[stelladiver]

Does anyone know when these amps go on sale for $499 regularly? I missed the last time a month ago

 

[LCMusicLover]

Does anyone know when these amps go on sale for $499 regularly? I missed the last time a month ago

Doesn't seem to be scheduled. I'm guessing when their stock gets to a certain level they go.

The $499 less 15% (so $425) was a great price.

 

[Odin412]

I finally found a headphone that works well with the single-ended output of the Liquid Gold X: The Focal Celestee. The combo sounds wonderful.

 

[Pharmaboy]

I finally found a headphone that works well with the single-ended output of the Liquid Gold X: The Focal Celestee. The combo sounds wonderful.

Very interesting. First post of its kind, I do believe.

I'm not a fan of Focal, but now maybe I'll try one of my single-ended HPs w/this amp (never thought of doing so before).

 

[LucasKA]

Love this amp! I had been using the internal DAC out of convenience at my temporary home editing station and it works surprising well and enjoyed it with Utopia and HD800 and Ananda quite well! It serves me well as my second main amp.

What amp would you say you have upgraded to? I recently got a Mass Kobo 394ii and felt it was a significant upgrade!

 

[LCMusicLover]

Still love this amp (screw the DAC). Did some comparison listening today (what can I say, I’m thankful for outstanding audio):

mScaler ==> TT2 ==> LG-X ==> Atrium
mScaler ==> TT2 ==> DSHA-3F ==> Atrium
mScaler ==> Audio-gd Master 11 (DAC out) ==> LG-X ==> Atrium
mScaler ==> Audio-gd Master 11 (DAC out) ==> DSHA-3F ==> Atrium
mScaler ==> Audio-gd Master 11 (amp out) ==> Atrium

mScaler up-sampling was limited to 4x by Master 11, DSHA-3F running nickel transformers, balanced connections to both amps, amps ==> Atrium balanced in all configs. M11 is either DAC-out to one of the amps or amp-out to Atrium. I have a 3-in/1-out 4-pin switch box, so can compare 3 configs without changing cabling. So either

m11 ==> Atrium
m11 ==> LG-X ==> Atrium
TT2 ==> DSHA-3F ==> Atrium
or
m11 ==> Atrium
m11 ==> DSHA-3F ==> Atrium
TT2 ==> LG-X ==> Atrium

And the results:

On many (most?) tracks the DAC differences significantly outweigh the amp differences. Tonality doesn’t move much at all (DSHA-3F/amorphous transformers change that). Tracks which offer more air and open staging lean that way a bit more from m11 ==> 3F than either DAC ==> LG-X — this would be more noticeable from 3F/amorphous transformers.

Impact is close as well — there are tracks where the 3F ‘leading edge’ seems a bit crisper (e.g., cymbal strikes in instrumental middle of Whole Lotta Love).

Also, both amps do very well presenting dense, complex passages cleanly.

Bottom line, in my system, to my ears, LG-X performs very close to 3F for (in my case, including 2nd set of transformers) about 1/7th the price, although I did get my LG-X for 15% off the $499 sale price.

And it is quite powerful. I’m listening to LG-X ==> Atrium @ 10:00 and that’s quite loud. And only up to 11:00 for Hedds & Ether 2 (my most demanding cans). Great pairing w/ Hedds BTW.

I think it’s still a good value at the current price (BF15 discount off $699) of $595.

 

[jjshin23]

Picked up the Monoprice Liquid Gold (LG-X) during the Black Friday sale so around $600 (original $699) to see how it compares to the Cavalli Liquid Gold OG (LAU).
I’ve been wondering if this Monoprice version is a 2.0, something completely different, a variation or what the differences were.

Let me start by saying this amp is very good and well worth the money. It punches much higher than the price point would indicate.

Let the LG-X amp burn in over 4-5 days or about 100 hours to make sure that was done.

The setup:
mScaler -> Holo May KTE -> A/B switch -> Monoprice Liquid Gold/Cavalli Liquid Gold -> Atrium, Denon 9200, Auteur, TH900, HD800, and 1266TC.

