[electropop]

Heh, flat's kind of subjective and very relative to the source (the recording). Everything's mixed to certain perception, there can't be completely flat presentation.
 
My view is that they're not overly emphasized anywhere. There are no clear transition problems within the spectrum of an individual instrument, or so I hear... 
 
I'm not one to "preach" about burn-in, but they're actually quite a lot smoother than when I first received them. This could be that I've gotten deaf in the treble region, but not so much that I've gotten used to it since I do have a lot of reference around me to check. I say this because initially, while they weren't overly bright, they did have a bit of a peak at the top. Bit brittle with especially crash cymbals and hi-hat. The response is much smoother and dynamic now, allowing me to distinguish differences in tone, volume and pitch of a high FR instrument, such as cymbals. This was somewhat fatiguing, but is no longer.

 

[Beagle]

Quote:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar11/articles/krk-kns8400.htm
 
Another link suggesting there is an emphasis in the midrange. Doesn't quite seem to be perceived as flat here. Thoughts?

I found that a bit odd. I hear the 8400 as a bit subdued in that 1.5 to 4 kHz region. I hear overall a fairly even response but a very slight boxy, hollow character which would indicate a minor resonance problem somewhere.
 

 

[SanjiWatsuki]

The bass extension is deep and good, but it is overdamped. Overdamped bass lacks impact and often sounds several dBs less emphasized than it normally is in reality. The measurements commonly show the 8400 with a bass emphasis in frequency response, so these two effects normally cancel each other out. Also compared to many other neutral sound signatures, like the HD800, the KRKs have an emphasis around the 2khz vocal mids area. At the same time, this area is completely flat with the rest of the frequency response, it's just that a lot of more laidback headphones slightly roll off this area. I can see how you could argue that it isn't flat, and also how you could argue it is flat. 
 
Quote:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar11/articles/krk-kns8400.htm
 
Another link suggesting there is an emphasis in the midrange. Doesn't quite seem to be perceived as flat here. Thoughts?

 

 

[Sonic Atrocity]

Quote:

The bass extension is deep and good, but it is overdamped. Overdamped bass lacks impact and often sounds several dBs less emphasized than it normally is in reality. The measurements commonly show the 8400 with a bass emphasis in frequency response, so these two effects normally cancel each other out. Also compared to many other neutral sound signatures, like the HD800, the KRKs have an emphasis around the 2khz vocal mids area. At the same time, this area is completely flat with the rest of the frequency response, it's just that a lot of more laidback headphones slightly roll off this area. I can see how you could argue that it isn't flat, and also how you could argue it is flat. 
 


 

Oh? There is an emphasis at around 2khz but it's even with the rest of the response? Wouldn't an emphasis entail that it is not even with the rest of the response? I don't quite understand.
 

 

[Sonic Atrocity]

How do you guys think the KRK KNS 8400 performs at louder volumes? I read somewhere that it sounds "raggedy" when it is louder. 
 
Thoughts?

 

[SanjiWatsuki]

The definition of neutral is surprisingly contested. 
The KRK KNS 6400 has a flat response up to 2khz, then it recedes. Some people feel this sounds neutral and transparent.
The HD800 has a flat response up to about 1khz, then it recedes. Some people feel this sounds transparent. 
The K701 is supposed to be neutral and it does it near 2khz as well. 
What about the Stax-009? Isn't that supposed to be neutral, too? It reduces the mids at around 1khz, too!
 
At the end of the day, there's no exact definition of neutrality, I'd say. What sounds neutral to one person may not be the neutral for someone else. It's a fickle definition. 
Quote:

Oh? There is an emphasis at around 2khz but it's even with the rest of the response? Wouldn't an emphasis entail that it is not even with the rest of the response? I don't quite understand.
 

 
 

 

[R-Audiohead]

Quote:

The definition of neutral is surprisingly contested. 
The KRK KNS 6400 has a flat response up to 2khz, then it recedes. Some people feel this sounds neutral and transparent.
The HD800 has a flat response up to about 1khz, then it recedes. Some people feel this sounds transparent. 
The K701 is supposed to be neutral and it does it near 2khz as well. 
What about the Stax-009? Isn't that supposed to be neutral, too? It reduces the mids at around 1khz, too!
 
At the end of the day, there's no exact definition of neutrality, I'd say. What sounds neutral to one person may not be the neutral for someone else. It's a fickle definition. 

 
 

Interesting findings!
 
 

 

[Sonic Atrocity]

Well, considering the bass apparently has no impact I am a bit skeptical about getting these cans. I am looking at the Shure 940 also. I mean, I know they aren't as neutral but they don't seem to have any giant spikes. Meanwhile, the 8400 has this big spike between 70 and 150 Hz. It's like a poster said elsewhere (too lazy to go look for the name) that the bass is overdamped but in order to make up for the perceived lack of bass the mid-bass is boosted. To me it sounds like the cans are designed to 'sound' like they are neutral but they actually aren't *truly* sounding neutral. I feel as though there could be a sonic difference. 
 
