[bazelio]

 

Mine should be coming soon, seeing Dan's message from a couple days back.  I went with the ETHER-C because the only other closed can contender (by my criteria) was the TH-900 which I felt was too bass-heavy.  That said, I do expect the ETHER-C to be light on the bottom end.  I think by 40 Hz they're at -6db vs the open ETHERs....

See Dan's post for specifics on bass for reference: http://www.head-fi.org/t/777735/mrspeakers-ether-c-review-announcement-a-new-closed-back-planar-magnetic-flagship-from-mrspeakers/1710#post_12169428

 
Ah..  Different than what I thought, and a very informative writeup.  I was actually hoping the rolloff was in the lower bass region as opposed to the mid bass region.  Oh well.

 

[siderak]

Walked in to Audiovision SF to check out the Ether C's today.
Walked out with new Ether C's and a Chord Mojo.
 
I wasted 2 hours comparing them to my HE-560's hoping my brain would recalibrate or find something to even the score more.
The bass worried me at first. Even though it's much less in comparison to the 560's, it's also much more refined. I now hear the 560's as somewhat bloated and a little sloppy. 
I'm having a really hard time taking these off! Delicate and very clear treble. Zero fatigue after several hours. They are extremely well balanced and not even burned in at all but I think I can already sense them relaxing more.
So much detail! I'm definitely noticing things in the music I'd previously not heard on any of my other headphones or speakers.
 
These make me feel like I've got nothing better to do but listen...

 

[x RELIC x]

Walked in to Audiovision SF to check out the Ether C's today.
Walked out with new Ether C's and a Chord Mojo.

I wasted 2 hours comparing them to my HE-560's hoping my brain would recalibrate or find something to even the score more.
The bass worried me at first. Even though it's much less in comparison to the 560's, it's also much more refined. I now hear the 560's as somewhat bloated and a little sloppy. 
I'm having a really hard time taking these off! Delicate and very clear treble. Zero fatigue after several hours. They are extremely well balanced and not even burned in at all but I think I can already sense them relaxing more.
So much detail! I'm definitely noticing things in the music I'd previously not heard on any of my other headphones or speakers.

These make me feel like I've got nothing better to do but listen...

The ETHER C and Mojo are an amazing pair!

 

[inthere]

 
Mine should be coming soon, seeing Dan's message from a couple days back.  I went with the ETHER-C because the only other closed can contender (by my criteria) was the TH-900 which I felt was too bass-heavy.  That said, I do expect the ETHER-C to be light on the bottom end.  I think by 40 Hz they're at -6db vs the open ETHERs....

 
 TH900 not really a contender for closed can because they leak like open cans......Ether C is also very receptive to EQ.

 

[bazelio]

 

 
Mine should be coming soon, seeing Dan's message from a couple days back.  I went with the ETHER-C because the only other closed can contender (by my criteria) was the TH-900 which I felt was too bass-heavy.  That said, I do expect the ETHER-C to be light on the bottom end.  I think by 40 Hz they're at -6db vs the open ETHERs....

 
 TH900 not really a contender for closed can because they leak like open cans......Ether C is also very receptive to EQ.

 
 
Yeah, the Amarra EQ is said to be pretty good, too.  I'll probably work with that when the ETHER-Cs arrive.

 

[MiloTx]

   
 
Yeah, the Amarra EQ is said to be pretty good, too.  I'll probably work with that when the ETHER-Cs arrive.

Amarra works it's magic for me, more so when using my solid state amps. However, I find it is not worth the hassle when using toobs. Seems the sound signature and warmth produced by the WA6-SE mimics my EQ adjustment via Amarra through a SS amp. Just my two cents!
 
Love the tuning in Amarra, but I hate the interface when it comes to Amarra for TIDAL. I much prefer TIDAL's native.

 

[Imusicman]

There's been a few mentions of EQing on this thread. I don't understand EQing so I don't use it. Am I missing out with just listening to the music through my headphones without it?

 

[Makiah S]

  Walked in to Audiovision SF to check out the Ether C's today.
Walked out with new Ether C's and a Chord Mojo.
 
