[Odin412]

The original was also made in the US (Texas) in small manufacturing runs and boutique audio markups due to the small runs and the realistic costs of keeping a small boutique audio company running.

Yes, I dreamed of owning a Liquid Gold since I first heard it, but it was out of my reach. Thanks to the Monoprice/Cavalli cooperation I now have the Liquid Gold X. It may not be 100% identical to the original, but it's close enough for me.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

So far not seeing anyone clearly recommending this over LP given the large price difference. Per that review if seems high powered planars or if you dislike tubes would be the use cases

I suspect that most people who have a Liquid Platinum/Crimson/Fire and just got the Liquid Gold X will immediately recognize that the Liquid Gold X is a different amp with its own unique sound characteristics and that it would be unfair to the amp to do a quick take on the amp just to get a quick impression out there.

I bought the Liquid Gold X a week after release. So I've owned it for less than 3 weeks. I haven't been listening to it enough yet to get critical about its sound or do a review type commentary. I bought some new tubes for my Liquid Glass at the same time I got the Liquid Gold X and I've been far more interested in listening to those new tubes in the Liquid Glass that playing with the new toy Liquid Gold X. So the Liquid Gold X has gotten few hours (relatively) during that time. I haven't listened to it enough yet to have critical comments. I also don't have enough different headphones on hand to be able to test it with enough different headphones of different flavors to figure out what headphones pair with it best.

The reality is that the Liquid Gold X is a different amp than the Liquid Platinum and other Cavalli blended hybrids. The Liquid Gold X isn't just a solid state version of Liquid Platinum. It isn't a Liquid Platinum with no tubes. It's not like that at all. It's a different amp with its own characteristics that will pair differently with various headphones than the various Cavalli blended hybrid amps. Comparing a Liquid Platinum directly against a Liquid Gold X will ignore the unique character of each amp and what pairs best with each.

The tonality and character of the Liquid Gold X is different than my Liquid Platinum and Liquid Fire. The tubes in the Fire and Platinum seem to fill in the midrange better than the Gold X. So with a headphone like the LCD-2 Classic that takes a bit if a dive in the midrange the Fire and Platinum fill that in and make it so it doesn't sound like the LCD-2 takes so much of a dive in the midrange. The Gold X doesn't do that. So I notice the frequency characteristics of the LCD-2 Classic more. Makes me wish I had a LCD-X on hand to try with the Liquid Gold X to see if the way the LCD-X extends a little more in the midrange will pair better with the Liquid Gold X.

Another example. I have an Oppo PM-2 and a balanced cable for it. The PM-2 is more neutral through the midrange than the LCD-2 Classic. Tonally in the midrange it pairs better with the Liquid Gold X, but the PM-2 does not have the transparency of the LCD-2 Classic and the Liquid Gold X makes that obvious. The Liquid Gold X is very good at letting me know which of my headphones have more transparency than others. Better at that than the Liquid Platinum for letting me hear how transparent a headphone is (I define transparency as the ability to hear through the headphone, have the headphone disappear, and hear through the headphone and amp to the source component and recording). The Liquid Gold X makes me wish I'd have splurged and gotten an Audio Zenith PMx2 mod. Expensive, but I think the PMx2 would end up pairing quite well with the Liquid Gold X.

Another example. I have an HD580 and HD600 that are both 20 years old. I also have a HD650 that is 5 years old. I have balanced cables for them. Tonally the HD580 and HD600 work better with the Liquid Gold X than the HD650. The HD580 is a bit more shouty in the mids than the HD600, but that's the way those two always have been. The Liquid Gold X makes that more obvious. But the HD650 has much better transparency (the Senn drivers have improved over 20 years) but the HD650 tonality isn't pairing as well for me as the older HD600 tonality. With the Liquid Platinum I prefer the tonality of the HD650. With the Liquid Gold X I'm preferring the tonality of the older HD600. But for transparency I greatly prefer the HD650 on the Gold X. The Gold X really lets you notice the transparency of the headphones you try with it. More than the Liquid Platinum, and about similarly (but differently) than the Liquid Fire. The Liquid Gold X doesn't let the headphones hide, for better or worse.

The EnjoyTheMusic review of the Liquid Gold X said the Gold X sounds like a Liquid Platinum with a really sweet set of tubes. I don't think that is a good take. I don't think that is a good way to compare the two so easily. I don't hear the two amps being similar in that way. The two amps are very much their own. Each different. Can't compare them in that way. A simple comparison like that is unfair to both amps. Evaluate each on their own with headphones that pair better with each.

