Mr. Speakers ETHER Flow Headphone(?) Upgrade(?)

The issue I see is that Tyll thinks the Flow is "ethereal" because it is a bit larger soundstage over old ether.

To me this means the Flow is closer to what it should be.
The old Ether had a smaller studio soundstage compared to other TOTL headphones like LCD-X & HD800 & HEK...

Also, when Tyll says the Flow is larger than the Focals,
That tells me neither of the Focals have large soundstage and are more intimate than the old Ether.

Anything less soundstage than old Ether is absolute fail for a TOTL headphone and spells death in my book.

Tyll says the HEK is too far/soft sounding.
While I partially agree with this,
I totally disagree about the excuse of the lessend "presence region" in Flow giving a distance.

As an example, The HD800 has a massive presence region and has a huge soundstage(!).

So no, it is not really the presence region that would affect soundstage but the layering of details (whether forward/compressed or stretched/distant in the soundfield).

So, The "ethereal" perspective Tyll observes, is in comparison to the Focals,
Yet the Focal intimate staging is not normal which by Tyll's own admission he says it is "smaller".


Edit:
Just my "reading between the lines" and presumptions because I have to lol.
Sorry for sounding rude and being crappy on the Focals,
Lol

 

Tyll's sorta 50/50 in his presence region description. He's using the 800hz-2khz area to describe the presence region, when in actuality that's the middle-upper midrange, that's the area that's responsible for the last bits of fundamentals for vocals and many other acoustic instruments. The transitional area from upper midrange to lower treble is the presence region, which would be around 3-5k. This would be the area responsible for the start of a lot of harmonic information and attack/bite for many percussion and acoustic instruments. These definitions can have some crossover though, as I would consider the start of harmonics for anything acoustic to contribute to its presence, and this naturally varies depending upon the instrument, and that upper midrange is more of an objective title and presence is more of a subjective title.

With all that said, the HD800's upper midrange and presence region is basically just a downward sloping line, which contributes to part of the HD800's perceived large soundstage. Tyll is right in his comments about vast sounding headphones having a laid-back upper midrange and presence region, because it perfectly mimics the sound one would hear and expect out of orchestral performances from more of a distance. It's very much a psycho acoustic thing. The Elear and Utopia's strong midrange presence that extends out to about 3k probably help contribute to a more upfront sound and smaller perceived soundstage.

HD-800's presence region is laid-back, as can be heard from its warm-tilting midrange and emphasis on fundamentals over harmonics. Where it picks up energy again is in the 6k area of the treble, which I would consider moreso the definition area. In effect, the 6k emphasis of the HD-800 can be viewed as a hardening filter, which is a little different from the 10k area on many other headphones acting as a sharpening filter. The 6k area will also affect timbre more than 10k as well, which is why a lot of headphones can get away with a small spike at 10k.

I don't necessarily agree that a totl headphone needs a vast soundstage or else considered fail, but everybody has different priorities. These are headphones afterall, and the drivers are right next to your ears. We just went through how depth is mostly a pyshoacoustic thing with frequency response. Width on the other hand can largely be altered by angling of just placing the drivers further away from your ear, which can also times cause the sound to be overly diffuse, which the HD800 can be criticized from. I value 'openness' and a defined image in a headphone moreso than raw size of its perceived image. HD800, AD700 and other large soundstage headphones do wow me, but I've found just as much enjoyment out of headphones that are more confined and smaller in their staging, but still manage to sound very open and precise, and I ultimately found that precision of the image contributed to how open a headphone sounded to me more than raw size of the image.

 

I use the Stereophle definitions: http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-n-q

Which have the presence region at 1-3kHz.

And treble starts at 1.3kHz in that system. http://www.stereophile.com/content/sounds-audio-glossary-glossary-t-u

 

Wow...the Ether Flow took out the HE1000 from the Wall Of Fame at almost half the price. When is the Ether C Flow review coming?

 

I agree w/ @TMRaven or atleast that is how I view the whole ordeal. Good post dude.

guess he was right.


http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/innerfidelitys-wall-fame-full-size-open#HHy7erEU6LaofmfZ.97

wow. I can understand it being moved from the WOF though. And companies need to tune the headphones more competitively. I was saving for an Ether Flow but just picked up a Code-X instead. Hopefully I made a good choice. The Elear is gone already and my Kennerton Vali stayed.

 

I did not notice a big difference in soundstage. For a closed headphone, I thought it was great in both.

 

Am I missing something obvious or is "etherial" in Tyll's review just a misspelling of "ethereal"?

 

P.S. @Maxx134

take this with a grain of salt but I much prefer the soundstage of the Focals to the Ether. The Ether soundstage flat out sucks.

 

You mean original Ether sound stage, right?

 

yes sir.

 

Actually that Good perspective to know about the Focals.

Also I agree about Ether.
Soundstage was my motivation to mod them .
but it was a 1,2,3 knockout blow & uphill battle:
1- no access to rear.
2- that pre-made surface ditch with recessed driver.
3-small inner diameter pads.
4- loss of interest.

 

Christmas came early this year ;-)

 

So is there a consensus on differences between the regular Ethers and Flow Ethers? I looked at the measurements and couldn't gleam a conclusion looking at Tyll's measurements.

I heard them Flows in person but should have A/B'ed them more closely with my regular Ethers.

Is it worth upgrading?

 

^ curious about this as well. beyond people saying the Flows are just better on head-fi, it is hard to tell what the actual tonal differences are from the comments. love to read some critical comparisons.

 

I have a pretty good grasp on the Flow signature. Once I get my turn with the Elear, I can do a direct comparison. But that will be about a month.

 

so what are your thoughts on the Flow?

 

I think that they are very good.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/814165/mr-speakers-ether-flow-impressions-and-discussion

 

I've read your impressions of the Flow on HF ... interesting for me since I am one of the few here who enjoy the LCD-X. I ordered the Flow (open) from RazorDog so it may take 2-3 weeks to receive based upon their latest info.

 

As I warned in that thread, they have changed somewhat with burn-in.. ATM I have about 40 hours of physical burn-in and about 8 hours of head-time (brain burn-in).

Bass is still very very good though, Very punchy and goes deep really well.. Disclaimer, Its been some time (a few months) since I last owned the LCD-X, on top of that I have been using bass light headphones since (Ether C and HD800S).. So no direct comparison and my memory may be off.. But the bass is very punchy and extends well as the frequency's goes down. The mids have opened up and evened out a bit and are not as lush.. Overall I feel this is a very balanced headphone..

 

So are you MattTCG over at head-fi?