I wasted 2 hours comparing them to my HE-560's hoping my brain would recalibrate or find something to even the score more.
The bass worried me at first. Even though it's much less in comparison to the 560's, it's also much more refined. I now hear the 560's as somewhat bloated and a little sloppy. 
I'm having a really hard time taking these off! Delicate and very clear treble. Zero fatigue after several hours. They are extremely well balanced and not even burned in at all but I think I can already sense them relaxing more.
So much detail! I'm definitely noticing things in the music I'd previously not heard on any of my other headphones or speakers.
 
These make me feel like I've got nothing better to do but listen...

oooh that's exciting to hear! The Ether C showing it self a step above the HE 560 

 

[mrspeakers]

There's been a few mentions of EQing on this thread. I don't understand EQing so I don't use it. Am I missing out with just listening to the music through my headphones without it?

In the past EQ was a pretty primitive affair, a cheap box with cheap op amps devices and sliding potentiometers in the signal path, thus garnering a deservedly bad reputation for sound mangling.
 
With DSP-driven EQ, things are different, and the good software (it's not all good) let's you control the EQ with great precision and less loss of resolution.  It's still messing with the signal, so some purists will prefer to not use it, but in many ways, if you pair it with a headphone that has good transient response and low THD you can create a sound signature suited to your taste, or to tame hot recordings, etc.  It's worth noting that headphones interact with your ear, and every ear/ear canal is different, so EQ can also be used to fine tune to your personal auditory profile, as well.  
 
The best digital EQ is found integrated in the software or as plugins for Amara, JRiver, etc, and they allow you to set the center point, how narrow or broad the tuning is (parametric EQ), vs the fixed sliders in iTunes or in some DAPs.  
 
ETHER and ETHER C are fast with low THD so they respond really well to EQ. IMHO it's worth trying, and if you don't like it you turn it off.  

 

[Skyyyeman]

The ETHER C and Mojo are an amazing pair!

Absolutely!!  And wait until both are broken in. You ain't heard nuthin yet.

 

[MattTCG]

 
In the past EQ was a pretty primitive affair, a cheap box with cheap op amps devices and sliding potentiometers in the signal path, thus garnering a deservedly bad reputation for sound mangling.
 
With DSP-driven EQ, things are different, and the good software (it's not all good) let's you control the EQ with great precision and less loss of resolution.  It's still messing with the signal, so some purists will prefer to not use it, but in many ways, if you pair it with a headphone that has good transient response and low THD you can create a sound signature suited to your taste, or to tame hot recordings, etc.  It's worth noting that headphones interact with your ear, and every ear/ear canal is different, so EQ can also be used to fine tune to your personal auditory profile, as well.  
 
The best digital EQ is found integrated in the software or as plugins for Amara, JRiver, etc, and they allow you to set the center point, how narrow or broad the tuning is (parametric EQ), vs the fixed sliders in iTunes or in some DAPs.  
 
ETHER and ETHER C are fast with low THD so they respond really well to EQ. IMHO it's worth trying, and if you don't like it you turn it off.  

 
I guess that I'm more of a purist and want to hear things the way the designer intended. Recent discoveries/advancement in EQ has me somewhat interested again but the price for the good software doesn't come cheap. If there were a 30 trial then I might be game but I'm not shilling out $200 plus if I'm not sure it's something that I'd find meaningful. 

 

[bazelio]

 

   
 
Yeah, the Amarra EQ is said to be pretty good, too.  I'll probably work with that when the ETHER-Cs arrive.

Amarra works it's magic for me, more so when using my solid state amps. However, I find it is not worth the hassle when using toobs. Seems the sound signature and warmth produced by the WA6-SE mimics my EQ adjustment via Amarra through a SS amp. Just my two cents!
 
Love the tuning in Amarra, but I hate the interface when it comes to Amarra for TIDAL. I much prefer TIDAL's native.

 
Heh, yep, I agree.  The Amarra interface is crap.  But the TIDAL native app doesn't have EQ, nor does it bypass the Mac's native sound processing....  So I live with the Amarra.

 

[Allanmarcus]

 

 
In the past EQ was a pretty primitive affair, a cheap box with cheap op amps devices and sliding potentiometers in the signal path, thus garnering a deservedly bad reputation for sound mangling.
 
