Gilmore lite vs Hornet
Nov 11, 2005 at 3:44 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 18

DJGeorgeT

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 5, 2004
Posts
2,835
Likes
22
Both have been described as forward sounding. The hype is now with the Hornet, but how does that Glite stack up to the Hornet? I need to listen to one of these Glites. I've always loved discrete component audio equipment and the Glite is one discrete component solid state amp that looks really good. I haven't had a chance to hear one though.

G
 
Nov 11, 2005 at 5:09 PM Post #2 of 18
It's been a few months since I had my Lite, but can safely say that the Hornet is a bit faster and slightly more forward, with a tremendous sense of 'air' surrounding the midrange frequencies. The Lite is a real bargain, no doubt, but when you factor in the Hornet's portability, size and battery recharging, it comes out on top IMO.
 
Nov 27, 2005 at 3:16 AM Post #3 of 18
Bringing this topic back from the limbo, I'm also interested in this comparison.

Also, how does the Gilmore Lite does against SR-71, AE-1 and the newest Supermini.

Reference headphones = Sennheiser HD580/6xx

Thanks
600smile.gif
 
Apr 23, 2006 at 11:29 AM Post #7 of 18
If you need portability or compact size is important by all means get the Hornet. If you don't plan on using it as a portable and don't mind the additional weight and larger footprint go with the Lite. These amps are great and much has been writen about both. In about the same price range, you could also acquire an Eddie Current EC-01 (tube amp), which offers a different flavor.
 
Apr 23, 2006 at 3:44 PM Post #8 of 18
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ymer
Bringing this topic back from the limbo, I'm also interested in this comparison.

Also, how does the Gilmore Lite does against SR-71, AE-1 and the newest Supermini.

Reference headphones = Sennheiser HD580/6xx

Thanks
600smile.gif






I have had the hornet here for a try out and the sr-71 is a slightly better sounding portable amp IMO. The hornet was harsh and compressed sounding hooked up to my home sources and not the least bit enjoyable. But I just dont find any of the portables to give the sound quality of a good home amp. The Gilmore Lite is a much better sounding amp in a level matched comparison using the same (including the senn 600's) home equipment vs the hornet or sr-71 .... in my auditions. If you are listening at home, get a home amp is my advice.

To be honest, I dont understand how people claim these portable amps sound so good unless they have never compared them to anything else .... or their expectations are not the same for portable sound reproduction.
confused.gif
 
Apr 24, 2006 at 5:02 PM Post #9 of 18
Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover
I have had the hornet here for a try out and the sr-71 is a slightly better sounding portable amp IMO. The hornet was harsh and compressed sounding hooked up to my home sources and not the least bit enjoyable. But I just dont find any of the portables to give the sound quality of a good home amp. The Gilmore Lite is a much better sounding amp in a level matched comparison using the same (including the senn 600's) home equipment vs the hornet or sr-71 .... in my auditions. If you are listening at home, get a home amp is my advice.

To be honest, I dont understand how people claim these portable amps sound so good unless they have never compared them to anything else .... or their expectations are not the same for portable sound reproduction.
confused.gif



Interesting comments as I have read very little if in fact no negative comments on the Hornet or SR-71. Not that I don't consider what your saying but I would wonder if any others have negative comments. All in order to help me learn I should say.
icon10.gif


But I must add till I read more such comments I would discount your comments till then
rolleyes.gif
 
Apr 24, 2006 at 5:10 PM Post #10 of 18
Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover
To be honest, I dont understand how people claim these portable amps sound so good unless they have never compared them to anything else .... or their expectations are not the same for portable sound reproduction.
confused.gif



Dunno if you realize that the main difference between most (solid state) portable amps and stationary amps is power source. Otherwise, they're not that different circuit-wise. The compromises for battery power in headphone amps are generally minor, since none of these amps use much power... headphones don't need that much.

When you say "these" portable amps, I hope you're not referring to portable amps in general. Gross generalities like that are always untrue by default.
 
Apr 24, 2006 at 5:27 PM Post #11 of 18
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rickio
Interesting comments as I have read very little if in fact no negative comments on the Hornet or SR-71. Not that I don't consider what your saying but I would wonder if any others have negative comments. All in order to help me learn I should say.
icon10.gif


But I must add till I read more such comments I would discount your comments till then
rolleyes.gif



I owned a Hornet for some time and I also find it to be compressed in soundstage and harsh to a certain degree. My original intent when I bought the Hornet was to have portable and home amp in one unit and given that didn't ever take out the Hornet (source + ICs + cans = troublesome), I sold it. For me the dealbreaker was that it was a forward sounding presentation, which isn't a negative persay, but when you're trying to listen to a large scale orchestral piece and the sounstage and depth perception just isn't there, that was a deal breaker for me. I also found it to present certain passages, in certain songs that I listen to, in an unusual manner that I never heard when I listend to them on other set ups with cans or speakers.

rolleyes.gif
 
Apr 24, 2006 at 5:55 PM Post #12 of 18
Quote:

Originally Posted by PFKMan23
I owned a Hornet for some time and I also find it to be compressed in soundstage and harsh to a certain degree. My original intent when I bought the Hornet was to have portable and home amp in one unit and given that didn't ever take out the Hornet (source + ICs + cans = troublesome), I sold it. For me the dealbreaker was that it was a forward sounding presentation, which isn't a negative persay, but when you're trying to listen to a large scale orchestral piece and the sounstage and depth perception just isn't there, that was a deal breaker for me. I also found it to present certain passages, in certain songs that I listen to, in an unusual manner that I never heard when I listend to them on other set ups with cans or speakers.

rolleyes.gif



Thanks for your post as I actually did just now read a few others make the same or similar type comments. I am learning more and more here all the time.
wink.gif
 
Apr 24, 2006 at 6:29 PM Post #13 of 18
Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover
To be honest, I dont understand how people claim these portable amps sound so good unless they have never compared them to anything else .... or their expectations are not the same for portable sound reproduction.
confused.gif




Exactly right. I couldn't agree with you more.
 
Apr 24, 2006 at 7:06 PM Post #14 of 18
Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover
I have had the hornet here for a try out and the sr-71 is a slightly better sounding portable amp IMO. The hornet was harsh and compressed sounding hooked up to my home sources and not the least bit enjoyable. But I just dont find any of the portables to give the sound quality of a good home amp. The Gilmore Lite is a much better sounding amp in a level matched comparison using the same (including the senn 600's) home equipment vs the hornet or sr-71 .... in my auditions. If you are listening at home, get a home amp is my advice.

To be honest, I dont understand how people claim these portable amps sound so good unless they have never compared them to anything else .... or their expectations are not the same for portable sound reproduction.
confused.gif




rolleyes.gif
rolleyes.gif
rolleyes.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top