[HaVoC-28]

 
Quote:

This is my personal experience...................
I find my DT880/600 ohm sound very good thru my Matrix M Stage: everything sounds very clean, tight and punchy, but a bland recording will sound bland. A great recording will sound great.  The DT880s do not flatter bad recordings.
The Matrix M Stage has all the power I need.  Keep in mind that headphones only require about 1-20 mWatts to sound loud.
I alos like the sound I get out of my La Figaro 336C (an OTL tube amp), it seems to smooth things out a bit.
Some guys like the sound of receivers, I'm not too sure why, I guess they like that vintage sound?  I doubt it really has much to do with power.  One thing about vintage receivers is that they normally have an output impedance of approx. 100 ohms on the headphone jack.
And another thing..................250 ohm, 600 ohm headphones all need a fair amount of voltage, you may not be getting enough voltage out of a soundcard.
So, vintage receivers...........they can usually deliver A LOT of voltage but usually have a high output impedance on the headphone jeack.
 
The DT880s:
I find them to be VERY comfortable, but just for a point of reference I have tried the Senn HD650 a couple of times, I find the they are too tight and have too much clamping force. 
I find that AKG Q701s are very comfortable too.
Maybe I have a weird head, who knows? LOL

 

you enjoy your DT-880-600 ohm on your m-stage , great ^^ many prise them with tube amps , but i really like my DT-880-600 on my C2.1 (wich i found better than my previous m-stage , wich still an excellent amp ), and beetween the m-stage and la figaro with dt-880 a preference for one or like both ? 
 
i am reticent with tubes ,cause i tryed a LD MK3 with a K702 and for me it didn't work well , way better on my previous m-stage i see that you use a Q701 , does it work well with your la figaro ? 
 
m-stage seams to work well with many headphones dt-880 , HD650 , K/Q/70X ...

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

 


you enjoy your DT-880-600 ohm on your m-stage , great ^^ many prise them with tube amps , but i really like my DT-880-600 on my C2.1 (wich i found better than my previous m-stage , wich still an excellent amp ), and between the m-stage and la figaro with dt-880 a preference for one or like both ? 
 
i am reticent with tubes ,cause i tryed a LD MK3 with a K702 and for me it didn't work well , way better on my previous m-stage i see that you use a Q701 , does it work well with your la figaro ? 
 
m-stage seams to work well with many headphones dt-880 , HD650 , K/Q/70X ...

I've always wanted to try an Audio GD amp.............maybe next year!

I don't have a big preference either way, but I slightly prefer the DT880 with the La Figaro, it seems to smooth the sound out a bit, and warm things up a bit, but without loosing a lot of detail.
But I do like the extra punch and sense of speed I get from the Matrix. So I would not really want to be without either amp!
 
Your problem with the LD MK3 and K702 is probably due to the fact that some OTL tube amps don't work well with low impedance 'phones like the K701s.  
I don't have any problems using my Q701s with the 336C, the combination sounds very good! 
 

 

[Mad Lust Envy]

Just ordered a Lyr for my DT990/600. I sure hope it pairs up well, with the 6BZ7 tubes (which I believe is the tube being shiiped with the Lyr nowadays). If not, I'll order some 6N1P tubes which I liked quite a bit the last time I owned the Lyr (for the HE-4).

 

[Dillweed]

Okay, just one more question before I just pick an amp and order it. Does there tend to be any noticeable static or noise from any of those amps? Or should they all be pretty much silent unless you crank the volume and/or gain up as high as possible?
 
I think I'm just going to stick with a solid state-type amp for now. If it turns out I want to try a tube amp afterwards to warm up or smooth out the sound a bit and see the difference from a solid state, I can always pick one out later.

 

[zibra]

lovely cube is smoother sounding and has more power than matrix. no problems with noise.

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

lovely cube is smoother sounding and has more power than matrix. no problems with noise.

I don't see how the Lovely Cube can have more power than the Matrix?????
I would suspect they both output the same amount.

 

[HaVoC-28]

 
Quote:

I've always wanted to try an Audio GD amp.............maybe next year!

