[pila405]

This is a plot of old pads vs new pads on the C Flow 1.1 with no tuning materials added. The increase in bass is substantial. Red = new pads Teal = original pads




The effect is similar on ETHER Flow.

@mrspeakers , this "old vs new" means the exact same pads, but just with the usual deterioration over time? Or does it mean the same angled ear pads, but with the new, stiffer, foam?
Are these the new pads (ETHER flow angled ear pads):
https://danclarkaudio.com/catalog/product/view/id/27/s/ether-c-angled-ear-pads/category/83/

Thanks!

 

[pila405]

This is a plot of old pads vs new pads on the C Flow 1.1 with no tuning materials added. The increase in bass is substantial. Red = new pads Teal = original pads




The effect is similar on ETHER Flow.

Do you remember whether the units only differed in the pads or whether there was something else too, like the stickers which cover part of the holes in the cups?

And in Jude's measurements of the original vs. 1.1, is it with the new, firmer, ear pads?

 

[Drewligarchy]

I just ordered the Ether C Flow 1.1, and I am curious as to others impressions vs other Mr Speakers / DCA headphones. I needed closed back for my use case, however. I have the original AFC and AFO, and I prefer the AFC significantly. It's my least expensive headphone and my favorite closed back I've owned (compared to LCD XC and Fostex TH900). The mids on the AFC, while recessed are just incredibly unique - and the presentation of vocals, in conjunction with the highs (especially female) is addicting. I never really fell in love with the AFO. Initially I found the AFC a little bass light, but after some head time - the bass response worked quite well with the overall headphones. That said, when purchasing them, I demoed what I think were the original Ether C Flows as well in store (though only about 5 minutes a piece). In that short time the main difference I could discern was more perceived bass on the Ethers. At the time I bought the Aeons because they were cheaper and it was my first Mr Speakers, but I always really wanted an Ether C variant because the sound seemed improved from my short demo ( though not night and day, certainly diminishing returns are in play), and I love the look, feel and the comfort.

Since owning the AFC, I have found they pair exceptionally well with chord gear, especially the Hugo 2 - It's a great synergy. In fact, Rob Watts, the genius behind Chord's, DACs uses the AFC. I am hoping the Ether C Flow 1.1 have a similar synergy. I have met Dan a few times at shows and have always found him to be an incredibly nice guy, and willing to talk headphones for as long as you want to. He's also a bit of a tinkerer and workaholic - which is generally a good thing, but there are so many DCA closed revisions it's hard to know if I made the right choice. There was the Ether C, the Ether C 1.1., the Ether C flow, the Ether C flow 1.1 the AFC and the AFC 2 (as well as the Ether CX which is, from reading impressions, the main headphone I am concerned I should have gotten instead of the Ether C flow 1.1) I am not concerned about the price difference, just preference. I mean, sure, who doesn't prefer to pay less - but given how I am using them, even if the Ether C Flow 1.1 were 5% better for my preference, I'd prefer them.

While I have a big headphone rig downstairs, these are mainly my bedroom headphones paired with a Chord Hugo 2 / and Chord 2Go. Therefore I am looking for a relatively laid back, relaxing presentation - but not too laid back. Right now the AFC have that duty. I welcome more detail and soundstage, my main concern is about the 6k peak and whether these will be "relaxing" similar to the AFC. I like dynamics as much as the next guy, but it isn't a primary concern because of how they will be used (in bed, while drifting off to sleep - and closed so the only thing my wife can hear is me snore

I'm going to get them soon, so I'll know the answer after some head time - but I'm curious as to feedback from the community regarding these vs the other closed DCA headphones. It's fine to tell me what you like, just tell me why - so I can see if it's what I like. Also welcomed - if you think I will like the Ether C Flow 1.1 based on what I've described.

 

[earnmyturns]

these are mainly my bedroom headphones paired with a Chord Hugo 2 / and Chord 2Go. Therefore I am looking for a relatively laid back, relaxing presentation - but not too laid back

I own Ether C Flow 1.1 and Hugo 2 (among a bunch of other gear). I'd not call the combo laid back: it hits hard and the upper-mids/highs are on the hard-edged side, although not harsh in any way.

 

[Alcophone]

I just ordered the Ether C Flow 1.1, and I am curious as to others impressions vs other Mr Speakers / DCA headphones.

My experience roughly echoes yours, the original AFC are a baby Ether, with the EFC having more bass extension and more bass (since I never owner the AFC I can't say much more). I would have liked the AFC as well, but prefer the EFC, while the AFO to me had recessed mids and I did not like them when I auditioned them. I also have the EFO and like them a lot, but the EFC makes me smile more often.
Note that I bought the EFC 1.0, then Dan applied the 1.1 tuning kit, then I bought new pads, then I removed the tuning stickers on the bass port and looooved the increase in bass (due to the newer pads, the result is probably a tad more bassy than the 1.0 were). So you have some options in that regard. I also prefer the DUM cable over the VIVO somehow, but I like my Lavricables Grand 20 Silver cable even more.

The Ether series is big and not super light, which I suspect you will notice in bed. The AFC might work better there in terms of comfort as they are less likely to touch your mattress or shift due to weight. The hinge design on the newer model may change that.

That said, I did watch a whole movie in bed last night, with a projector lighting up my ceiling, and the EFC did a great job - I didn't even miss my subwoofer. I do wish it had a giant sound stage like the HD800 does, but you can't have everything, I suppose.

