[x RELIC x]

Nah... Can't be. Any undesirable effect? Bass bleed into the mid? Ether C already have reputation for recessed mid, hopefully these adapter will improve it too along with the bass.

Adding pads won't fundamentally change the transducers frequency response to add any bass bleed in to the mids. Where do you get a reputation for recessed mids?

 

[Ableza]

Must be a "reputation for recessed mids" from a user with damaged midrange hearing.  No such effect when I use Ether-C.

 

[Khragon]

There are a number of impressions/comparisons that I've read mentioned that the mid is thinner compared to the open model. I can't find them now, but if I run into those again I'll post them here.

 

[Synergist969]

For the record...

 

Hello ALL:
 
    Regarding the relatively inconsistent and/or contradictory statements regarding the perceived sonic qualities of the Ether C's...
 
  I received my Ether C's a couple of weeks ago...and initially, (feeding them with a Schiit Audio Yggdrasil D/A signal converted signal, the phones driven by a Schiit Audio Ragnarok, balanced signal/connections), I found them to be somewhat thin in the mid-range, and relatively light in the bass regions.  I also noted that the quality of both the bass and the treble was superb, the bass with great speed/impact, detail and texture, and the treble detailed and airy, without being strident or fatiguing...Please understand, my reference points were the Sennheiser HD-650's, (until about 8 months ago), and then the Audeze LCD-2.2's, (pre-fazor), so that I had come to expect a relatively lush bass and lower to mid-mid-range...However, I was not terribly enamored with that mid-range...still a touch threadbare relative to MY personal preferences...(being a former French Horn player, I like to hear that lush horn timbre)...
 
  So I elected to break the "C's" with pipe organ music...with limited effect after roughly a week at somewhat higher than normal listening levels...but then switched to Dub-step to utilize its more "insistent" low bass, and for the last couple of days, at significantly higher than normal listening levels...et voila...NOW the "C's" are beginning to come into their own...Now, the mid-range is still not quite so lush as with the HD-650's, or the "ever present" deep bass weight of the LCD 2.2's, however I recognize that these are voiced differently, and therefor the "C's" sonic qualities work wonderfully as an integrated whole...
 
  I DO wonder how one might determine what is the highest "safe" level at which they can be driven, (at what frequencies), in order to "optimally" break them in, and what, if any additional sonic changes/improvements I might experience.  
 
  Yes, everyone's perception/expectations differ to some degree...however, I am interested in hearing about others' experiences regarding break-in of these cans...

 

[NZtechfreak]

There are a number of impressions/comparisons that I've read mentioned that the mid is thinner compared to the open model. I can't find them now, but if I run into those again I'll post them here.

Thin does not equal recessed.

 

[buke9]

  I've been using the kit this afternoon. IMO it's pretty monumental to be tweak the frequency on a true flagship. Does it really work? Heck yeah!! I've been rocking a single black on each side. It sounds too damn good to change right now. Remember that other worldly bass from the lcd2 pre-fazor...

...yummy. 

Are these like the Dogie Treats or something different?  

 

[mrspeakers]

Are these like the Dogie Treats or something different?  

These are different. First, you don't need to remove your pad to install them. Second they cover the entire surface area of the driver, so installation simple and results are entirely predictable. Finally, know what he said is needed on the parts so they can be inserted and removed as often as desired without loss of function.

 

[buke9]

These are different. First, you don't need to remove your pad to install them. Second they cover the entire surface area of the driver, so installation simple and results are entirely predictable. Finally, know what he said is needed on the parts so they can be inserted and removed as often as desired without loss of function.

So this in addition to the felt over the drivers then? 

 

[MrBucket]

Yeah you fit it under the pad but over that.  

 

[czy6412]

For the battle of best closed cans. How does Ether C comparing to Ultrasone Edition 5 or Edition 5 Unlimited

 

[goodyfresh]

I got to listen to these at a meet yesterday and I have to say. . .WOW, just wow, guys.  The Ether C sound SUBLIME, not just "for closed-back headphones," but really as far as ANY headphones go.  Everything about them ticks ALL of my boxes, and I have decided unequivocably that they will be my "endgame" headphones someday once I have that kind of money on-hand.

 

[buke9]

  I got to listen to these at a meet yesterday and I have to say. . .WOW, just wow, guys.  The Ether C sound SUBLIME, not just "for closed-back headphones," but really as far as ANY headphones go.  Everything about them ticks ALL of my boxes, and I have decided unequivocably that they will be my "endgame" headphones someday once I have that kind of money on-hand.

Yes they are that good.

 

[goodyfresh]

  Yes they are that good.

One thing I really loved, which of course is to-be-expected from any really good planar-magnetic/ortho headphones, is the linearity of the bass-response.  But what really impressed me was how the overall super-neutral signature still allowed the bass to be REALLY PUNCHY and really powerful and visceral when a track calls for it.  Basically, they seem to work PERFECTLY for ANY music, as they reproduce the music PRECISELY as it was intended to be heard during the mastering stage.  At the same time, the low-treble/upper-mids don't seem to get fatiguing, which is often a big problem for me with many headphones.  Very impressive!
 
Oh, and the soundstage and imaging, of course. . .holy crap, guys.  Some mindblowing stuff right there.
 
One thing that REALLY surprised me is that comparing them side-by-side with the original open-backed Ether, to my ears the soundstage and imaging really seemed HARDLY inferior at all, to the point that any lessening of the soundstage between the open and closed versions is barely noticable.  Moreover, they do a better job in just about all areas than other open-backed high-end planars that were at the meet from companies like HiFiMan.

Their soundstage honestly shocked me, given the extremely good level of isolation that they also provide.

Then, of course, there's the comfort.  Despite them being a tad bit on the heavy side, I honestly didn't even notice them sitting over my ears once I got into the music.

By the way, the guys from Mr. Speakers had a Questyle QP1R DAP with them there as a source (as well as an Yggdrasil/Mjolnir Schiitstack, VERY NICE!), and I thought all you current Ether C owners on here should be made aware that the Ether C as well as the original open Ether both synergize WONDERFULLY with the QP1R straight from the headphone jack with no outside amp, like a match made in heaven.  The clarity and transparency and just overall detail-resolution of the QP1R+Ether combo is simply out of this world.

If there's one thing I could say is absolutely terrible about the Ether and Ether C (especially paired with the QP1R), it's that I feel like I've been RUINED now for all other, lower-end headphones and DAP's on the market today

  Now I sit back at home listening to my humdrum pairing of a Fiio X3ii with some Trinity Delta IEM's or some Sony MDR-100AAP's (granted, both of those are excellent for their price) and can't help simply lamenting my meager finances, lmao.

 

[x RELIC x]

goodyfresh, damn you. I've been looking at the QP1R for some time now (well, since it was announced), and I don't think your impressions are helping my wallet! How would you say the bass response of the ETHER C was from the QP1R vs the other sources? All I ever read is the detail and clarity, but does it cleanly render the lows as well?

 

[Jodet]

@goodyfresh, damn you. I've been looking at the QP1R for some time now (well, since it was announced), and I don't think your impressions are helping my wallet! How would you say the bass response of the ETHER C was from the QP1R vs the other sources? All I ever read is the detail and clarity, but does it cleanly render the lows as well?

 
I listen strictly at home and have never had ANY interest in a DAP, EVER.   But your post has me thinking, gee, might be fun to have a DAP rather than a rack full of gear. 
 
Sure, I have to hassle with ripping cd's and putting them on my hard driver and transferring them to the DAP. 
 
But it might be fun to just listen to my cans on the sofa, in bed, my favorite chair, wherever.   Seriously thinking about that QP1R now.