) so I decided to try them. I could not listen to half an hour
with the 6400... it was grainy as heck, clarity was not at great and for the price I would have preferred the Shure 440s
(sounds fuller, funner, overall better!). Basically, for tracking they could be Ok, but for a simple mix, no way. Their
sound is way tinny.
 
Now, I believe the 8400s are very good for their price. Everything that the 6400 lacks the 8400 fixes.
The grain is not there on the highs, the mids are fairly consistent and there's enough low-end to not
only track but do a proper mix. These will not replace nearfields/monitors (nor any headphones in my opinion)
but they do a good job.
 
Thing is, side by side, the Shure SRH940s EAT both of these up in terms of comfortability, clarity, soundstage and
extension (normal listening, not recording). Recording wise... not sure yet. Only tried once to track and
mix with mine and the result wasn't that good (probably due to the headphones tendencies to favor the highs...) so I definitely
need to try a few times and see.
 
For music listening between the SRH940s and KRKs, I definitely choose the Shures.
For recording sessions (at least tracking and initial mix) I would have chosen the 8400s.
 
I guess it will depend on your priorities, what you are looking for and whether or not you are prepared
to spend a bit more or not. But for example, if you get the KRK8400 at $150, buy an extra coiled cable ($12) and an extra
set of earpads ($30-ish) you are closer to $200 so... again, to me the Shures are in a great place.
And if anyone can find them open-box for $170 (like electronic expo had them), even better!
 
 
Thanks.
 
P.S. Just in case, I'm not a "real" musician hehehe, just a hobby. Though I have family members who
are and have CDs out, etc. hence my time in the studios and stuff. I like that but don't have enough
to create full-on songs, just create ideas and record them
 

 

 

[electropop]

6400 more detailed than the 8400? Definitely not! 

 When I compared the two I could name many concrete elements the 6400 could not perform. Difference in pitch articulation across the spectrum was apparent. Second was how brass actually sounded like brass on the 8400. Jazz drummer with his techniques, arsenal of toms and musical cues was much better distinguished and apparent on the 8400... Didn't check for vocal presentation, but that doesn't tell much. As I have probably said many times: if you want to evaluate phones with clear differences and results, go with music with rich harmonic and rhythmic structures and modal melodies. Hifi is hifi and music is always music 

 I have to add that I often disregard factors as "soundstage" or how distant or forward something sounds. Doesn't matter in the end, as long as the musical information is apparent without the need to concentrate too much. 

 

[tdockweiler]

Quote:

6400 more detailed than the 8400? Definitely not! 

 When I compared the two I could name many concrete elements the 6400 could not perform. Difference in pitch articulation across the spectrum was apparent. Second was how brass actually sounded like brass on the 8400. Jazz drummer with his techniques, arsenal of toms and musical cues was much better distinguished and apparent on the 8400... Didn't check for vocal presentation, but that doesn't tell much. As I have probably said many times: if you want to evaluate phones with clear differences and results, go with music with rich harmonic and rhythmic structures and modal melodies. Hifi is hifi and music is always music 

 I have to add that I often disregard factors as "soundstage" or how distant or forward something sounds. Doesn't matter in the end, as long as the musical information is apparent without the need to concentrate too much. 

 
That's the thing about my comparisons (that I've posted in the 6400/8400 thread) with the two. There are a few things on the 8400 I couldn't hear with the 6400, but then there are also some things on the 6400 that can't be heard on the 8400! Mostly very faint background details. My idea is that these sounds were not really meant to be heard in the recording and the 6400 pushes them more forward. The soundstage of the 8400 may have made specific detail also sound more distant too. Felt the 8400 had a better soundstage, however that's possible.
 
I was listening to a Cyril Morin CD from the "Valley of Flowers" soundtrack. I heard what sounds like wind rustling around inside a cave. It's there on the 6400, but not on the 8400. I actually had to boost the mids on the 8400 by like 4db I think it was just to hear it. I was surprised by this. I think it's safe to say the 8400 might just have more treble detail. Does anyone care about the sound of wind? Probably not.
 
So, I just came to the conclusion that there is some detail that can't be heard on the 8400, same with some detail on the 8400 that's not heard on the 6400.
 
