[Ableza]

Unboxing complaints?  Geez, give me good gear in a plastic bag and I'm happy.  The boxes go to the recycling center.

 

[inthere]

Damn, I loved the Ether C box, great to put the cans in overnight when you're burning them in, muffles a huge amount of sound. Also came with  
a great case-which my Audeze EL-8 didn't. 

 

[westermac]

  The Bad
1. For $1,500 I would have expected a much better unboxing experience. The packaging materials as compared to the Audeze EL-8 are grossly inferior which is about 1/2 the price. 

 
Personally I see this as a positive. $X.XX of your purchase of the EL-8 went into fancy packaging, whereas with the Ether C that money went into the headphones, which is something you actually use.

 

[TonyNewman]

I think that the Ether C needs careful pairing to sound its best. Not quite as picky as the HD800, but there can be similar issues around tonality. This is a very neutral headphone (like the HD800) - pair it with a neutral or neutral-bright amp and you can get a outcome that is unpleasant.
 
I wasn't a huge fan of the Ether C 1.0 with my Auralic Taurus. Bright and a little thin - not my cup of tea.
 
Pairing the Ether C 1.1 with my V281 is a very different experience. The V281 is a neutral-warm amp and it pairs nicely with the Ether C 1.1 (as well as the HD800S).

 

[westermac]

Lol the Ether C isn't neutral and the HD800 is faaaar from neutral.

People have different ears, bro. Do tell us what is the end-all, be-all definitive epitome of neutrality though.

 

[TonyNewman]

Lol the Ether C isn't neutral and the HD800 is faaaar from neutral.

 
It's all about perception. To my ears they are both neutral (I would call the HD800S neutral and the HD800C neutral-bright, but that is hair splitting).
 
My point is that the Ether C (and HD800C/S) can benefit from pairing with a warmish amp, like the V281.
 
YMMV (as always).

 

[westermac]

If they have to benefit from a warm amp then that's not neutral. Rolled bass and boosted treble is not neutrality. The HD800 and ether C alters how the recording was made so that's not what neutral is. Too many people think neutral is a cold, bright headphone and that's not true.

Every headphone (and by extension, loudspeaker) alters how the recordings sound.
 
Whether or not a headphone benefits from a warmer amp (i.e. increased midbass and lower mids) speaks to preference, not lack of neutrality. Many people love the V200 with the LCD-2, a warm amp with a warm headphone.
 
With a few exceptions, the vast majority of consumer-facing headphones and speakers (read: HiFi) are tuned with a midbass hump, because as it turns out, people really like midbass humps! If you ever have the opportunity to go to the control room of an established recording studio and listen, you will find that hump isn't present (which many people would interpret as 'cold'). Mixing on warm monitors compromises an engineers ability to accurately make adjustments to the mix, which is why most professional monitors aren't all that enjoyable to casually listen to. There is of course some variance in sound signatures, which is why engineers prefer certain makes/monitors over others. So even in the professional world then, where the music we listen to is made, 'neutral' is a moving target, not a fixed quantity.
 
If neutrality is a matter of perception in the world of trained professionals, then it is certainly a matter of perception in the world of HiFi enthusiasts. So unless you happen to be an audio engineer, please refrain from crapping on other people's perceptions of neutral.

 

[TonyNewman]

If they have to benefit from a warm amp then that's not neutral. Rolled bass and boosted treble is not neutrality. The HD800 and ether C alters how the recording was made so that's not what neutral is. Too many people think neutral is a cold, bright headphone and that's not true.

 
Again - perception - and everyone has a different one.
 
I find the entire LCD range from Audeze to have over-emphasized bass and strangled treble, to the point where they sound unnatural and veiled and lacking in detail to my ears. Other folks love them.

 

[MrSpeakersPeter]

 

 

[TonyNewman]

  That's because you are used to rolled off bass and a boosted treble. The bass is dead in line with the mids on the LCD-2. Treble is slightly dark, I agree but it's closer to neutral than the C or HD800.

 
And that leads us back to personal preferences. I like 'neutral' (what I call neutral anyway) headphones - like the modded HE6 / HD800S / Ether C paired with an warmish amp like the V281.
 
