I've taken to wearing my Ethers around the house as I do stuff, because I don't like having to take them off when not at my desk:
I love how they just...disappear. One of the early reviews was by this guy, forget his name, who posted a long video and text impressions that both praised the Ethers for their incredible sound quality, but also accused them of representing everything wrong with the headphone world because they were too neutral. Now that I've spent some serious time with them, I actually understand this point of view. They are very neutral, though definitely on the friendly side of analytical, and I can see how someone would want some more character from their hps.
I do not. I love how they get out of the way of the music, while still pumping sounds so pure and beautiful into my brain that sometimes I have to just stop and say, "Damn!"
"From the office to the bedroom"? My god, how loud do you listen?
I've asked my wife and kids if the Ethers bug them sitting right next to me, and they say they can barely hear it.
I just listened to them for most of a flight from California to Japan, and cranked up to drown out the noise of the engines. Of course, most other people were listening to headphones anyway, but hardly everyone.....
the way I drive it it's like speakers on my head with the wife across the room. She at least keeps saying she doesn't care tho; cares more about what I'm doing to my already affected ears ... 25th yr wedding anniversary just passed.
Money4me247's Ether Review Addendum
Rest of the review found HERE.
Direct Comparisons:
*******Important Notes*******
There are just some subtle differences between competitors that will really depend on personal preference. Differences written about sound often reads to be more dramatic than the differences heard in real-life (just the nature of writing really detailed comparisons over subtle variations). I would strongly caution against making any snap judgements without a personal audition as people do have different sensitivities to different sonic attributes.
Please remember these are my own personal subjective impressions. YMMV!!!
*****Reiteration of my Usual Measurement Disclaimer*****
Measurements only done after sonic impression notes were written.
Measurement chain: PC with Windows 10 > ARTA Generates Sine Sweeps > Steinberg UR-22 USB Interface with Yamaha ASIO > Line Out > Oppo HA-2 Amplifier > headphones placed upon my own head (left ear being measured) > Pannasonic WM61-A Microphone > Steinberg UR-22 > PC > ARTA analysis
I used a Panasonic WM61-A microphone in my measurement set-up. The WM61-A does actually measure very flat until the upper treble range when calibrated. Its unequalized response should be flat within +/- 1.5 dB to 20 kHz. Frequency response curves are smoothed to 1/24 octave.
The dip occurring at approximately the 6 kHz region is an artifact from the interaction from the mic placement with the shape of the ear folds. This artifact appears in all my measured frequency response curves via my current personal measurement set-up.
You can NOT directly compare my personal measurements to other frequency response curves made by other people!!! There will be inherent discrepancies due to differences in measurement set-up, so comparing measurements from different sources is not reliable!!
For frequency response curve comparisons, I would recommend Tyll’s extensive database. Tyll's Ether measurements HERE. Full list of all his headphone measurements found HERE. (credit: Tyll Hertsens at Innerfidelity)
Reference HERE for frequency response correlations to instruments and audiophile terms. (credit: Independent Recording Network)
I am not a professional, so my personal measurements may not be as accurate as other sources. May update measurements as I run more trials. Any feedback or suggestions for improvement appreciated. Please let me know if you spot any errors.
*********************************
Against the Oppo PM-3:(closed portable planar magnetic at $399)
Sound Quality: The Ether easily beats the PM-3 on soundstage, but the PM-3 stays more competitive with imaging. The Ether does present better pinpoint imaging than the PM-3. Speed is a touch faster on the Ether while a bit of additional warmth and smoothness on the PM-3 gives the PM-3 a more liquid presentation. The smooth attack of the PM-3 is closely mirrored by the Ether, but the PM-3 does have a relatively harder-hitting attack. The PM-3 gives the perception of longer decay times than the Ether. The subtle thickness underlying notes of the PM-3 also appears on the Ether, but to a lesser extent on the Ether. Detail resolution of the PM-3 is quite exceptional for a closed portable, but it is hard for closed portables to compete with open flagships in this area.