The Liquid Gold X does sound different in low gain and high gain. Low gain is softer smoother more Cavalli liquid sound. The high gain is harder and changes the midrange tonality and overall soundscape style. The soundstage closes in with high gain. I prefer the low gain. Low gain is more like the Cavalli relaxed style of sound I'm accustomed to. The low gain and high gain are different enough that I think of them as two different amps. Any reviews of the amp need to mention which gain setting was used. I've been using the low gain.

I've never been able to hear the original Liquid Gold. This is the first time I've been able to hear any flavor of the Cavalli solid state Liquid Gold style of sound. It's different and better than the solid state sound of the Liquid Carbon. The solid state sound of the Gold X has a take on sonic holography that is uncanny for a sold state. It's reminding me a bit of the sonic holography that tubes can do, but to a less degree while being more solid state accurate and clean. I've considered my Liquid Fire and Liquid Platinum to be 75% Cavalli solid state sound mixed with about 25% tube. But predominantly a Cavalli solid state sound take on sound with about 25% tube mixed in. The Liquid Gold X helps me understand that mix and ratio better. The solid state side of the Fire and Platinum must have a similar style of sold state sonic holography going on then mix in a bit of tube to add a bit more and add in some second harmonics and other harmonics.

The Gold X makes it clear to me that I need to listen to it with more headphones. Especially some headphones like the LCD-X and Abyss Diana and some other planars that are more neutral through the midrange than my LCD-2 Rev 2 and LCD-2 Classic. Unfortunately I don't have access to headphones like that right now. And with Covid there aren't any meets where I'll be able to go try different headphones.

 

[sahmen]

Well, for me I have great respect for everything Dr. Cavalli has done, and already own many of his products. I have even gone crazy and purchased a second LP I did not immediately need (during the first $484 sale, which I found to be almost "criminally insane" as a price point for such a great sounding amp), although I have persuaded myself to use it in my office, and that should remove any doubts about my admiration for Cavalli products. With that said, I have been awaiting people's impressions of the LG X with interest right from its release, and of course, with an open mind... But what has struck me most is just how "anemic" the flow of impressions have been, for an amp that has descended from such a prestigious and legendary ancestor.

Case in point, it has been a little over one month since the LG X came out, but there are still no reviews of the amp at the Monoprice site! Compare that with the Liquid Platinum for which a glowing review appeared only after 2 or 3 days of its release, and was followed by at least another 4 or 5 in the first month alone. I think it does speak volumes that at least 5 or 6 people were so thrilled with their LP that they took the trouble to go back to the "scene of the crime" to pay their respects to their newly acquired LP.

So why are LG X owners so relatively quiet? In the spirit of keeping an open mind, I do not want to draw any hard conclusions from this apparent relative difference, but I am curious about what people think the reason might be. Of course, I remain very curious about the LG X itself, and would like to read more impressions about what it can do, as compared, if possible, to the OG LAu and the LP. So keep the impressions coming, if you can.

 

[Rob the Comic]

Well, for me I have great respect for everything Dr. Cavalli has done, and already own many of his products. I have even gone crazy and purchased a second LP I did not immediately need (during the first $484 sale, which I found to be almost "criminally insane" as a price point for such a great sounding amp), although I have persuaded myself to use it in my office, and that should remove any doubts about my admiration for Cavalli products. With that said, I have been awaiting people's impressions of the LG X with interest right from its release, and of course, with an open mind... But what has struck me most is just how "anemic" the flow of impressions have been, for an amp that has descended from such a prestigious and legendary ancestor.

Case in point, it has been a little over one month since the LG X came out, but there are still no reviews of the amp at the Monoprice site! Compare that with the Liquid Platinum for which a glowing review appeared only after 2 or 3 days of its release, and was followed by at least another 4 or 5 in the first month alone. I think it does speak volumes that at least 5 or 6 people were so thrilled with their LP that they took the trouble to go back to the "scene of the crime" to pay their respects to their newly acquired LP.

So why are LG X owners so relatively quiet? In the spirit of keeping an open mind, I do not want to draw any hard conclusions from this apparent relative difference, but I am curious about what people think the reason might be. Of course, I remain very curious about the LG X itself, and would like to read more impressions about what it can do, as compared, if possible, to the OG LAu and the LP. So keep the impressions coming, if you can.

Hello, greetings from Sydney.
Firstly, to address your last question; I think there is something about tube amps that make the average Joe feel like he has joined the ‘audiophile ranks’ and they are perhaps more invigorated to write a review. This is just conjecture on my part but traditionally, a lot of people tend to associate tube amps as being ‘serious’ kit as opposed to solid state.
I have owned the Liquid Gold X for about 6 weeks now and will put my thoughts down here when I am not baby sitting and writing on an iPad - old guy here. I have written a brief review on SBAF but have more listening experience with it now through HD800, 600, 650, 575, Focal Utopias and LCD-3’s. I also have a Heed Canalot III Q-PSU and a Phonitor XE. I am a solid state guy because I think the transition from warm to gooey is not to be underestimated in tube amps but mostly because I know myself and thus, know that I would be an unbearable OCD tube roller in search of the unobtainable absolute. Let me just say briefly, the AUX is clearly not up to the Phonitor - few are IMHO - BUT it does not sound 2k cheaper either. I like it.

