Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Amp recommendations for Audeze LCD-3
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Amp recommendations for Audeze LCD-3 - Page 24

post #346 of 1013
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

[...]

 

Nothing is wrong with the gungnirbiggrin.gif

 

There're other / better DACs out there - some at a higher cost and some not.  IMO don't be tied down to the gungnir just because it's made by Schiit.  

 

[...]

 

The Gungnir is the bottleneck in the mid-tier Schiit stack IME. Look elsewhere if your headphone is more resolving than an LCD-2.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loevhagen View Post

The Mjolnir / Gungnir is indeed extremely good - it´s just that when you listen to Gungnir with other amps (and other DACs with the Mjolnir) - it is pretty obvious that the Gungnir is a bit "coarse". I would compare the Gungnir to e.g. Hegel´s HD10 DAC. The latter has received accolades some time back. 

 

Yep.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by paradoxper View Post

I'll throw in my 2 cents here. 

 

I've found the Gungnir to be competent when compared to other DACS in the $1-2k price poole.

 

I felt the Gungnir was better than IMO, overpriced NAD M51. And comparatively severely

behind the PWD2.

 

As far as the coarse/harsh comments, we all do hear differently and prefer different things.

 

[...]

 

I'm sure we've had this discussion before. You conceded the M51 was the better DAC but could not justify its expense over the Gungnir. Can't argue with how an individual justifies cost, but I will point out that in some parts of the globe the Gungnir is a $1k+ dac and the M51 can be had brand new for less than $1.4k. Even if it wasn't as feature rich, the NAD M51 is still a considerable improvement over the Gungnir.

 

There are aspects of SQ where the Gungnir may be close to the M51, but in terms of overall refinement and finesse there's no contest. The M51 extends just as far into the upper registers but is much smoother. It drops deeper into the low bass, images better and is considerably more coherent during busy passages. The Gungnir is "shouty", upfront and abrasive and imposes these qualities on material that don't even call for it. The NAD M51 is just as dynamic and vibrant, but it only imparts those things when required.

 

I find it incomprehensible that someone would find the Gungnir "better", especially if price is taken out of the equation.

post #347 of 1013
Quote:
Originally Posted by olor1n View Post

 

The Gungnir is the bottleneck in the mid-tier Schiit stack IME. Look elsewhere if your headphone is more resolving than an LCD-2.

 

 

Yep.

 

 

I'm sure we've had this discussion before. You conceded the M51 was the better DAC but could not justify its expense over the Gungnir. Can't argue with how an individual justifies cost, but I will point out that in some parts of the globe the Gungnir is a $1k+ dac and the M51 can be had brand new for less than $1.4k. Even if it wasn't as feature rich, the NAD M51 is still a considerable improvement over the Gungnir.

 

There are aspects of SQ where the Gungnir may be close to the M51, but in terms of overall refinement and finesse there's no contest. The M51 extends just as far into the upper registers but is much smoother. It drops deeper into the low bass, images better and is considerably more coherent during busy passages. The Gungnir is "shouty", upfront and abrasive and imposes these qualities on material that don't even call for it. The NAD M51 is just as dynamic and vibrant, but it only imparts those things when required.

 

I find it incomprehensible that someone would find the Gungnir "better", especially if price is taken out of the equation.

We did and have. I revisited the NAD after things not working out with the PWD.

I was trying to find a middle-ground to tide me over until I saved for my end-game DAC or

statement, etc.

 

I kept hearing how the NAD was so close to the PWD that I thought I was missing something.

 

As I hear it the Gungnir is more natural and contrary non shouty. 

I felt the NAD hold over some glare. 

 

While I don't feel the NAD is a bad DAC, I do feel it's severely overpriced (for the U.S. market).

 

Thus far I've found the Gungnir to punch way above its weight and compare favorably to

many popular $1500 + DACs.

 

As aforementioned I found the PWD to be considerably a step above the Gungnir.

And furthermore, the Octave DAC kicks the NAD in the teeth

and is also considerably better than Gungnir.

 

Taking price and value into consideration I'm not a very big fan of the NAD.

 

 

I find that you're drastically exaggerating the differences between these two DACS

 

Just my 2 cents, feel free to disagree.


Edited by paradoxper - 2/15/13 at 6:34pm
post #348 of 1013

That's baffling. There are reports of differences in SQ with the M51 firmware. Perhaps that was a factor? Or the Gungnir I had was a dud. Its usb was certainly problematic with my macs, though optical was quite stable. Either way, glad to be rid of it.

post #349 of 1013
Quote:
Originally Posted by olor1n View Post

That's baffling. There are reports of differences in SQ with the M51 firmware. Perhaps that was a factor? Or the Gungnir I had was a dud. Its usb was certainly problematic with my macs, though optical was quite stable. Either way, glad to be rid of it.

