MrSpeakers ETHER C

My tube amp didn't smooth out the treble or add any body or other gooey fuzzy distortions. I did get a lot more sub to low-end heft / power and control in the bass than I expected.

I don't see measured bass distortion as an issue, especially compared to dynamics, but it does seem a little bit worse than the best of the orthos.

The tuning is leaner than the Ether opens.

 

Nope. The Ether C tends toward thin sounding and lacks body. This is not negotiable.

I don't think a warm, gooey, and veiled sounding amp should be used a reference amplifier to ascertain the inherent sound of a headphone. I don't make excuses for the HD800 or HE560, so I don't see a need to make one here. However, there is nothing wrong with pointing out synergies. Later tonight, I will try the Ether C out of the Night Blues Mini, which is a warm sounding amp. I might try TP too to mellow out the treble peak.

It's nothing deal breaking, but it something a potential customer should be cognizant of and take into consideration in regards to suitable upstream gear.

 

And I'm saying that a "tube" amp wouldn't necessarily smooth out the Ether C and that an "SS" amp wouldn't necessarily make it harsh. It depends on the specific amp, whether an amp runs tubes or transistors has nothing to do with synergistic compatibility with the Ether C. The WA6 is actually pretty neutral and accurate sounding (depends on tubes) and tonally not all that different from some solid-state amps I have here. I'd say you have a much greater tolerance for a leaner sound that most people here or that you have a different sounding headphone.

I don't know what you are saying. First you say it's not thin: "I don't find it thin sounding". Then you follow up saying that you "prefer a bit more body". Make your mind on what you are trying to say. This is a $1750 headphone out the door. At that price point, we pick things apart, and don't make excuses for it.

BTW, the Ether C, like the Ether, isn't very good at retrieving low level information. The was super obvious comparing to the Audeze LCD2r2, which is actually pretty good in this regard.

 

Or different sounding headphones. Tyll's unit only has a lower treble bump on the left channel, and the width and amplitude are slightly smaller. On the right channel, the peak is completely absent - in fact, there is a small dip. The unit I have has peaks in both channels with a significant peak at 7.5kHz on the right: http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/mrspeakers-ether-c-measurements.1810/

Also, a reminder: http://www.superbestaudiofriends.or...-regarding-tonal-signature-of-headphones.547/

 

On the same headphone, similar peaks will show up at the same spot on Tyll's graphs. Compensation doesn't remove lower treble peaks on Tyll's measurements.

 

We could be talking about completely different headphones at this point. There is the issue with the thin rating of 3.5 (of which I prefer 5.0), but I guess it's really not thin, even though I prefer a 5.0, because more properly said, it would be kind of a wish thing that I wanted more body because a 3.5 isn't quite a 5.0, but still 3.5 wouldn't be thin because 3.0 or 2.5, now that would be thin. So I guess it's a not thin, but wishing more body thing.

But outside of the Kate Moss or Baron Harkonnen issue, there is still the matter of the lower treble peaks, which are not insignificant, at least the pair in my possession. Stuff like this doesn't magically pop up in CSDs. In FRs maybe. But not CSDs. Not only is this pair "not thin but needs more body", but it also can be "not glarey or sharp, but needs more treble naturalness" with certain recordings (including well mastered recordings) with a decent amount of treble energy.

 

I get it. I should do the glass half full thing more often. FWIW, I do tend to crank things up on headphones.

 

Tonight's update on mods: http://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/i-fixed-the-ether-c.1820/