[Mochan]

It's not an advertising mistake. Little Dot and Sword Yang  designed the Q as an amp/DAC. This is not rocket science? I can understand trying to defend the product but facts are facts. It's an AMP/DAC.  Not an Amp.
 
The P51 Mustang is an Amp
The P4 is an Amp
The Little Dot Mk II is an Amp
 
This version of the Q is a DAC/Amp
Just like the Nuforce Icon Mobile.
 
 
There are no ifs/buts about it.
 
 
I wasn't aware that this wasn't meant to be a commercial product, didn't realize it was solely meant to be a gift item never to be sold. I'm also greatly surprised that the first batch of users never had an issue with its DAC, which was honestly the worst DAC I have ever used. In that case it is a marketing issue, but it is also first and foremost an engineering issue.
 
As one of the first batch of users of its commercial version, I will say it was a lousy product. Aside from the non-sense DAC it had quality issues like the soldering and the upside down faceplate. I don't know if I'm just harder to please than the gift users but this was a product that was not fit to be released for consumers.
 

 

[yanfeng]

Little Dot Q is designed as an amp from the very beginning. Later some people asked for the DAC function, and Sword Yang added it. The DAC is like a bonus. If Sword Yang advertised it as a AMP/DAC, I think it's an advertising mistake.
For AMP alone it's worth the price. Can you find another mini tube amp with the same sound quality and factor form for $89?
 


 
Quote:

It's not an advertising mistake. Little Dot and Sword Yang  designed the Q as an amp/DAC. This is not rocket science? I can understand trying to defend the product but facts are facts. It's an AMP/DAC.  Not an Amp.
 
The P51 Mustang is an Amp
The P4 is an Amp
The Little Dot Mk II is an Amp
 
This version of the Q is a DAC/Amp
Just like the Nuforce Icon Mobile.
 
 
There are no ifs/buts about it.
 
 
I wasn't aware that this wasn't meant to be a commercial product, didn't realize it was solely meant to be a gift item never to be sold. I'm also greatly surprised that the first batch of users never had an issue with its DAC, which was honestly the worst DAC I have ever used. In that case it is a marketing issue, but it is also first and foremost an engineering issue.
 
As one of the first batch of users of its commercial version, I will say it was a lousy product. Aside from the non-sense DAC it had quality issues like the soldering and the upside down faceplate. I don't know if I'm just harder to please than the gift users but this was a product that was not fit to be released for consumers.
 

 

 

[Kevin Brown]

Quote:

Little Dot Q is designed as an amp from the very beginning. Later some people asked for the DAC function, and Sword Yang added it. The DAC is like a bonus. If Sword Yang advertised it as a AMP/DAC, I think it's an advertising mistake.
For AMP alone it's worth the price. Can you find another mini tube amp with the same sound quality and factor form for $89?
  

The DAC should never have been included.  If he couldn't implement a good sounding DAC, then he should have declined to include it.
 

 
 

 

[ale79]

The little dot Q is now selling as an amp only, it no longer features a dac. Anybody heard it?

 

[Mochan]

I'm curious as well if this has been released as a good amp now.

 

[Kevin Brown]

The DAC version is still selling on eBay.
 

 

[Impulsive]

New Little Dot Q is pure headphone amp.
I think that resellers are just selling the last pieces of old one.

 

[Kevin Brown]

I pity those poor souls who then buy the still available DAC version with the very poor sounding DAC.
 
Not a very good reflection on Little Dot either.  They should have pulled all those units back from their dealers/resellers then.
 
How long has it been known that the DAC is inferior?  More than a year?
 

 

[benzoylmethyl]

Good, I'm not reviving this thread after all.  I love the way this looks and need something small since I'm overseas and don't want to risk ruining a $300 tube amp on the trip home.  You guys think this would have decent synergy with an E7 DAC/Pro 900 combo?
 
I know it's not necessary in combination with the E7, but I really, really like warm tones and am pretty sensitive to HF.  I listen--literally--to everything, but from the 'phone choice you can probably infer that I dig me some bass. Any comments?
 
--edit:  Thanks for this review.  I've had trouble finding any reviews at all on inexpensive tube amps, so this is much appreciated.

 

[Mochan]

The amp section of the Q is actually quite bright, but the highs typically are pleasant to the ear and do not come out harsh unless you're using something hard to drive. It's not a very bassy amp, though. Just warm all around, but not bass-heavy or dark. Thought the Pro900 has more than enough bass.  I'm surprised you like the Pro900 though when you say you are sensitive to HF, I found the Pro 900's highs to be very grating. I didn't get to try the Q with the Pro 900 but I can't imagine it sounding good for people who don't like HF, because both are bright pieces of equipment.
 
The only other inexpensive tube amps I know of are the Little Dot MkII (which was pretty good, but also rather bright) and the C&C X02, which goes for about $200, and which is an awesome portable tube amp with very, very good bass.

 

[benzoylmethyl]

I don't have the 900 yet...the DAC/'phone combo are sitting in my amazon cart, waiting impatiently for Tuesday to roll around.  Being where I am prevents me from auditioning...well...anything.  Audiophilia is a nonexistent hobby here, where the only cans sold over $100 are accompanied by a certain prestigious rapper's name.  So I'm basing my purchases on reviews and recommendations from here (you guys), which has served me well in the past. My impression was that the 900s level off a little with burn in and the highs can be mellowed a little with a decent amp.  I want to buy everything at once, if possible; thus, the preemptive post.
 
The SR80i's were a little bright for me; they became fatiguing after about an hour or so.  I could listen to my Shure SE110s for a few hours at a time, and I really haven't had much of a problem with my Klipsch S4s.  I feel the ATH-M50s are kind of bland overall for my tastes--actually, so are the S4s.
 
The problem is that I need the bass, and I haven't been able to find any recommendations from anyone on a bass-heavy 'phone that doesn't have bright highs accompanying it, at least in the low-to-mid grade audiophile closed-back spectrum. The Beyer 770s were on the list (and at a much lower price point), but the reports of recessed mids and still-bright highs kind of put me off. At the moment I feel like I have picked the best compromise. 
 
If you have any recommendations, PLEASE let me know.  I'm willing to pair with amps/dacs to tune the sound a little, but I prefer to avoid EQs--software EQs either cost an arm and a leg or don't work well (or I haven't found it yet), and HW EQs just cost an arm and a leg.
 
For the record, while I do consider myself a basshead, I have a pretty discerning ear and I like my music musical and my soundstage wide.  I need the bass for when I write code--I usually listen to dubstep or D&B, but I love me some Nina Simone or Ella Fitzgerald when I'm trying to relax.
 
Sorry for the long post, and thank you for your quick response to my question.  Not trying to jack the thread or anything.