To make matters worse, theres some things on my DJ100 that I can't hear on the KRKs. What the heck?! Makes no sense I know. I really need to buy the DT-48 to see how they compare to the KRKs. I really need to stop buying headphones! I really love anything that could be described as a detail monster

 
 
 

 

[gelocks]

Wow... totally opposite of what I think about the KNS-6400s!! lol
 
But I guess that's the great thing about these boards at head-fi!
This actually makes prospect buyers to buy/try all of them and
reach their own conclusions (and then post here if either you or I or both
are crazy!!!!!!! )
 
I took the 2 home for just a weekend but spend more time with the 8400 because
I could not really get into the 6400s. Loaded a couple of Cubase projects I had
going on (song ideas with multiple audio and MIDI tracks) and tried to track and mix
with them. Also, normal music listening was performed. Both of them were used on a Lexicon
Omega interface (headphone out is quite potent).
 
Putting the 940s besides either of them (connected to the same source) was a no-contest...
not sure how you got the impression from the 6400s that they sound better/similar to the 940s
but again, and as you mentioned, nobody on Head-fi has the same impression of a headphone.
 

 
and agree, I would like more people to try the KRK line.
Maybe they'll come up with a "flagship" or so, but I at least liked the 8400s enough
for music listening... not so with the 6400s..
 
 
BTW, as a sidenote, one of the times I visited my friend's studio, I bought the 940s with me and told him to try them... he gave them back after like 15 minutes and put his MDRs back on... LOL so... I guess that once you are used to a certain sound, it's difficult to pick out a different signature and stay with it.
 
Quote:

Interesting impressions and they're total opposite of what my pair sounds like. I'm really picky about muffled, grainy or an unclear sound. I always felt my KRK KNS-6400 was one of the clearest sounding headphones I've ever had. Not up to DT-880 levels, but pretty close! Always felt crystal clear, but a tiny step down in overall sound clarity from the KRK KNS-8400. I compared them both and it was like comparing the sound clarity of the HD-600 to the HD-650. It took specific songs with a huge soundstage to tell the differences. Mostly acoustic music. I also found the 6400 to have more detail than the 8400. That was a real shock for me.
 
One thing I've noticed about the KRKs is that they may be harder to drive than I originally thought. Driving them from a Fuze and I have to crank them to max volume. Weird. I wouldn't be surprised if the SRH-440 was fuller and funner. I just prefer how the KNS-6400 sounds and tried the SRH-440 about a year ago. So, I don't agree with your comments on the 6400, but almost nobody on Head-fi has the same impression of a headphone  You should have taken the 6400 home and given them more time.

Not sure if you used them in store or bought them. I loved the KNS-6400 so much that I bought another 8400 just to compare. My 2nd 8400 sounded way better than my first. Less treble happy for sure. The 8400 still suffered from slightly laid back mids.
 
Now more weirdness. I compared my KNS-6400 to the SRH-940 (posted notes in my DJ100 thread) and felt the 6400 beat out the SRH-940 in sound clarity, level of detail and soundstage size and accuracy. I was actually very disappointed in the soundstage of the SRH-940. It was actually only slightly better than the SRH-840 IMO. The KRK I have often fools me into thinking it's semi-open. It's especially good for movies. The SRH-940 is most definitely more musical (to probably 90% of people, but not me) and has a fuller sound and is more textured. For listening to music for fun, it's hard to suggest the KRKs, but I love them and I don't run a studio. As mentioned before, the SRH-940 SEEMS like it has more bass than the 6400, but the 6400 probably extends lower.
 
Thanks for the impressions. I hope more people check into the KRKs since I think they deserve it. I want someone who runs a studio or has a ton of studio monitors to review them. Maybe compare them against the DT-48 or something. Based on what I've read, some think the 6400 is flatter/more neutral compared to the 8400. Other people say the opposite. Seems 3-4 people now think the 8400 is much more musical than the 6400 (more body/fuller sound?). Seems nobody on Head-Fi ever has the same opinion luckily!