With DSP-driven EQ, things are different, and the good software (it's not all good) let's you control the EQ with great precision and less loss of resolution.  It's still messing with the signal, so some purists will prefer to not use it, but in many ways, if you pair it with a headphone that has good transient response and low THD you can create a sound signature suited to your taste, or to tame hot recordings, etc.  It's worth noting that headphones interact with your ear, and every ear/ear canal is different, so EQ can also be used to fine tune to your personal auditory profile, as well.  
 
The best digital EQ is found integrated in the software or as plugins for Amara, JRiver, etc, and they allow you to set the center point, how narrow or broad the tuning is (parametric EQ), vs the fixed sliders in iTunes or in some DAPs.  
 
ETHER and ETHER C are fast with low THD so they respond really well to EQ. IMHO it's worth trying, and if you don't like it you turn it off.  

 
I guess that I'm more of a purist and want to hear things the way the designer intended. Recent discoveries/advancement in EQ has me somewhat interested again but the price for the good software doesn't come cheap. If there were a 30 trial then I might be game but I'm not shilling out $200 plus if I'm not sure it's something that I'd find meaningful. 

 
That's a very simplistic view. Since there is not companion amp, dac, and source for the Ether C, you are forced to build a system that will color the sound. Also, you are listen on headphone that were neither created by nor calibrated by the original sound engineers or the music distribution company. I suppose you could get all Sony gear and only listen to Sony produced music, but even then you would not know which sony product the sound was calibrated for.
 
Music is produced to be enjoyed. If EQ helps one enjoy the music, then there is nothing "unpure" about using it. Also, what if your equipment doesn't produce the bass/mid/treble the "designer" intended? Only EQ or other equipment can resolve that.
 
Nothing wrong with EQ. Nothing wrong with putting together a system with components from different manufacturer's to produce a sound, looks, and experience that you enjoy.
 
Very few headphones produce a really flat sound and still sound good. The PMx2 might be the exception, but they are open. I'm not sure there is a really flat set of closed cans.

 

[Makiah S]

 
In the past EQ was a pretty primitive affair, a cheap box with cheap op amps devices and sliding potentiometers in the signal path, thus garnering a deservedly bad reputation for sound mangling.
 
With DSP-driven EQ, things are different, and the good software (it's not all good) let's you control the EQ with great precision and less loss of resolution.  It's still messing with the signal, so some purists will prefer to not use it, but in many ways, if you pair it with a headphone that has good transient response and low THD you can create a sound signature suited to your taste, or to tame hot recordings, etc.  It's worth noting that headphones interact with your ear, and every ear/ear canal is different, so EQ can also be used to fine tune to your personal auditory profile, as well.  
 
The best digital EQ is found integrated in the software or as plugins for Amara, JRiver, etc, and they allow you to set the center point, how narrow or broad the tuning is (parametric EQ), vs the fixed sliders in iTunes or in some DAPs.  
 
ETHER and ETHER C are fast with low THD so they respond really well to EQ. IMHO it's worth trying, and if you don't like it you turn it off.  

 
 

   
I guess that I'm more of a purist and want to hear things the way the designer intended. Recent discoveries/advancement in EQ has me somewhat interested again but the price for the good software doesn't come cheap. If there were a 30 trial then I might be game but I'm not shilling out $200 plus if I'm not sure it's something that I'd find meaningful. 

I agree, it's a shame I've had great fun using the Parametric EQ in Neutron Audio, I'd love to see them work a Desktop verision of their software with windows compatability, otherwise I'm lucky enough to have a copy of jRiver. Though frankly I never use it,  FooBar has some Parametric EQ Plugins however 

 

[inthere]

  I agree, it's a shame I've had great fun using the Parametric EQ in Neutron Audio, I'd love to see them work a Desktop verision of their software with windows compatability, otherwise I'm lucky enough to have a copy of jRiver. Though frankly I never use it,  FooBar has some Parametric EQ Plugins however 

 
 
 Foobar also has a spectrum analyzer that can show you the frequency response of each song and you can calibrate your headphones for a flat signature once you know exactly how much things are boosted/recessed.