Sound Signature: These headphones share a lot of similarities in their treble tuning. Both have a delicate, smooth, and sweet treble presentation, though the Ether does have better treble extension in relative comparison for an airier sound. Mid-range of both headphones sound exceptionally well-done to my ears, though I can see the Ether likely having a subtly evener midrange with a more distant presence region. The PM-3 does sound more intimate in relative comparison for a emphasis over the Ether in that region. The PM-3 does have an additional sense of warmth in relative comparison to the Ether and more sub-bass presence, giving its notes a stronger slam and impact with some additional richness to the texture. The PM-3’s stronger sub-bass presence also gives the perception of a deeper bass extension. I have seen the PM-3’s sound to be characterized as sweet and syrupy and that is a good metaphor for the relative sonic differences between the presentations of these two headphones. The PM-3 definitely has a more ‘organic’ textural-focus to its presentation compared to the Ether while the Ether sounds relatively more bright, surgical, and detailed with its presentation more focused on definition and clarity.
Oppo PM-3 Frequency Response on Left (with Ether FR curve on Right for comparison purposes) [8/1/15 trial]
Sound Quality: The Ether does give a perception of “faster” speed with a bit more note spacing and less underlying warmth, but the K7xx is relatively competitive. The K7xx has an edgier attack and good note spacing but the subtle midbass emphasis of the K7xx results in a subtle blur that makes its decay appear longer than the Ether when bass notes are present. Soundstage is quite close with the K7xx having a larger L-R soundstage, but the Ether having a better sense of height and depth. The Ether does edge out in micro-detail resolution and clarity, but it is not as large of a jump as you would expect. This is more due to the fact that the K7xx is an extremely capable mid-tier pair of headphones that can often compete extremely well against flagship headphones in general due to diminishing returns rather than any flaws with the Ether.
Sound Signature: The AKG K7xx has a sharper and more unforgiving treble, but does sound airier and more spacious with a subtle elevation in the 15kHz+ region. The K7xx has a bit of an emphasis in its bass and lower mids in comparison to the Ether’s tuning. The Ether’s midrange sounds more even and linear to my ears while the K7xx has some extremely subtle mid-range fluctuations in a relative comparison. There is a bit of a bass emphasis on the K7xx that focus on the midbass, which is similar to the Ether’s bass presentation though to a much smaller degree on the Ether. Overall, the K7xx is warmer with an additional sense of airiness to the high treble.
AKG K7xx Frequency Response on Left (with Ether FR curve on Right for comparison purposes) [8/1/15 trial]
Against the Mr. Speakers Alpha Prime:(closed planar magnetic at $1k)
Sound Quality: The Ether does edge out the Alpha Prime in all areas of sonic performance except bass quality. Speed is relatively even between these two headphones, but I am willing to give the edge to the Ether. Soundstage is noticeably improved on the Ether, but the Prime does have among the largest soundstages for a closed pair of headphones. Imaging of the Alpha Prime is exceptional for a closed pair of headphones, but still falls a bit short of what an open headphone can offer. Detail resolution appears to be better on the Ether as well.
Sound Signature: The Alpha Prime does seem to have less treble quantity in direct comparison to the Ether. Ether does present a better sense of clarity and definition due to its relative treble emphasis over the Prime. The Ether is relatively brighter than the Alpha Prime, though they share a similar overall frequency response tuning throughout the mid-range with that characteristic dip in the upper mids. The dip in the upper mid is more prominent on the Alpha Prime as it presents a more emphasized lower-mid-to-mid focus in relative comparison to the Ether. On the whole, the Prime does present a hint of a more mid-centric vibe compared to the Ether. The Alpha Prime has better bass extension with more sub-bass presence, delivering a stronger sense of impact behind its notes. The Primes bass response sounds similarly linear to the Ether with the noticeable exception of its sub-bass subtly tapers upwards for an emphasis while the Ether’s low frequency response subtly tapers downwards. The bass quality of the Alpha Prime is better than the Ether to my ears. I view the Alpha Primes to have a bit unique coloration in its midrange with a better bass tuning, while the Ether presents a more linear midrange to my ears with a better treble tuning.
MrSpeakers Alpha Prime Frequency Response on Left (with Ether FR curve on Right for comparison purposes) [8/1/15 trial]
Against the HE-560:(open planar magnetic at $900)
The short version can be found HERE.
I view this as the most relevant sonic comparison since I see the HE-560 and HD800 to be the closest direct competitors to the Ether. To be perfectly clear, the HE-560 and the Ether sound much more similar than different. I feel they both fall within the same overall family of headphones that I categorize as “reference-tuned, neutral-orientated” with a more clinical/analytical presentation. Other flagships that I also group this way include the HD800 and AKG K812. The differences that I discuss below are generally extremely subtle variations. Probably too many words for such small differences, but they are so sonically similar that I really spent a lot of time and effort testing between them to really isolate particular nuances.