Rob

 

[Ham Sandwich]

About a 50-60hr burn in time and listening with my 1266 TC. Was hoping the LGX to be at least 80% similar to the LAu.

I'm curious about the Abyss 1266 pairing with the new Liquid Gold X. Did the Liquid Gold X have enough power and gain in low gain (4x) mode to drive the Abyss or did you have to switch to high gain (6x) mode?

The tonality and sound qualities of the Liquid Gold X have me looking for better headphones. The Abyss Diana or 1266 are in consideration if the amp can drive them plenty well with headroom in low gain mode. The Gold X amp sounds dreamy in low gain mode, not so dreamy in high gain. Any headphone I consider pairing with this amp needs to be efficient enough to be used in low gain mode.

 

[SilverEars]

After trying out GoldX, I pretty much lost interest in Cavalli. I find it overpriced for the performance. Single ended output was pure crap, and it's not excusable. Balanced was alright, but at $1k, I expected better.

I think it should be at about the same pricing as the LP. LP got my interest up on Cavalli and this one just totally lost my interest. Neither are better or worth more over each other, just different. Personally, I prefer the LP.

 

[Klmahnn]

This amp will start to look interesting once it gets discounted a bit, especially from us Europeans. Looks a little underpowered for ZMFs though? 0.83mw into 300ohm! I think I remember Zach recommending over 100mw as the drivers need 250 - 300mw to max out.

 

[geoffalter11]

After trying out GoldX, I pretty much lost interest in Cavalli. I find it overpriced for the performance. Single ended output was pure crap, and it's not excusable. Balanced was alright, but at $1k, I expected better.

I think it should be at about the same pricing as the LP. LP got my interest up on Cavalli and this one just totally lost my interest. Neither are better or worth more over each other, just different. Personally, I prefer the LP.

Kinda disappointing to hear... The Cavalli Sound has held such high esteem in the community for so long. I have never owned a Cavalli piece and seriously considered the GoldX. I have not heard either the LP or the GoldX. Actually, I haven't heard any of Cavalli's Amps as his high end stuff always seemed out of reach. I will continue to wait and perhaps the next design will be for me.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

This amp will start to look interesting once it gets discounted a bit, especially from us Europeans. Looks a little underpowered for ZMFs though? 0.83mw into 300ohm! I think I remember Zach recommending over 100mw as the drivers need 250 - 300mw to max out.

It is 0.82 watts into 300 ohms using the balanced output. That's watts not milliwatts. So 820 milliwatts.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

After trying out GoldX, I pretty much lost interest in Cavalli. I find it overpriced for the performance. Single ended output was pure crap, and it's not excusable. Balanced was alright, but at $1k, I expected better.

I think it should be at about the same pricing as the LP. LP got my interest up on Cavalli and this one just totally lost my interest. Neither are better or worth more over each other, just different. Personally, I prefer the LP.

The Liquid Gold X is also a balanced amp designed around a balanced circuit that sounds best in balanced mode. The single-ended output is for convenience only and not for sound quality. The manual also mentions that:

Balanced vs. Unbalanced
To get the best performance from your amplifier, use the balanced headphone output, as well as the balanced XLR inputs. The amp is designed to run with a balanced input and output. If you only have TRS terminated headphones, we recommend that you find a way to listen with balanced headphones before making any judgement on the performance of the amp. Remember that the unbalanced output is provided for convenience only.

The Liquid Platinum is the same. The single-ended output is for convenience only and should not be used to judge the sound quality or capabilities of the amp.

Personally I think Cavalli made a mistake in adding the single-ended outputs for the Gold X and Platinum. The single-ended outputs get used to judge the quality of the amp and for measurements. If the single-ended output wasn't there then those mistakes and misuses couldn't be made. I have both the Liquid Platinum and Liquid Gold X. I have never used the single-ended outputs for any listening other than to verify that they work and that they do indeed not sound as good as the balanced output.

 

[Klmahnn]

The Liquid Gold X is also a balanced amp designed around a balanced circuit that sounds best in balanced mode. The single-ended output is for convenience only and not for sound quality. The manual also mentions that:


The Liquid Platinum is the same. The single-ended output is for convenience only and should not be used to judge the sound quality or capabilities of the amp.