 

[Drewligarchy]

My experience roughly echoes yours, the original AFC are a baby Ether, with the EFC having more bass extension and more bass (since I never owner the AFC I can't say much more). I would have liked the AFC as well, but prefer the EFC, while the AFO to me had recessed mids and I did not like them when I auditioned them. I also have the EFO and like them a lot, but the EFC makes me smile more often.
Note that I bought the EFC 1.0, then Dan applied the 1.1 tuning kit, then I bought new pads, then I removed the tuning stickers on the bass port and looooved the increase in bass (due to the newer pads, the result is probably a tad more bassy than the 1.0 were). So you have some options in that regard. I also prefer the DUM cable over the VIVO somehow, but I like my Lavricables Grand 20 Silver cable even more.

The Ether series is big and not super light, which I suspect you will notice in bed. The AFC might work better there in terms of comfort as they are less likely to touch your mattress or shift due to weight. The hinge design on the newer model may change that.

That said, I did watch a whole movie in bed last night, with a projector lighting up my ceiling, and the EFC did a great job - I didn't even miss my subwoofer. I do wish it had a giant sound stage like the HD800 does, but you can't have everything, I suppose.

Thanks for this. It seems we have similar tastes. Not really concerned about the EFC in bed, as I used the LCD XC in bed for a long time - with audeze’s original headband.

 

[Drewligarchy]

I got my EFC 1.1 today, which was an upgrade to my AFC — for bedroom listening out of my 2go/hugo2.

I can already tell it’s exactly what I wanted. Basically, I can’t imagine anyone liking the AFC and not liking the EFC. Just sort of more of everything: soundstage, bass, resolution - with an overall timbre/tone that is very similar to the AFC.

I have a couple nitpicks here and there. Namely, it seems like the treble peak is slightly more apparent than in the AFC (I am not using any pads yet, until I have the chance to listen for a week or so), but really not bad and they haven’t broken in at all. Also, while the imaging is much better and the soundstage is bigger - instruments feel slightly less “solid”, mostly because the AFC soundstage is more compressed. It’s much easier to hear where instruments are though, and this is a trade off I’d definitely take. Overall, though - it surpassed my expectations, mainly because of some negative reviews. The AFC is definitely a baby ether. It’s the same house sound.

Also, I received the EFC right after putting on new pads on my lcd 4, and then listening to them out of my big system (Dave/MScaler>Woo Wa33) and didn’t feel like I was missing out at all. I love the LCD 4, but Dan’s headphones have a character of their own that I just appreciate.

I then proceeded to listen to Morph The Cat and doze off for 45 minutes.

 

[Alcophone]

they haven’t broken in at all.

Definitely give them some time, mine sounded grainy for the first 200 hours or so. I let them play 24/7 initially to get that over with quickly.

Glad you like them already, though!

 

[Drewligarchy]

Definitely give them some time, mine sounded grainy for the first 200 hours or so. I let them play 24/7 initially to get that over with quickly.

Glad you like them already, though!

These are great headphones. Frankly I don’t know how anyone doesn’t like them. Sure they aren’t perfect but, nothing is and they are also a closed back.

I’ve been in this hobby for 10 years and I currently have mainly been listening to my Susvara, Abyss TC, and LCD 4. It’s no coincidence that I have gravitated to planars.

I had a Stax 009/007 for many years which I quite liked, on a KGSSHV Carbon, but ultimately felt planars had the benefits of stats while sounding more natural so I sold that setup to help fund Abyss/Woo Wa33 at the time.

Ive listened to pretty much everything except the ZMF line, but dynamic headphones don’t really do it for me. I have a Focal Clear and HD600 both of which I enjoy, but I haven’t held onto any other dynamics. Sold Utopia, Sold HD800, Sold Fostex TH900.

While I’m not going to say they beat out the Abyss (my favorite), Susvara and LCD 4 they hold their own damn well. And I like them way more than any headphones I’ve sold except the 009 (but it’s actually pretty close).

Having these headphones and being in the hobby for a while doesn’t make me an expert on anything. Just one man’s opinion. That said, I don’t think they are overpriced at all - and I don’t understand why these are polarizing at all. I should stay away from Reddit.

I shouldn’t have waited so long to get these and new isn’t necessarily better. These are damn good headphones. Lots of people said the AFC was just as good, but they aren’t. That held me off unnecessarily. I love the AFC but there is a reason they are half the price of these.

 

[Drewligarchy]

I am ranting now, but I can't tell you how much I love these headphones (Ether C Flow 1.1). It's sent me in a spiral to upgrade my other gear, not particularly for the Ether C flow (they really sound great off of any of my amps/dacs), but so I can get my other headphones to have a similar tonality. The LCD 4 is there, but my Abyss and Susvara sound a little dry in comparison. While they are technically better I am craving the tonality of these the most right now.

Does the Ether 2 sound anything like this? I may have to get them if they do.

 

[pila405]

What makes you think that the Abyss are "technically better"? It is highly problematic in technical terms - from the heaps distortion to the weird frequency response...

 

[vonBaron]

LOL Ether Flow ale not near nowhere vs 1266.

 

[Drewligarchy]

What makes you think that the Abyss are "technically better"? It is highly problematic in technical terms - from the heaps distortion to the weird frequency response...

Have you actually listened to the Abyss? Didn't think so.

 

[pila405]

I admit I didn't, but you don't have to listen in order to know of severe deficiencies which were measured using a credible system.
Just like I don't have to see a picture from a monitor if I saw a measurement of white balance showing it was completely off and had too much green, for example. The physics behind it is the very same. I heard many headphones and know how the measurements correlate.

 

[pila405]

Does anyone know what were the conditions in Jude's original measurements in the first post? (90db @ 1kHz? 100db?)