Sound Signature: Their sound signatures are quite close overall. Strangely enough, the Ether sounded overall relatively brighter than the HE-560 to a subtle degree, which was contrary to what I was expecting with the HE-560’s 3-6kHz peak. I suspect that the Ether has overall more upper treble emphasis compared to the HE-560 while the HE-560’s lower treble is particularly pronounced. This is the most easily appreciable difference in their respective sound signatures.
Treble: The most notable sonic difference between these two headphones is the notable peak of the HE-560 around the 3-6 kHz region. The relative difference in the region from 2-4 kHz contributes to the sensation of a harder hitting attack on the HE-560 and extra crispiness to notes. The HE-560 has a relatively “ediger” presentation. The HE-560’s tuning choice can contribute positively for an extra sense of crispiness to notes, a shimmer to cymbals, or cleaner sense of definition to the edges of notes. Or it can contribute negatively with sibilance, raspiness, or overt brightness. I personally find the HE-560’s tuning choice to be quite acceptable and enjoyable, and I have no issue with sibilance or raspiness with any of my high-quality source tracks. However, this is dependent on personal preference and I do know some folks find the HE-560 too bright for their personal tastes. The HE-560 sounds relatively sharper and crispier due to its focus on the lower treble while the Ether sounds relatively duller but airer due to its focus on the upper treble. The HE-560’s lower treble tuning choice is further emphasized by the relative dip in the upper mids/lower treble region at approximately 1-2kHz (which is the typical tuning choice for neutral headphones including the HD800). The Ether also displays a subtle dip in that region but to a smaller degree.
The Ether is interesting actually sounds more forgiving with its treble region while being relatively brighter overall compared to the HE-560. Generally, I have found brighter headphones to be less forgiving from personal experience. I do feel like the Ether’s treble tuning has a sense of smoothness and evenness compared to the HE-560. With frequency response sweep comparisons, I did find that the HE-560 had a slight bit more peakiness in its treble region relative to the Ether. The less peaky nature of the Ethers probably contributes to its sense of forgivingness as it will not further emphasize flaws of less optimal recordings that may display distortion in the treble region. Clarity and definition between the two headphones stay quite close as the HE-560 provides an emphasis in the 4 kHz region (affects perception of clarity or edginess) and the 9 to 10 kHz region (affects perception of definition or sibilance). Additional much more subtle peaks I’ve detected with the HE-560 occur at approximately 12 kHz, 15 kHz, and 16kHz. The Ether displays a similar overall tuning to my ears under a frequency sweep with subtle bump at 4 kHz, a dip at 9 kHz with a relative peak at 10 kHz and more prominent peak at 11 kHz and 15 kHz. Both headphones extend out to 18 kHz. The prominent peaks of the Ether occur in the upper treble region while the HE-560 displays them in the lower treble region. The peaks in their frequency response do actually hit similar frequencies, but different peaks are more pronounced to different degrees.
The 4 kHz tuning choice of the HE-560 also provides a sense of relative closest in depth (particularly in female vocals or cymbals) compared to the Ethers. This can primarily manifest with the Ether achieving the perception of a deeper soundstage while the HE-560 appears to achieve a wider L-R soundstage in comparison. Both headphones actually sound quite spacious overall compared to other competitors. The upper treble and upper mids of the Ether is much more prominent compared to the HE-560, resulting a distinctly brighter sound signature relatively despite the HE-560’s relative peak in the lower treble. The Ether does sound slightly airier with better treble extension as a result.
Mid-Range: In the mid-range, the HE-560 actually measures to have less upper mid focus in comparison to the Ether, but I’ve found through my initial listening tests the Ether sounds to have more lower mid than the HE-560 with an additional sense of thickness in relative comparison. However, this may be caused by decay times rather than the lower mid tuning. Both headphones actually sound to have extremely similar fullness, but I would say that the Ether sounds relatively thicker while the HE-560 sounds thinner with more spacing between notes and a more abrupt sharpness to the edges of its notes. If volume-matched based on the upper mids, the HE-560 actually has fuller body to its notes, but when if volume-matched based on the mids or bass, this distinction is quite difficult to observe. This is a very subtle relative comparison difference as I personally do not find the HE-560 to present as dramatic of a lower mid focus as I do with the Audeze LCD-X.
