Thank you! No additional compensation added.

Here are some additional FR curves to see the variability during different measurement trials.

Thanks!!! I agree that the Ether's bass is its weakest point. I did find that I could pick up the low-volume micro-details quite well on the Ether. I would estimate that its clarity and detail resolution is similar to the HE-560 (and better than the LCD-X), so I consider it to be "summit-fi level" though likely a few other specific flagship headphones that will be better. I do think it is likely that other particular high-end headphones will relatively outperform it in certain specific technical attributes. Don't have other high-end headphones on hand for more direct comparisons though. Really I found that its overall sound signature would likely be the selling point for people considering these headphones as I found it to have a pleasant, non-fatiguing, generally well-balanced tuning.

for the y-axis, total 100 dB height on the graph with 10dB increment boxes. I don't have an SPL meter to measure that actual volume level on the headphones. For my measurements, I can never get as good distortion levels relative to your posted measurements. Not sure if it is because of the different equipment I am using. posted some other FR graphs as well so you can see the variation in my distortion measurements between trials.

I actually greatly appreciate the HD600/HD650 and wouldn't call it 'lowly' except from a price-point perspective. Would love to get a chance to do a direct comparison.

It is strange how the bass of the Ether is relatively lacking compared to other orthodynamics. I am actually planning on upgrading my mid-tier component set-up as the mjolnir 2 + gungnir MB slots perfectly into my price range and appears to provide the upgrade that I am looking for in terms of initial impressions. Just not sure whether I should skip the gungnir & just go straight for the yggy lol. wld love advice on this particularly from people who had the chance to try both side-by-side. I am a more value-orientated buyer generally.

I agree the LCD-X sonic performance is a bit lacking compared to some of the other summit-fi headphones. Soundstage noticeably smaller with less precise imaging and quite a bit of coloration and blurring effect. I have it as my 'fun' headphones. Just using it to place the Ether's performance relatively.

edit: thanks for the link. very interesting compilation of perspectives and I wouldn't really disagree with the thoughts stated there though I can see different people being more/less sensitive to the critiques being offered. Also, from personal direct comparisons, I would also say that the LCD-3F has similar technical abilities as the LCD-X so I guess I personally have a more lenient view on what headphones can be classified into summit-fi. I am comfortable placing the LCD-2/X/3, HE-560, PM-1, TH900, and AKG K812 all into the summit-fi category though they all have significant sonic considerations. I do think the HD800 is the gold standard for the sound quality achievable at the ~$1.5 price point. I personally think the PM-1 and LCD-XC are barely squeezing into the summit-fi class and I don't consider them to be true TOTL headphones. The v-shaped coloration of the TH900 also makes me rank it lower personally, but for people looking for a high-end option with that type of sound it does offer some technical improvements (in impact/soundstage most noticeably) compared to other more mid-tier v-shaped headphones.

that is actually not surprising at all, though the correlation with driver size is often inconsistent. I would say in this case the Ether's driver size is very likely the limiting factor in its bass response.