Ok. Compared the LC and Master-9 with the HE-6 for a bit tonight. Here's what I found: Pretty similar overall. I think you would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the two, if you were going by memory. In a head-to-head, it's a little easier. The biggest difference is in the imaging and soundstage. The Master-9 is wider, deeper and more distinct. Images have a much more defined place in the sound field, stacking at very precise points from left to right and front to back. The LC, in comparison, is a little less specific. Other than that, the Master-9 is a tiny bit tighter on the low end and a little smoother in the upper midrange. But really, it's not by much at all. Impact on the two is about the same. Timbre and tone are very similar, as well. On other headphones, I generally find the LC to be the more engaging amp, but here it is a little bit closer. If I had to guess, most of the differences seem like they would be more attributable to the amps' power management differences, as opposed to the amount of power output they have on tap for the HE-6. I experienced a similar set of differences (albeit on a little smaller scale) when I A/B'ed a $5 Monoprice cable on the LC with the high current 7 gauge Pangea AC-9 MKII. This power management difference shouldn't be a huge surprise to you if you are familiar with the Master-9. Is the difference worth 2.5 to 3X the price? I don't think so, but YMMV. If I tested them with a day in between, it would have been quite difficult to tell the difference. Neither one of them get up to the level of the very best TOTL solutions, but they both perform quite, quite admirably with the HE-6.