Bass: It can easy to find that the Ether has more bass quantity if not properly volume-matched as its lower sensitivity and higher efficiency will play at higher volume levels if doing just back-and-forth swapping without adjusting the volume pot. I actually made that mistake of forgetting to adjust the volume and had to go back and rewrite a lot of impressions here.
When volume-matched, I felt that the bass sounds subtly relatively more linear on the HE-560. Relatively less prominent sub-bass on the Ether compared to the HE-560, but I really don’t feel that the Ether is too particularly lacking in sub-bass extension. The Ether definitely has a bit more mid-bass focus with an extremely punchy sensation, while the HE-560’s bass has relatively less warmth and picks up on the nuances of sub-bass textures much more cleanly. While I personally found the HE-560’s bass to have more impact, I can see it being a difficult call as the punchiness of the Ether’s bass can give a more exciting presentation at times. The Ether’s bass sounds slightly thicker to me while the HE-560’s bass hits tighter and cleaner. I personally prefer the HE-560’s bass presentation. On the other hand, I ended up preferring the Ether’s treble presentation despite having a deep-found appreciation of the HE-560’s treble tuning. Midrange was too difficult to call for me.
Overall Sonic Attributes: After extensive back and forth testing on various live tracks and orchestral pieces, I felt that the soundstage is larger on the HE-560, but extremely close. I would estimate that everything sounds about one or two steps further away on the HE-560 more noticeably in L-R width, giving me a sense of a larger hall. Height is actually probably quite close with the Ether often present certain sounds at a very precise location at my forehead level (feels like the singer is on a stage) which is quite cool. Depth is variable depending on the frequency range, but the Ether wins out more often than not here. Instruments and voices can sometimes appear a bit closer on the Ether, but generally the HE-560 displays the relatively more intimate and standing closer to your face presence. The HE-560 presents a sound stage akin to standing closer to a wide stage while the Ether presents a more circular doughnut shaped room, sitting further back for a smaller stage. The Ether can give you a subtly better sense of height with the music with some recordings appearing to come from very precisely located elevation in stage at a specific spot on my forehead, while the HE-560 presents a similar height, but more vague in exact elevation. After a lot of back-and-forth, I do feel that the Ether may have subtly more precise imaging abilities while the HE-560 provides a subtly wider room feeling. Extremely close here though.
Both headphones are highly resolving of low-level detail, but the Ether does seem to generally present micro-detail at higher volume levels than the HE-560, likely due to its more prominent upper treble region that often affects perception of definition. Much “softer” feeling with a dash of “thickness” to the Ethers compared to the HE-560. Not as hard-hitting impact to the attack edges of notes on the Ether. A subtle bit more decay as well with the Ether compared to the crispy edges of notes on the HE-560. Both headphones can sound extremely fast, just some subtle differences with how they present the attack and decay transients.
The HE-560 has a harder-hitting attack and shorter decay times. The HE-560 does have a bit edgier presentation with more abrupt stops and wider spacing between notes for a slightly thinner and faster flavor. The Ether sounds relatively smoother and thicker with still being quite fast. Ether sounds faster than the LCD-X in my perspective with a bit shorter perceived decay times, but not as fast the HE-560 with the HE-560’s extremely abrupt edges and vast note spacing. The Ether has a much softer touch than the HE-560, but also feels smoother as well.
Hifiman HE-560 Frequency Response on Left (with Ether FR curve on Right for comparison purposes) [8/1/15 trial]
Personal Pick: Personally, picking a favorite here was extremely difficult and I flip-flopped quite a lot between them. Sonically, I feel like the two main factors most warranted for consideration is the differences in treble and bass. The most noticeable difference is the treble tuning with four sonic factors likely to be the most warranted for consideration if trying to decide between these headphones. The Ether provides a smooth upper treble-focused presentation with a punchy thicker bass and better treble extension, while the HE-560 gives a crispy lower treble-focused presentation with a faster thinner bass and better bass extension. Other factors to consider is value/price point (HE-560) or build quality/style (Ether).
Against the Audeze LCD-X:(open planar magnetic at $1699)
Overall Sonic Attributes: The Audeze LCD-X’s sonic presentation is different enough that I would categorize it in a different family from the Ether. I view the LCD-X to have a more “organic-type” characterization to its sound with an extra sense of smoothness, focusing more on textural shifts over micro-detail. The LCD-X has that “rich” dark coloration which Audeze headphones are renowned for. I view the sonic strengths of the LCD-X to be its bass texture and seismic impact.