I would make the concession that firmware could be a contributing factor.

 

I don't necessarily believe firmware means an inherent change for the better, but I've heard the different firmware of the PWD

which affected the sound in very meaningful ways for me personally.

 

Regardless, I am only offering my experiences. It could be firmware or it could be just that I didn't prefer the NAD.

Plenty of people to decide both ways, it's incredibly difficult for me to ever consider the NAD when for  a few

hundred more you could get a PWD.

 

As long as you're happy with the NAD that's all that matters. After all this is a subjective hobby. 

post #350 of 1013

i would really hope the pwd is better than the gungnir, seeing as though it's $4000 brand new vs. $750. i also find it really interesting you guys hear the same dac in complete opposite extremes. who knows what to believe anymore :)

post #351 of 1013

This is very interesting,  I'm not really sure how the Gungnir compares favorably to $1,500+ DACs.  

 

When I had the Gungnir in house for a few weeks. It lost big time to all the $1500+ DACs I tried.  

 

Andeio D2, Nad M51, PWD2, Buffalo III, and the Lynx Hilo as well.  

 

However, the DAC it was just about equal to was the Emotiva XDA-1.  They share the same level of micro detail retrieval or lack there of, also the lack of sub bass response was very apparent.

 

If price was an object I'll take the XDA-2 over the Gungnir any day.  You get more for less. 

post #352 of 1013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle00Jesse View Post

i would really hope the pwd is better than the gungnir, seeing as though it's $4000 brand new vs. $750. i also find it really interesting you guys hear the same dac in complete opposite extremes. who knows what to believe anymore :)

 

You can "always" get the PWD2 for sub $2.5K.  All day long.

post #353 of 1013
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

 

You can "always" get the PWD2 for sub $2.5K.  All day long.

Finally going to my buddy's on Sunday. He just picked one up for his speaker rig. Looking forward to hearing it this weekend.

post #354 of 1013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle00Jesse View Post

i would really hope the pwd is better than the gungnir, seeing as though it's $4000 brand new vs. $750. i also find it really interesting you guys hear the same dac in complete opposite extremes. who knows what to believe anymore :)

 

I don't think there are many who've directly compared the Gungnir to the M51. The NAD has garnered glowing praise though (at its full US RRP) and has the measurements to back it. The Gungnir is lauded here, but often by those coming from lesser components. In that context, I agree that the Gungnir is a fine DAC.

 

I respect paradoxper's findings, but I suspect it would be against the grain and beyond mere preference (i.e. other unidentified factors). prepoman appears to be in agreement with me (lol).

post #355 of 1013
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacedonianHero View Post

Finally going to my buddy's on Sunday. He just picked one up for his speaker rig. Looking forward to hearing it this weekend.

 

 

Looking to pull the trigger on the Master 7.  Looking forward to comparing it to the M51 and the PWD2

post #356 of 1013
Quote:
Originally Posted by preproman View Post

 

 

Looking to pull the trigger on the Master 7.  Looking forward to comparing it to the M51 and the PWD2

Nice! Quite the trifecta of DACs. smile.gif

post #357 of 1013
Quote:
Originally Posted by olor1n View Post

 

I don't think there are many who've directly compared the Gungnir to the M51. The NAD has garnered glowing praise though (at its full US RRP) and has the measurements to back it. The Gungnir is lauded here, but often by those coming from lesser components. In that context, I agree that the Gungnir is a fine DAC.

 

I respect paradoxper's findings, but I suspect it would be against the grain and beyond mere preference (i.e. other unidentified factors). prepoman appears to be in agreement with me (lol).

 

That's a first - rightbiggrin.gif

post #358 of 1013
All this dac talk.
Everyone knows they sound the same, right? wink.gif
post #359 of 1013
Quote:
Originally Posted by olor1n View Post

 

I don't think there are many who've directly compared the Gungnir to the M51. 

Loevhagan owns both.

post #360 of 1013
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWuss View Post

All this dac talk.
Everyone knows they sound the same, right? wink.gif

LoL, I'm just waiting for someone with an ODAC to chime in. bigsmile_face.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: High-end Audio Forum
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Summit-Fi (High-End Audio) › High-end Audio Forum › Amp recommendations for Audeze LCD-3