[Faber65]

Personally, I found that I MUCH prefer my Ether C Flows. The Aeon projects a lot of its clamping force on my lower jawbone and there's just something about the treble quality of the upper-mids that I can't get along with. Exceptional build quality and engineering though - VERY admirable at this price point. However, a replacement for the Ether it is not - IMHO.

Today I tested for more than two hours the AFC, comparing them with the ECF and I definitely agree with you: the AFC is not a replacement of the Ether.
Anyhow, the test ended up with me leaving the shop without taking the AFC away of my head...... I mean literally!!!
Hahahahahahaha!

Now burning in the new cans at home with some of my favs.

Thank to the team at Mr. Speakers for the big smile stamped on my face.

 

[Faber65]

I will be at the Guonzhou headphone show this weekend if anyone wants to say hello!

Sir, I have to mention that Hiend-Panda, your retailer in Shanghai, today has provided me a great support in testing your products.
It is not common in China to be allowed to test hi-fi gears in total silence.
For sure the attitude of the staff played some role in making me buying one of your wonderful headphones.

My most sincere thanks also to you and your team: great job!!!!!!

 

[lentoviolento]

I continue to love these. In a fit of GAS I ordered a pair of Senn HD660s but they're going back - no contest for my ears and listening predilections. AFO wins. Pairs quite well with a Mojo with Tidal out of an iPhone.

Tell me more about the comparison please, i just bought 660s.

 

[swmtnbiker]

Why are people posting impressions of the AFC vs. ECF in the AFO thread? Am I missing something?

 

[imnostatic]

Tell me more about the comparison please, i just bought 660s.

I have never owned the 600 or 650 so that may be a factor. While the 660 may be considered "neutral" by some (there is a whole hornet's nest around that definition), I found it lacked body in the bass and presented the upper mids and lower treble in a way I didn't care for. I have been using "In a Trance" from Hiromi's Spark album as a reference. I've heard that lineup multiple times live so I know what that sounds like (I'm also a musician who gigs and records, so I know that process as well). The AFO isn't what I'd call "flat" - it is involving and there is plenty of support in the low end. It does not overwhelm the mids and it isn't bloated in the low mids (which I really do not like - either listening or gigging as a bassist).

By contrast I find the 660 just doesn't support the fundamentals of lower registers. I can hear the attack of the kick drum and the stick hitting the heads, but I don't feel the depth of the rest of the drum - at least not to a level that I've experienced live (or want in a recording). Cymbals tend to fight each other as well due to the way the upper mids present. I have a tough time hearing the difference between different size crashes. That is in contrast to the AFO where I everything has space. The final nail was listening to backing vocals on Tea for the Tillerman - I just didn't like the tonality of the 660.

Source was the same going between the two (as well as Westone UM Pro 50 just for grins) - Tidal HiFi into Mojo or Mimby/Vali2 or straight from laptop/iPhone. Totally ymmv. No, I did not break them in but I've found that break-in results in subtle rather than significant changes. I know that is another hornet's nets, and while I believe in some degree of burn-in for transducers (particularly bass cabinets as the surrounds tend to be stiff when new), I have never found that it transforms a turd into a tulip. Not to say the 660 is a turd, nor is the AFO a tulip - flowers only used under poetic license terms, ymmv, enter as often as you like.

 

[IamMathew]

Just to clarify: I have not seen open version myself besides pictures.
But I don't like the look of black foam very much under those grilles. Reflections of sunlight look especially ugly to me. I just wonder why wasn't black cotton felt used to protect the driver instead. Worse acoustic properties? Expensive? Synthetic foam (altough it probably wasn't this material, but I had some experience with black synthetic foam from analogue film cameras) was also less durable and more susceptible to ageing caused decomposition (it turned to disgusting crumbling goo over time), whereas cotton felt never had any sort of these problems.

 

[FastAndClean]

Just to clarify: I have not seen open version myself besides pictures.
But I don't like the look of black foam very much under those grilles.

its better than naked exposed to dust driver

 

[IamMathew]

its better than naked exposed to dust driver

Yes, definitely, I agree.
There are more than those two alternatives (foam vs nude planar) though.

To MrSpeakers (Dan Clarke?):
Are there "FLOW" waveguides on the outer sides of the drivers too?

 

[franz12]

I have never owned the 600 or 650 so that may be a factor. While the 660 may be considered "neutral" by some (there is a whole hornet's nest around that definition), I found it lacked body in the bass and presented the upper mids and lower treble in a way I didn't care for. I have been using "In a Trance" from Hiromi's Spark album as a reference. I've heard that lineup multiple times live so I know what that sounds like (I'm also a musician who gigs and records, so I know that process as well). The AFO isn't what I'd call "flat" - it is involving and there is plenty of support in the low end. It does not overwhelm the mids and it isn't bloated in the low mids (which I really do not like - either listening or gigging as a bassist).