Technically, the LCD-X does lag a bit behind the Ether, but it is extremely close. The Ether appears to be a hair faster than the LCD-X with a larger soundstage as well. The LCD-X has a harder-hitting slam to its attack, but a subtle bit more blur to its decay. Imaging of both headphones are relatively even, but I would give the edge to the Ether due to its better height definition. Both headphones are highly resolving with great detail resolution. Differences in sound signature between the two headphones bring different elements into sharper focus.
With more sub-bass presence and an extremely punchy midbass, the LCD-X has better bass quality against the Ether in my view. The LCD-X’s bass does have a little more reverb than the Ether’s tighter decay, giving a seismic visceral impact and slam to the LCD-X’s lower frequency. Rumbles and explosions are presented more realistically on the LCD-X to my ears. I find the midrange to be better on the Ether with less overall coloration to my ears. Treble presentation will vary based on preference as the Ether has a brighter overall sound signature compared to the LCD-X, but the LCD-X does have a sense of extra crispness and sparkle to its treble (particularly noticeable with cymbals and female vocals). The bass response is the most obvious frequency response differences between the two headphones, followed by the treble tuning and upper mids.
Sound Signature: While both headphones do sound quite close to neutral, the LCD-X has an more noticeable bass emphasis and upper midrange recession in relative comparison to the Ether. The LCD-X does appear to have a certain regions in the treble emphasized relative to the Ether. I would estimate relative peaks of the LCD-X’s treble presentation to be in the ~4kHz (due to the extra crispiness of cymbals) and ~12-15kHz (due to more shimmer to cymbals and more emphasized breathy/raspy tonality to female vocals). The Ether is definitely brighter overall compared to the LCD-X, but the LCD-X does have a extra bit of sparkle to its treble presentation that can be quite enjoyable. I would say the LCD-X’s sound signature is a bit more colored relative to the Ether as the stronger bass sensation and treble sparkle gives the LCD-X a slightly more ‘v-shaped’ sounding sound signature in relative comparison to the Ether’s frequency response tuning.
The LCD-X has a more “liquid” presentation and organic textural focus compared to the slight sense of surgical sharpness to the more clinically-focused presentation of the Ether. While I would not categorize the Ether as “rich and lush” like the LCD-X (as I personally view those terms to portray a sense of upper bass and low mid coloration), the Ether presents its notes with a solid life-like body and authoritative source-dependent fullness. However, the Ether is definitely not as full and weighty sounding as the LCD-X. The Ether has less impact and thickness against the LCD-X, as the Ether sounds relatively thinner and brighter in direct comparison to the LCD-X.
Audeze LCD-X Frequency Response on Left (with Ether FR curve on Right for comparison purposes) [8/1/15 trial]
Personal Pick: The Ether and LCD-X have enough variation in the sound signature and presentation styles that individual personal preference will determine which one is most suitable. Darker organic-textural-style of LCD-X with seismic low frequencies and weighty impact or the brighter hyper-detailed-clinical-style of the Ether with well-refined treble and a softer, more delicate touch. Comfort and price point leans in the Ether's favor.
Against the Hifiman HE-1000: (open planar magnetic at $2,999)
I want to state as a personal disclaimer that I do prefer the HE-1000 over the Ether regardless of price point. I personally feel from my direct comparisons that the HE-1000 technically outperforms the Ether. I view the Ether to be at a similar level of sonic performance as the HE-560 while the HE-1000 offers a much noticeably higher level of resolution, sound stage, imaging, speed, impact, and overall sonic performance.
Sound Signature: The key differentiating factor that is most worthy of consideration beyond budget restrictions is relative differences in sound signature. The Ether is relatively brighter with a softer impact and less bass extension. The HE-1000 is relatively warmer with more sub-bass presence and impact. The HE-1000’s bass response does actually measure to be extremely linear without any additional emphasis, similar to the HE-560’s bass measurements, but its bass gives an entirely different sensation than what other headphones typically present and I would place the HE-1000 to be on the warm-to-neutral spectrum while the HE-560 and Ether sit on the bright-to-neutral spectrum despite all these headphones displaying generally linear bass response measurements. Likely differences in treble tuning that causes this difference in perception.