I have tried going the other way - LCD-X paired with Auralic Taurus, for example, and it wasn't my thing at all.
 
As always, YMMV.

 

[mrspeakers]

Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who...
 

 

[Skyyyeman]

  So I've had my Ether C for about a week now, and just wanted to share a few impressions...
 
The backstory is that I've had a Liquid Carbon + LCD-X as my work setup, which has been fantastic save for the fact that open cans in my workspace hasn't been a great fit (Coworkers disrupting my music and vise-versa, so I have to listen at pretty low level. This makes the ambient noise issue even worse and the LCD-X just BEGS to be cranked up. Listening to the X at low levels is like driving a GTO in a 25mph zone...)
 
I've already tried the LCD-XC and wasn't keen on the extra weight and 3-5k peekyness. All of this led me to order the Ether C, which I had correctly been told is a completely different animal than the LCD-X... Here is my comparison between the two:
 
LCD-X Bass: Thunderous. Needs no introduction. The X low end gives such a tremendous weight to music, at the expense of being a bit overbearing at times. 
Ether C Bass: All about that sub bass. The Ether C comes across rather lean in the mid bass region compared to the X; though what it lacks in quantity it makes up for in control, and can take EQ like a champ to rival the X's bass presence, all while keeping things a bit tighter.
 
LCD-X Mids: Lush, euphonic lower mids and recessed upper mids give the X easily the most pleasant and inoffensive midrange I have ever heard. It does wonders to instrumentation of any kind, at the expense of vocals (particularly male) coming across a bit recessed.
Ether C Mids: Unapologetically more mid-forward. Vocals are pushed right up to the font, electric guitars cut through and drums crack. This combined with (imo) better imaging chops than the X makes for a very involving and exciting performance (without the harsh peakyness of the XC).
 
LCD-X Treble: The X has a nice "sparkly" treble that adds a shimmer to recordings, without coming across sibilant. There is a bit of an emphasis on the 10k region which helps bring out the little details (string plucks, light cymbal taps) very nicely.
Ether-C Treble: The Ether C's treble strikes me as being more elevated and linear than the X, and seems to give a more complete picture without emphasizing or reducing any particular band. Again this adds to the Ether C's more involving (and I would say) analytical sound.
I've always avoided brighter headphones like the plague since any peaks at this level make me wince and ruins the experience. The Ether C is the without a doubt the brightest headphone that I've ever enjoyed, since it is able to execute this area smoothly.
 
LCD-X Soundstage: The LCD-X has a very spacious, concert hall-esqe soundstage (Specifically the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam if anyone else has messed around with IR reverb) tons of depth and width. It's a very laid-back and relaxing experience.
Ether C Soundstage: Clearly we are comparing open and closed cans here, so the Ether C cannot match the X in terms of soundstage width, but in depth and imaging the Ether C wins. Whereas the X paints a complete picture of how all the instruments are working together, the Ether C pulls you up onto the stage and lets you observe and listen to each one. Really cool.
Long story short, these are both excellent headphones which are quite different from one another. My dilemma is that I can only afford to keep one 

Every time I put the Ether C on my head I am struck by its crystal clear, exciting presentation and razor sharp imaging; and while I do miss some of the mid-bass of the X a bit of EQ can remedy that. Then I put the LCD-X on my head and it's like I've entered a concert hall and all the instruments have grown by ten feet, and I can feel the lush lower midrange beckoning me back into Audeze's dark lair...
 
Subjectively, it's impossible to choose: they're both too good. Objectively, I need a closed can; and while the X delivers euphony by the boatload I also depend on my headphones for audio correction/mixing, and the Ether C I think is more trustworthy in this regard, lacking the (admittedly tasty) areas of emphasis and reduction in the LCD-X.
 