Personally I think Cavalli made a mistake in adding the single-ended outputs for the Gold X and Platinum. The single-ended outputs get used to judge the quality of the amp and for measurements. If the single-ended output wasn't there then those mistakes and misuses couldn't be made. I have both the Liquid Platinum and Liquid Gold X. I have never used the single-ended outputs for any listening other than to verify that they work and that they do indeed not sound as good as the balanced output.

Agreed would also look a lot better with just XLR. Excuse my complete brain fart... what was I thinking earlier 0.83mw makes 0 sense haha.

 

[Shane D]

The Liquid Gold X is also a balanced amp designed around a balanced circuit that sounds best in balanced mode. The single-ended output is for convenience only and not for sound quality. The manual also mentions that:


The Liquid Platinum is the same. The single-ended output is for convenience only and should not be used to judge the sound quality or capabilities of the amp.

Personally I think Cavalli made a mistake in adding the single-ended outputs for the Gold X and Platinum. The single-ended outputs get used to judge the quality of the amp and for measurements. If the single-ended output wasn't there then those mistakes and misuses couldn't be made. I have both the Liquid Platinum and Liquid Gold X. I have never used the single-ended outputs for any listening other than to verify that they work and that they do indeed not sound as good as the balanced output.

So, you find them different enough to merit keeping both?
MAN, would I love to able to do a side by side!

Do you prefer one over the other?

 

[SilverEars]

The Liquid Gold X is also a balanced amp designed around a balanced circuit that sounds best in balanced mode. The single-ended output is for convenience only and not for sound quality. The manual also mentions that:


The Liquid Platinum is the same. The single-ended output is for convenience only and should not be used to judge the sound quality or capabilities of the amp.

Personally I think Cavalli made a mistake in adding the single-ended outputs for the Gold X and Platinum. The single-ended outputs get used to judge the quality of the amp and for measurements. If the single-ended output wasn't there then those mistakes and misuses couldn't be made. I have both the Liquid Platinum and Liquid Gold X. I have never used the single-ended outputs for any listening other than to verify that they work and that they do indeed not sound as good as the balanced output.

I'm not judging the quality of amp solely on SE, which is not what I stated. I said amps out there with balanced output, do not have gimped SE output. I use SE with various other amps, and GoldX's SE is unusable.

Seriously, it's $1k amp and makes no sense SE should sound as bad as it does. Even cheap amps actually provide properly implemented SE outputs. I can't take his designs seriously.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

I'm not judging the quality of amp solely on SE, which is not what I stated. I said amps out there with balanced output, do not have gimped SE output. I use SE with various other amps, and GoldX's SE is unusable.

Seriously, it's $1k amp and makes no sense SE should sound as bad as it does. Even cheap amps actually provide properly implemented SE outputs. I can't take his designs seriously.

Cavalli knows very well how to make a very good single-ended amp. The Liquid Fire, Liquid Crimson, and Liquid Glass are all single-ended amps and sound better than a lot of balanced amps I've tried. I own both a Liquid Fire and a Liquid Glass so I know very well how they sound. And they're quite good at what they do. If you want Cavalli's best single-ended amp go find yourself a Liquid Crimson. It is very nice.

There are different ways of doing balanced headphone amps. Balanced amps can be pseudo-balanced, true balanced, or transformer balanced.

Pseudo-balanced is like putting two single-ended amps side by side to generate a differential signal. With a pseudo-balanced amp the single-ended headphone output will sound very close and very much like the balanced output. In some implementations the balanced headphone output may sound a bit worse than the single-ended output. With a pseudo-balanced design it is the balanced output that can potentially be gimped.

True balanced amps use a topology that is inherently balanced. The output from the amp topology is a differential signal. With a true balanced amp the single-ended headphone output gets gimped. You can create a single-ended output by summing the output or by taking a shorter path through the amp circuit that stays single-ended. Cavalli opts for the second way. I don't know the circuit for the Liquid Gold, but for the Liquid Carbon and Liquid Platinum the single-ended output ends up using only about 25% of the actual amplification circuit. So of course it doesn't sound as good. The circuit was designed for the balanced differential output rather than the single-ended output. I'm assuming the design and behavior of the Liquid Gold topology is similar.

With a pseudo-balanced amp the sound quality of the single-ended and balanced headphone outputs will be very close. The advantage for the balanced output will be more power and potentially a little bit better sound quality (lower crosstalk and such).

With true balanced amps the sound quality of the balanced headphone output will sound best. In some true balanced amps the designer doesn't even bother adding a single-ended output because why listen to a gimped output. There are some true balanced topologies and designs that sound very good or very special or have other cost or design advantages. With those designs the fact that the balanced headphone output will sound the best is worth the inconvenience that the single-ended output will be gimped.

 

[Klmahnn]

Has anyone compared the RME ADI-2 dac (v2) headphone out to this? I'm about to pull the trigger on one (again) but it might just be worth waiting for a discount on this if it compares favourably.