Hifiman HE-1000 Frequency Response on Left (with Ether FR curve on Right for comparison purposes) [8/1/15 trial]
Personal Considerations: I prefer the style and design of the Ether as well as its lower price point. I do feel that the Ether is a better value than the HE-1000 as I have personally found diminishing returns to hit really extremely strongly after the $500 price point. I do also feel that the HE-560 is a better value than $1k+ headphones for that same reason as I found the majority of flagship headphones to present more flavor differences than true technical improvements. My LCD-X purchase was for a complementary pairing rather than a true upgrade. The HE-1000 was the only headphone that I personally felt offered enough technical improvement to justify an upgrade over the HE-560.
That being said I do think the Ether does offer the unique trait of an exceptionally well-measuring headphone in terms of overall linearity of each region of the frequency response with no offensive peaks in the treble region. Its relative flaws of a subtle bass extension roll-off and softer impact are unlikely to be very noticeable without extensive critical direct comparisons. Other sub-$2k flagship headphones that may fare better in those aspects will present with more noticeable variations in the FR that can be more glaring or offensive such as treble peaks/recessions or midrange coloration or upper bass emphasis.
I always love your reviews. I have yet to receive mine but I'm very excited to have it. My question is if you'll be getting the Ether C to add onto this review as well?
I always love your reviews. I have yet to receive mine but I'm very excited to have it. My question is if you'll be getting the Ether C to add onto this review as well?
I haven't received my Ethers yet but I've learnt to take reviews with a grain of salt especially from people who just use one or a small variety of source/dac/amp.
Eg. HD800s have lots of treble and very little bass. Not if you hook them up to an excellent amp, a good source that's not too thin and throw in a decent cable. I used to think that the HD800s were limp ear damaging rubbish that so-called audiophiles believed they liked because they were deluded. Afterwards, I realized that if you hook up the HD800 to crap gear then it shows off the crap in all it's glory and it's not a pretty sight sound.
From what I heard the Ethers will sound different depending on the source/dac/amp so perhaps it would be more sensible to describe what the listener hears from the Ether given a particular setup and then use it as a reference point as different people try it with different equipment and report what they hear.
It will never be as good as listening for yourself on your equipment but it may provide a better impression than a reviewer providing an absolute statement about a particular headphone that may actually be completely off the mark on different equipment.
I always love your reviews. I have yet to receive mine but I'm very excited to have it. My question is if you'll be getting the Ether C to add onto this review as well?
aww thank you!! glad to see my efforts are appreciated. this review was one of the most exhaustive ones I've done so far with multiple rewrites and extensive testing.
I would love to get the Ether C for a direct comparison, but unfortunately, I think I already spend more than most people who think to be reasonable on my audio gear. will likely have to wait to move some gear first unless a review/demo tour is offered. the ether c is extremely interesting to me & would be the next flagship that I would be most interested in writing about.
I haven't received my Ethers yet but I've learnt to take reviews with a grain of salt especially from people who just use one or a small variety of source/dac/amp.
Eg. HD800s have lots of treble and very little bass. Not if you hook them up to an excellent amp, a good source that's not too thin and throw in a decent cable. I used to think that the HD800s were limp ear damaging rubbish that so-called audiophiles believed they liked because they were deluded. Afterwards, I realized that if you hook up the HD800 to crap gear then it shows off the crap in all it's glory and it's not a pretty sight sound.
From what I heard the Ethers will sound different depending on the source/dac/amp so perhaps it would be more sensible to describe what the listener hears from the Ether given a particular setup and then use it as a reference point as different people try it with different equipment and report what they hear.
It will never be as good as listening for yourself on your equipment but it may provide a better impression than a reviewer providing an absolute statement about a particular headphone that may actually be completely off the mark on different equipment.
I agree that you should always take all reviews with a grain of salt & nothing beats a personal audition. I do hope that none of my review statements read as absolutes as I personally like to write in a relative comparative manner with multiple different reference points to make my impressions more applicable/understandable for readers coming from a wide variety of backgrounds. It should also help limit personal bias/personal preference as relative descriptors from direct comparisons are as my main approach.
The nice thing about my review approach though is that the comparative style will generally hold through on relative differences between headphones even when using different external source components. The Lyr 2 is one of the recommended amplifier pairings for the Ether as well per Mr. Clark, so I do feel quite comfortable with my sonic findings. Also did test with a lot of other external components, but all less in price point & potential. Possibly my solid state HA-2 may have been another option as a primarily testing amplifier (as I do my measurements on that device), but I view the Lyr 2 as a good performance benchmark for the the high-end sound you can expect out of a solid sub-$1k 'mid-tier' amplifier. Gets a bit more performance out of my harder to drive headphones as well compared to my other amplifiers.