 

 

 

[electropop]

I don't think the differences I heard were due to different signatures. I can really get used to FR-differences, as long as neutrality is within acceptable limits. But musical information, which to me is notes played to the pitch first and foremost, must come first. If this is on a good level, I don't mind a bit of boost here and there. 
Of course I can hear certain things better on other cans and some on others. There are differences in FR, and some just put more detail on one part of the spectrum (of course not only due to FR, but other factors as well) than the other. If some small detail, which has not that much to do with the musical integrity of a song, is "muted" because of good linearity, I can definitely live with that. But basically, I'm not surprised if tdockweiler hears certain things better on some phones and vice versa
I think a certain threshold of linearity must be met as well. To me so far, the 8400 have performed the best overall and I continue to like them very much. They have a slight boost on the upper mid-range and treble, but it's not too bad, since it's fast. No sibilance, and overall quite natural. 

 

[kiteki]

 
So you think some headphones change the musical pitch electropop? I'd like to hear more.
 
 

 

[nikp]

 
Quote:

 
So you think some headphones change the musical pitch electropop? I'd like to hear more.
 
 

Nowhere in his statement says anything like that. 
 
"But musical information, which to me is notes played to the pitch first and foremost, must come first."
eg/ forwarded mids, bass dominant.
 

 

[kiteki]

 
No he said he can get used to FR differences, if you read post #32 and #35 again.
 
If we could use an equalizer to make any one headphone sound like another one, then this hobby would be quite dull and dry.
 
 

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

That's pretty damming...What are the major percieved 'weaknesses' of this headphone? Is it considered more bass-anaemic than the model it superceeded - the SRH840? Funny how that headphone got 4.5 stars...
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I'd give it 2.5 to 3 stars MAX....so I'm pretty much in line with their thoughts too. I'd give the 840s between 3-3.5 stars. YMMV.
 

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

I'd give it 2.5 to 3 stars MAX....so I'm pretty much in line with their thoughts too. I'd give the 840s between 3-3.5 stars. YMMV.
 

You are 1 harsh critique. I would at least give the srh840 a 4/5.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

You are 1 harsh critique. I would at least give the srh840 a 4/5.

I would give the D7000s a 4-4.5 out of 5 for closed headphones. YMMV of course.

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

I would give the D7000s a 4-4.5 out of 5 for closed headphones. YMMV of course.

Is that rating based on value or sound quality. The headroom ratings are based on value.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Quote:

Is that rating based on value or sound quality. The headroom ratings are based on value.

Bit of both...my D7000 comment was for the street price of $600 BTW.
 
Even though the Ed.8s are my favourite closed headphones, value wise...they're not very good as they are a bit pricey (especially the Limited Editions).
 

 

[bixby]

I'd rate the d7000 about a 2 out of 5 for value.  And the D2000 about a 4.5 for value. Caveat on the aforementioned is that I did ony hear them at RMAF for a short period, but I did get to use my source and amp as well as the Headroom amps.
 
As for the 840s about a 4 for value.  Just my ears mind.

 

[electropop]

Quote:

 
No he said he can get used to FR differences, if you read post #32 and #35 again.
 
If we could use an equalizer to make any one headphone sound like another one, then this hobby would be quite dull and dry.
 
 

I don't see how the two things correlate. Yes you're right that a headphone cannot change pitch really. But pitch is a musical term, and a headphone can play notes to the pitch or not. One-note bass is a real phenomenon, right? I dare you to take the Ultrasone ED9 and tab bass notes from a rich jazz piece: simply impossible 

 There are factors as transient response, noise, distortion and auditory masking that might negatively (and I believe in some cases, even positively) have an effect on this quality. I never really knew the integrity of many of my favorite recordings before I was introduced to good music reproduction (in this way) and started seeking gear with this in mind. 
 
But as I said, small differences in FR are something that don't bother me as much as "dull" music reproduction. Something even as liked as the Beyer T1 can't simply capture the essence of the mind of a musical bass player, for instance. Bass is the most tricky, but this problem extends through mid-range all the way up to the higher harmonics or woodwinds, for instance. I think this stance takes the hobby a bit more in the direction of music listening, rather than sound listening, though that sounds a bit blunt... Anyways.
 
For Denons I give a value rating of 1/5 simply for the aforementioned reason alone 

 Though I must admit that I haven't heard the latest models, only the more expensive ones...