The M50 seems to have a more neutral look to it's graph. I often wonder here on head-fi if graphs really do mean something and that they aren't just something that people freak out over for no reason. I mean, the concept that headphones can't have a flat graph or else they won't sound flat (as has been said by some) seems inaccurate to me. The dummies that are used on inner fidelity and headroom measure the frequency response at the ear drum - just like us. So shouldn't flat mean flat at that eardrum? 
 
Hence, I wonder if the M50 is actually a lot more accurate than people think but their view of what accurate means (by accurate I mean neutral and a flat frequency response) has been 'coloured' by the fact that they are used to bass-lite phones like AKG. I have looked at AKG graphs and they just seem to chinse out on the bass. To me neutral means neutral. Period. There shouldn't be a "bass light" neutral or else it isn't really neutral. 
 
It has also been suggested that the KRK have the midbass hump in order to replicate loudspeakers (or studio monitors - do they have a discernible difference?) in a room. But, if they are flat, shouldn't they be received as flat to the ear drum when you are in the room just as the ear drum in the dummies on on headroom and inner fidelity receive it? 
 
Some of the dialogue just seems a bit unscientific. Though, I am not meaning to sound like a rotten apple by any means! I am enthusiastically seeking fidelity. There shouldn't be such a debate regarding fidelity. Shouldn't flat mean flat? Period? 
 
Anyhow, the battle for me is between the KRK 8400, Shure 940 and the M50. The KRK seems to lack impact (as so I have read) and that seems to detract from fidelity as far as I'm concerned, the Shure is supposed to be relatively neutral with a bit of raised treble (but is also supposed to have proper impact and soundstage as far as I know) and the M50 is just something I am really hesitant to pull the trigger on. They are often referred to as bass-heavy and I don't want yet another Pro 900 in my arsenal. I like my Pro 900 but I just can't get over the boomyness of their native sound signature. Hell, even a violin seems to carry impact with these things - even when I EQ it down by a solid eight and a half decibels. They are built to slam. Hence, they are referred to as a great trance 'phone. 
 
 
*sigh* The trials and tribulations of reclaiming my musicianship!
 
 

 

[DVDRey]

I don't know KRK8400, but between srh940 and M50 its easy, take srh940.
 
You have already a Pro900, M50 is a huge step backward imo.
 
Why not try srh840.

 

[R-Audiohead]

You read that people thought the KRK 8400 had low impact?   I didn't think they did...
 
Ruler flat or not, I thought they sounded neutral.  Honestly, graphs are more misleading than helpful.  Many places do 30 day returns.  Try out the KRK, if you think it isn't for you, pay the return shipping for piece of mind.
 
My advice--

 

[tdockweiler]

Quote:

Well, considering the bass apparently has no impact I am a bit skeptical about getting these cans. I am looking at the Shure 940 also. I mean, I know they aren't as neutral but they don't seem to have any giant spikes. Meanwhile, the 8400 has this big spike between 70 and 150 Hz. It's like a poster said elsewhere (too lazy to go look for the name) that the bass is overdamped but in order to make up for the perceived lack of bass the mid-bass is boosted. To me it sounds like the cans are designed to 'sound' like they are neutral but they actually aren't *truly* sounding neutral. I feel as though there could be a sonic difference. 
 
The M50 seems to have a more neutral look to it's graph. I often wonder here on head-fi if graphs really do mean something and that they aren't just something that people freak out over for no reason. I mean, the concept that headphones can't have a flat graph or else they won't sound flat (as has been said by some) seems inaccurate to me. The dummies that are used on inner fidelity and headroom measure the frequency response at the ear drum - just like us. So shouldn't flat mean flat at that eardrum? 
 
Hence, I wonder if the M50 is actually a lot more accurate than people think but their view of what accurate means (by accurate I mean neutral and a flat frequency response) has been 'coloured' by the fact that they are used to bass-lite phones like AKG. I have looked at AKG graphs and they just seem to chinse out on the bass. To me neutral means neutral. Period. There shouldn't be a "bass light" neutral or else it isn't really neutral. 
 
It has also been suggested that the KRK have the midbass hump in order to replicate loudspeakers (or studio monitors - do they have a discernible difference?) in a room. But, if they are flat, shouldn't they be received as flat to the ear drum when you are in the room just as the ear drum in the dummies on on headroom and inner fidelity receive it? 
 
Some of the dialogue just seems a bit unscientific. Though, I am not meaning to sound like a rotten apple by any means! I am enthusiastically seeking fidelity. There shouldn't be such a debate regarding fidelity. Shouldn't flat mean flat? Period? 
 