Regarding the HD800, I don't personally think the HD800 is overly bright or lacking bass quantity. However, I am pretty certain that they will always have a bit less bass quantity and a brighter feel compared to the LCD-X when using the same source components and volume-matched from my personal experimentation. Comments on the HD800 in this review is based on audio memory so I tried to stay away from too in-depth specifics, but I have been fortunately to be able to demo the HD800 extensively on 4 different occasions with direct comparisons against other gear on a wide variety of different source gear (auris taurlic and mcintosh mha100 being the most expensive amplifier options used), so I do feel like I have a good general grasp on its sonic profile.
For testing with multiple amplifiers, from my personal experience, I have found that a solid mid-tier amplifier provides adequate scaling and I personally did not find the improvements moving any further up in the price ladder for external components to be worthwhile personally for my headphones. The relative changes provided by different components are generally consistent between headphones though sometimes to varying degrees. The need for extremely specific external component matching I find to be due to either very specific power requirements or possibly the presence of subtle peaks (particularly in the treble region) that may not play well with certain gear. I have found the HD800 to be the relative 'pickiest' with amplifiers, followed by the HE-560. Also, the K812 though easy to drive, treble region is a bit peakier than the HD800 and HE-560. The rest of the headphones I've tried/owned really works adequately with any amplifier pairing from my experience.
The best way to deal with reviews is to read a million of them and get a sense of the specific attributes that are mentioned frequently. That seems to work for me most of the time. And don't look for consensus; that'll never happen. And there is always someone who says something is great and someone who says something is awful, so expect that with every product and don't let that be a deciding factor in either direction.
As far as an Ether update goes:
The highs calmed down after frequent use and are now fine. There is no shrillness in vocals, a major turn-off for me.
Everything is balanced with no real flaws, imaging is rounded and 3D, and the bass is transparent, integrated, and decently deep, but not as deep or earth-shaking as the LCD3, but actually more detailed than the LCD3.
Mids are pure and smooth and have fine detail and speed. A Stax 009 has more detail and speed still, but the Stax stands alone in that department. I feel the detail/speed is as good as the HD800.
Fullness is better than the HD800, along with image size (bigger) and there is a natural smoothness that I like in the Ether that is better than the HD800.
I find the Ether excellent with both solid state and tube amps.
I like the DUM cable for it's ability to fill out things in the mids and highs, but the Moon Silver Dragon is also very nice, especially in the bass. The Silver Dragon makes the bass in every phone I tried it on better, more transparent, and I like this effect in the Ether.
I would try to audition both cables and see what you like. I have to admit I'm a fanboy of the Silver Dragon cable for tightening up all phones, from Hifman, to Senn, to Audeze.
I'm really drawn to the Ether more and more. It's kind of replacing my use of the TH900, as the TH900 bass can be unnaturally exaggerated and less detailed than the Ether.
OK I am looking at my Alpha Prime right now... the plugs themselves are rock-solid, but once the headphone wires are connected, the metal "hoods" do have a little bit of play on the plugs. I think this is just the nature of the Fostex-style connector. It certainly doesn't cause any microphonics or noise when I wiggle it on the Prime. It would be unfortunate if that was not the case on the Ether.
OK I am looking at my Alpha Prime right now... the plugs themselves are rock-solid, but once the headphone wires are connected, the metal "hoods" do have a little bit of play on the plugs. I think this is just the nature of the Fostex-style connector. It certainly doesn't cause any microphonics or noise when I wiggle it on the Prime. It would be unfortunate if that was not the case on the Ether.
Yes, it's the connector, there is a small amount of play in it as the manufacturer designed it to have. Because it's a "slide to click" if there were zero play it wouldn't slide smoothly. On the flip side, it can't accidentally yank out with a light tug, as "plug" types do. We picked this connector because it was relatively compact, totally reliable, reasonably cost effective and immune to accidental unplugging.
Make every day a fun day filled with music and friendship!
Stay updated on Dan Clark Audio at their sponsor profile on Head-Fi.
I'm really drawn to the Ether more and more. It's kind of replacing my use of the TH900, as the TH900 bass can be unnaturally exaggerated and less detailed than the Ether.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