I don't have a big preference either way, but I slightly prefer the DT880 with the La Figaro, it seems to smooth the sound out a bit, and warm things up a bit, but without loosing a lot of detail.
But I do like the extra punch and sense of speed I get from the Matrix. So I would not really want to be without either amp!
 
Your problem with the LD MK3 and K702 is probably due to the fact that some OTL tube amps don't work well with low impedance 'phones like the K701s.  
I don't have any problems using my Q701s with the 336C, the combination sounds very good! 
 

thanks for the input ^^ , peraphs will look a bit more on tube amps


Quote:

I don't see how the Lovely Cube can have more power than the Matrix?????
I would suspect they both output the same amount.

well i read that some prefer lovely cube and others m-stage  , for more than matrix i don't know peraphs the transformer is a bit more powerfull ? and test done with the same gain setting or not ?

 

[Dillweed]

Well, from what info and comparisons I can find for the Lovely Cube and m-stage, it seems like a decent number of people prefer the Lovely Cube, but also suggest possibly doing the "class A bias mod" on it. I don't know if it's necessary or what's involved in the installation, but the version of that mod straight from LaserCollection is only an extra $12, so I could order it and try the amp with and without the mod. Does this sound like a decent starting point?

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

well i read that some prefer lovely cube and others m-stage  , for more than matrix i don't know peraphs the transformer is a bit more powerfull ? and test done with the same gain setting or not ?

It's probably more gain in the Lovely Cube or better components,  both the Lovely Cube and the M Stage have massive oversized transformers, way too big for what is necessary to drive 'phones.
Maybe the Lovely Cube just sounds more dynamic and open? I've never heard a Lovely Cube or Lehmann.

 

[Dillweed]

Okay, sorry to bug you guys yet again, but I'm just trying to get as many impressions as I can before pulling the trigger on anything. I did some more searching, and besides the Lovely Cube, the Audio-GD C2.2 is looking like a frontrunner for relatively inexpensive solid state amps.
 
Havoc, I know you mentioned before about owning the C2.1 and liking it better than the m-stage (which is supposed to be pretty similar to the Lovely Cube). How did those two compare? What kind of differences did you notice that made the C2.1 sound better to you? Also, I noticed on the C2.2's webpage that it has some "ACSS sockets"... I have no idea what that's supposed to be or what it's used for. It seems like a proprietary thing for Audio-GD equipment.

 

[HaVoC-28]

 
Quote:

Okay, sorry to bug you guys yet again, but I'm just trying to get as many impressions as I can before pulling the trigger on anything. I did some more searching, and besides the Lovely Cube, the Audio-GD C2.2 is looking like a frontrunner for relatively inexpensive solid state amps.
 
Havoc, I know you mentioned before about owning the C2.1 and liking it better than the m-stage (which is supposed to be pretty similar to the Lovely Cube). How did those two compare? What kind of differences did you notice that made the C2.1 sound better to you? Also, I noticed on the C2.2's webpage that it has some "ACSS sockets"... I have no idea what that's supposed to be or what it's used for. It seems like a proprietary thing for Audio-GD equipment.

When i received my C2.1 i tested using my C2.1 with OPA moon like on my m-stage , and ACSS :
 
"
ACSS is a non-feedback technology made with fully discrete amplifiers. Most people know the global feedback design can offer better specs in test measurements, and non-feedback can't do well in test measurements but can offer better sound for the human's ears. Here is a conflict of the classic circuits. But the ACSS opens a new field, it can offer a least coloration sound which is more neutral with very low distortion and high linearity. So it can retain the dynamics, detail and neutral sound but not sound bright or harsh.
The output buffers are Non-feedback. For low impedance, we applied a diamond output stage (the MOSFET and transistor combined the Cascode stage )which is quite less colored than most conventional circuits."  quoted from audio GD .
 
 
in rca mode with opa moon at first difference with m-stage was not obvious , it was just a slight upgrade , tonnaly it was similar , but on C2.1 a bit more clarity , and some background details seamed a bit more defined , it was not a huge upgrade and i was somewhat a little disapointed with RCA mode , but my C2.1 was brand new , opa moon on m-stage had something like 350 h or more , on my c2.1, never used , but this same day when i tryed ACSS (the real purpose of my purchase , some month ago i bough a NFB-2 DAC and i was curious to try ACSS ) and it was wow , this what i was expecting for .
 