By contrast I find the 660 just doesn't support the fundamentals of lower registers. I can hear the attack of the kick drum and the stick hitting the heads, but I don't feel the depth of the rest of the drum - at least not to a level that I've experienced live (or want in a recording). Cymbals tend to fight each other as well due to the way the upper mids present. I have a tough time hearing the difference between different size crashes. That is in contrast to the AFO where I everything has space. The final nail was listening to backing vocals on Tea for the Tillerman - I just didn't like the tonality of the 660.

Source was the same going between the two (as well as Westone UM Pro 50 just for grins) - Tidal HiFi into Mojo or Mimby/Vali2 or straight from laptop/iPhone. Totally ymmv. No, I did not break them in but I've found that break-in results in subtle rather than significant changes. I know that is another hornet's nets, and while I believe in some degree of burn-in for transducers (particularly bass cabinets as the surrounds tend to be stiff when new), I have never found that it transforms a turd into a tulip. Not to say the 660 is a turd, nor is the AFO a tulip - flowers only used under poetic license terms, ymmv, enter as often as you like.

In my experience, there was no burn-in effect with HD800S. But I always found that burn-in was real for MrSpeaker's products (EC, ECF, AFO). After 50+ hours listening of AFO, soundstage is opening up. I agree that AFO comes with the plenty of support in the low end. IMO, in terms of sound quality, AFO is clear win over ECF. Dynamics is better. Vocal tonality is so real and natural with AFO as well. It makes listening music so enjoyable and sometimes makes it surreal. Before I listen AFO, I thought vocal on ECF sounds so natural, but compared to AFO, it is a bit distorted, and it sounds more closed. It seems to me that there is a clear limitation producing a good closed can.

My only complaint on AFO is clamping force is too great. I feel it is uncomfortable to wear AFO more than half hour. Even though ECF is heavier, I found that ECF wins over AFO in terms of comfort.

 

[franz12]

.

 

[Faber65]

My only complaint on AFO is clamping force is too great. I feel it is uncomfortable to wear AFO more than half hour. Even though ECF is heavier, I found that ECF wins over AFO in terms of comfort.

This is very personal. Apart from the SQ, the main concern that I had over the purchase of the Aeon was to have enough clamping force. In my case it is perfect.
In fact, being totally empty, the only purpose of my skull is to keep the ears apart. So I don’t need a big one.

 

[MarkF786]

Hey guys,

I've only been occasionally reading the threads on the AFO and AFC, so forgive me if I've missed this. Has there been any detailed comparison yet on the AFO vs AFC, or is there a general consensus on the strengths or weaknesses of each?

I was leaning towards buying the AFC until the AFO was released, then I thought I'd wait to see which seemed to be the better choice. I own a few other pair of high-end phones (Elear, HD800S, HD650, HD600, etc) but was looking to buy my first pair of planar magnetics. I don't have a good pair of closed phones so the AFC was initially appealing, but I rarely need the isolation, so either would be ok from a practical perspective.

Thanks for the feedback.

Mark

 

[qrtas]

The only mrspeakers headphones I had a chance to listen was the original ether (the red one). I liked many aspects of the ether, but I end up returning them, because the sound was a little thin to my liking. How does the AFO compares to the original ether in this regard?

 

[TMRaven]

Hey guys,

I've only been occasionally reading the threads on the AFO and AFC, so forgive me if I've missed this. Has there been any detailed comparison yet on the AFO vs AFC, or is there a general consensus on the strengths or weaknesses of each?

I was leaning towards buying the AFC until the AFO was released, then I thought I'd wait to see which seemed to be the better choice. I own a few other pair of high-end phones (Elear, HD800S, HD650, HD600, etc) but was looking to buy my first pair of planar magnetics. I don't have a good pair of closed phones so the AFC was initially appealing, but I rarely need the isolation, so either would be ok from a practical perspective.

Thanks for the feedback.

Mark

Compared to the closed, the open is warmer, with much more upper bass and lower midrange, less upper midrnage, and a little more upper treble. Think of the open as having a slight backwards facing checkmark to its frequency response. The closed is more even-handed I think, but also less organic sounding and effortless as the open. The open does not hold any big soundstage advantage on the closed.

 

[mandrake50]

Compared to the closed, the open is warmer, with much more upper bass and lower midrange, less upper midrnage, and a little more upper treble. Think of the open as having a slight backwards facing checkmark to its frequency response. The closed is more even-handed I think, but also less organic sounding and effortless as the open. The open does not hold any big soundstage advantage on the closed.

What does the bolded text above mean. Seriously, I am interested. With all of the years that I have spent around Head-Fi I still read things that I just am not sure that I understand.
Still learning I guess.