I've been avoiding this decision in my mind, but it's probably time I begin saying goodbye to my LCD-X. It's been a dear friend, but all good things must come to an end. When I feel like crying, I will put on the Ether C, and be taken back into the music 

 

 
Basically agree with your excellent characterizations. But the deciding factors in favor of the Ether C for me were (1) far more detail in the C, to the point where the old cliches that "I heard things in the song that I never heard before" and "It was like hearing the song for the first time" were very very true. I must have listened to nearly my whole collection all over again because I heard so much more with the C than the LCD-X, (2) the fact that EQ can make a world of difference and the C responds extremely well to changes in EQ, remedying any perceived deficiencies, (3) the speed of the C made the LCD-X and LCD-XC sound plodding and slow by comparison, 4) the C, while closed, sounded to me, after some mental adjustment, to sound just about as spacious as the Audezes, and (5) after listening over a period of time, the Audeze phones sound just too bass heavy and colored.
 
And, yes, I loved the Audeze phones and the richness and delicious bass but I realized it was time to move on and sold my LCD-X and LCD-XC.  And I haven't regretted my decision.  Hope this helps.

 

[Skyyyeman]

   
Basically agree with your excellent characterizations. But the deciding factors in favor of the Ether C for me were (1) far more detail in the C, to the point where the old cliches that "I heard things in the song that I never heard before" and "It was like hearing the song for the first time" were very very true. I must have listened to nearly my whole collection all over again because I heard so much more with the C than the LCD-X, (2) the fact that EQ can make a world of difference and the C responds extremely well to changes in EQ, remedying any perceived deficiencies, (3) the speed of the C made the LCD-X and LCD-XC sound plodding and slow by comparison, 4) the C, while closed, sounded to me, after some mental adjustment, to sound just about as spacious as the Audezes, and (5) after listening over a period of time, the Audeze phones sound just too bass heavy and colored.
 
And, yes, I loved the Audeze phones and the richness and delicious bass but I realized it was time to move on and sold my LCD-X and LCD-XC.  And I haven't regretted my decision.  Hope this helps.

Sorry but let me also add that, aside from sound, weight and comfort were factors too. Strangely, the LCD-XC gave me quite a neck strain after falling asleep at an angle with it one time. Took awhile to recover.  By contrast, the C is just so comfortable and light that I never have problems.

 

[Maelob]

I think the LCD-X can really depend because it's so inconsistent in terms of drivers. I'm not disputing what you like, just that neutral doesn't mean what some people think it means.

I believe neutral refer to linear freq response per harman freq curve blah blah blah- show me the graphic- however a lot of people say that type of response is boring others like it. Dont get hung up with the "neutral" term

 

[parkman]

Every headphone (and by extension, loudspeaker) alters how the recordings sound.

Whether or not a headphone benefits from a warmer amp (i.e. increased midbass and lower mids) speaks to preference, not lack of neutrality. Many people love the V200 with the LCD-2, a warm amp with a warm headphone.

With a few exceptions, the vast majority of consumer-facing headphones and speakers (read: HiFi) are tuned with a midbass hump, because as it turns out, people really like midbass humps! If you ever have the opportunity to go to the control room of an established recording studio and listen, you will find that hump isn't present (which many people would interpret as 'cold'). Mixing on warm monitors compromises an engineers ability to accurately make adjustments to the mix, which is why most professional monitors aren't all that enjoyable to casually listen to. There is of course some variance in sound signatures, which is why engineers prefer certain makes/monitors over others. So even in the professional world then, where the music we listen to is made, 'neutral' is a moving target, not a fixed quantity.

If neutrality is a matter of perception in the world of trained professionals, then it is certainly a matter of perception in the world of HiFi enthusiasts. So unless you happen to be an audio engineer, please refrain from crapping on other people's perceptions of neutral.

Just want to chime in here and say speakers actually can be neutral. By nature of the way they are measured relative to the way we hear, and with room correction you can measure to verify. Still though, a flat frequency response still might not sound very good to one person compared to another because of different ears. I think part of the reason can be age too, I can hear 18khz quite well, which might mean at 20 years old, that I'm a little more sensitive to higher frequencies. I loved the LCD-X and thought they had near perfect treble, and my dad on the other hand loooooved the HD800, but to me although I respected the HD800, I didn't enjoy it because of ear fatigue due to the brightness.