Anyhow, the battle for me is between the KRK 8400, Shure 940 and the M50. The KRK seems to lack impact (as so I have read) and that seems to detract from fidelity as far as I'm concerned, the Shure is supposed to be relatively neutral with a bit of raised treble (but is also supposed to have proper impact and soundstage as far as I know) and the M50 is just something I am really hesitant to pull the trigger on. They are often referred to as bass-heavy and I don't want yet another Pro 900 in my arsenal. I like my Pro 900 but I just can't get over the boomyness of their native sound signature. Hell, even a violin seems to carry impact with these things - even when I EQ it down by a solid eight and a half decibels. They are built to slam. Hence, they are referred to as a great trance 'phone. 
 
 
*sigh* The trials and tribulations of reclaiming my musicianship!
 
 

That mid-bass hump isn't that bad. You can barely hear it and when you listen to them it's actually not even remotely a problem. I actually didn't even realize they had one until I saw that graph. Sure doesn't sound like it!
To me, these actually SOUND like a flat and neutral studio monitor. Much more so than the M50 or anything else I've heard lately that's labeled as a studio monitor.
 
To my ears, the SRH-940 and M50 are not very neutral sounding at all, but maybe close. To me, the M50 seems to focus mostly on bass and then treble and recessing the mids slightly. My old pair had very bloated bass, but the newer white box version is a bit more balanced sounding. I still think it's bass heavy, but just barely. I felt the SRH-940 had some very forward sounding mids and lots of extra treble. I do like this, but it wouldn't be my first choice for use in a studio.
 
If I wanted a headphone that's a little more fun to listen to and less balanced sounding, I'd probably pick the SRH-940. I always felt that the KRKs were one of the few studio monitors that actually sounded like one!
 

 

[electropop]

As I like to say: it's the music that matters. The 8400 is the best overall performer I've come across at this and a lot higher price point even. Everything is heard. Period 

 The GMP 8.35D seems to be regarded as flat, according to graphs and ears, but I fail to hear perfect smoothness across the mid-range. Some notes are significantly quieter than others with the same instrument, for instance, and some information is just kept silent. With the 8400's, I can hear every note, balanced and to the pitch. Having experienced them, I really don't care what any graphs do say. I think your (sonic atrocity) choices lie between trusting us and our ears, or the graphs. I understand that you want to learn, but no one here can provide you with absolute information or transcription between numbers and aural experience, I'm afraid.
 
I'd take R-audio's advice and abuse the return policy 

 

[SanjiWatsuki]

I think this is key. My 6400 EQ is very similar to the 8400 FR and they're one of my favorite headphones. They're definitely sound less bass-heavy than the M50 in that configuration.
 
Quote:

That mid-bass hump isn't that bad. You can barely hear it and when you listen to them it's actually not even remotely a problem. I actually didn't even realize they had one until I saw that graph. Sure doesn't sound like it!
To me, these actually SOUND like a flat and neutral studio monitor. Much more so than the M50 or anything else I've heard lately that's labeled as a studio monitor.
 
To my ears, the SRH-940 and M50 are not very neutral sounding at all, but maybe close. To me, the M50 seems to focus mostly on bass and then treble and recessing the mids slightly. My old pair had very bloated bass, but the newer white box version is a bit more balanced sounding. I still think it's bass heavy, but just barely. I felt the SRH-940 had some very forward sounding mids and lots of extra treble. I do like this, but it wouldn't be my first choice for use in a studio.
 
If I wanted a headphone that's a little more fun to listen to and less balanced sounding, I'd probably pick the SRH-940. I always felt that the KRKs were one of the few studio monitors that actually sounded like one!
 

 

 

[megamagic]

Quote:

As I like to say: it's the music that matters. The 8400 is the best overall performer I've come across at this and a lot higher price point even. Everything is heard. Period 

 The GMP 8.35D seems to be regarded as flat, according to graphs and ears, but I fail to hear perfect smoothness across the mid-range. Some notes are significantly quieter than others with the same instrument, for instance, and some information is just kept silent. With the 8400's, I can hear every note, balanced and to the pitch. Having experienced them, I really don't care what any graphs do say. I think your (sonic atrocity) choices lie between trusting us and our ears, or the graphs. I understand that you want to learn, but no one here can provide you with absolute information or transcription between numbers and aural experience, I'm afraid.
 
I'd take R-audio's advice and abuse the return policy 

Right now I'm just happy to be able to hear the details without concern of balance and pitch 

 
But I'm finding I can hear as much detail on the 8400 as my other 'phones, which is quite good considering the cost.
 
I do wonder if I need to get other music for analyzing 'phones though since I'm mostly listening to red book.
 

 

[megamagic]

Apparently I was misusing my 8400 by using high imp output jack to try and get the HD600 soundstage <_<
 
They sound much clearer and controlled now out of the low imp jack of the D100.
 
Live recording sounds so clean and detailed.
 
I did try low impedance a few times when I first got it, but it sounds much better now than before for some reason...
 
Maybe burned in or something.