: http://www.head-fi.org/t/515859/how-is-the-audio-gd-c2-amp/30#post_7731602 (some impressions here where i mostly compare ACSS) .
 
But since this impressions i can say that : RCA mode is now much more closer to ACSS than it was before , tonaly and coloration is like it was  , but in details clarity , soundstage etc , it's close to ACSS , but i still think that ACSS have a slight edge but not as big as my first impressions . 
 
Furthemore i think that ACSS have improved too , soo for me my C2.1 amp is superior to m-stage , and burning helped a lot for RCA mod and opa moon .  
 
I should made deeper comparison beetween m-stage and C2.1 , 1 week later C2.1 in rca mode was better , but i wanted to wait at least one month , and in this time my m-stage was sold soo i didn't made a more in depth comparison . (sorry for my english ) .
 
Furthemore some prefer RCA Mode with the right opamp ^^ , and i don't have tryed many with C2.1  .

 

[Dillweed]

You're making the ACSS option sound like the better choice, but how would you hook up the amp to the soundcard with ACSS if you're just plugging it in like soundcard>amp>headphones? It seems like it's only for connecting Audio-GD hardware together. Would the C2.2 still be worth the extra over the Lovely Cube or m-stage if I'm planning to use the RCA connection and am planning to stay with the soundcard and not add a separate DAC in the near future? It sounds like you still think there's a noticeable improvement over the m-stage even if you use the RCA hookups (after the burn-in period, at least).

 

[HaVoC-28]

   
 
Quote:

You're making the ACSS option sound like the better choice, but how would you hook up the amp to the soundcard with ACSS if you're just plugging it in like soundcard>amp>headphones? It seems like it's only for connecting Audio-GD hardware together. Would the C2.2 still be worth the extra over the Lovely Cube or m-stage if I'm planning to use the RCA connection and am planning to stay with the soundcard and not add a separate DAC in the near future? It sounds like you still think there's a noticeable improvement over the m-stage even if you use the RCA hookups (after the burn-in period, at least).

ACSS yes proprietary tech for Audio GD only working with audio GD gears , for me C2.2 is a better amp than m-stage or lovely cube , no doubt about it , in ACSS or RCA mode , i switch some times to rca mode , for different flavor ^^ , and burn in definitevely help for sure . Without burning difference was more subtle but with carrefull listening it's audible . 
 
You can't be sorry with the three , but , if you can afford C2.2 go for it          hum with a internal soudcard as dac peraphs you shoud limit yourself with a m-stage or lovely cube , (peraphs not enough revelent to show significant improvement with a c2.2 ).                        
 
 

 

[Dillweed]

Ah, okay. Guess I'll reconsider, then. I got a quote from Stephen for the Lovely Cube already so I'll think on it some more. If the X-Fi Titanium HD will be a limiting factor right now, then I may as well save the money and get one of the less expensive amps because I don't plan on replacing the soundcard anytime soon and don't have a ton of extra cash to add a DAC to the equation.

 

[HaVoC-28]

 
Quote:

Ah, okay. Guess I'll reconsider, then. I got a quote from Stephen for the Lovely Cube already so I'll think on it some more. If the X-Fi Titanium HD will be a limiting factor right now, then I may as well save the money and get one of the less expensive amps because I don't plan on replacing the soundcard anytime soon and don't have a ton of extra cash to add a DAC to the equation.

Titan HD is great card in pare with Essence ST/STX , it's my last soundcard before getting a dac ^^  . I used my titan HD with a M-stage some time and was pleased with combo C2.2 is peraphs a bit too much for a Titan HD , lovely cube will be a better match in this conditions ^^ .