Similarities:
Smooth Cavalli sound with great clarity, power, and warmth.
LG-X and the LAU has the same sound signature and I can see how they are in the same family.
LG-X can power all of the dynamic headphones without any issues but struggled a little with the planar 1266TC.

Differences:
First obvious difference is the price.
The LAU started at $6450 then price dropped sometime afterwards in the $4000 range.
LG-X $699 but on sale once in a while from $500-$600.

Power - LG-X can power most of the dynamic headphones just fine but the 1266TC starts to lose control in the bass region. It gets a little bloated sounding in the mid bass and loses that punch in the sub bass compared to the LAU.

Treble was the most similar between the two. Both had nice detail without being harsh.
Mid: LG-X was a little more forward compared to the LAU.
Bass: LG-X has a little more mid bass punch with dynamic headphones and LAU had more control of the mid and sub bass areas with dynamic headphones.

The biggest difference in my setup was the sound stage and imaging. The LG-X seem to have all the instruments and presentation a little more forward and closer together where as the LAU had more separation between sounds and a little further back. It didn’t lack any detail but just blacker and a little more defined with all of the instruments and vocals. Soundstage depth was about the same but the width was bigger on the LAU.

In conclusion, the LG-X is a great buy at the price point but the LAU has a little more refinement, control, imaging and power. LAU just does everything just a little better than the LG-X. If anything I would say the LG-X is about 80% of the LAU and in this hobby the law of diminishing return is a real thing. I believe you have to pay twice as much to get half as much improvement in sound and trying to squeeze at the very top is a pricey endeavor but may be worth it for some.

Without having the LAU, I would be completely happy with the LG-X with one exception… Planar headphones are ok on the LG-X but fall short compared to other higher powered amps like LAU, CFA or speaker amps.

 

[XERO1]

Picked up the Monoprice Liquid Gold (LG-X) during the Black Friday sale so around $600 (original $699) to see how it compares to the Cavalli Liquid Gold OG (LAU).
I’ve been wondering if this Monoprice version is a 2.0, something completely different, a variation or what the differences were.

Let me start by saying this amp is very good and well worth the money. It punches much higher than the price point would indicate.

Let the LG-X amp burn in over 4-5 days or about 100 hours to make sure that was done.

The setup:
mScaler -> Holo May KTE -> A/B switch -> Monoprice Liquid Gold/Cavalli Liquid Gold -> Atrium, Denon 9200, Auteur, TH900, HD800, and 1266TC.

Similarities:
Smooth Cavalli sound with great clarity, power, and warmth.
LG-X and the LAU has the same sound signature and I can see how they are in the same family.
LG-X can power all of the dynamic headphones without any issues but struggled a little with the planar 1266TC.

Differences:
First obvious difference is the price.
The LAU started at $6450 then price dropped sometime afterwards in the $4000 range.
LG-X $699 but on sale once in a while from $500-$600.

Power - LG-X can power most of the dynamic headphones just fine but the 1266TC starts to lose control in the bass region. It gets a little bloated sounding in the mid bass and loses that punch in the sub bass compared to the LAU.

Treble was the most similar between the two. Both had nice detail without being harsh.
Mid: LG-X was a little more forward compared to the LAU.
Bass: LG-X has a little more mid bass punch with dynamic headphones and LAU had more control of the mid and sub bass areas with dynamic headphones.

The biggest difference in my setup was the sound stage and imaging. The LG-X seem to have all the instruments and presentation a little more forward and closer together where as the LAU had more separation between sounds and a little further back. It didn’t lack any detail but just blacker and a little more defined with all of the instruments and vocals. Soundstage depth was about the same but the width was bigger on the LAU.

In conclusion, the LG-X is a great buy at the price point but the LAU has a little more refinement, control, imaging and power. LAU just does everything just a little better than the LG-X. If anything I would say the LG-X is about 80% of the LAU and in this hobby the law of diminishing return is a real thing. I believe you have to pay twice as much to get half as much improvement in sound and trying to squeeze at the very top is a pricey endeavor but may be worth it for some.

Without having the LAU, I would be completely happy with the LG-X with one exception… Planar headphones are ok on the LG-X but fall short compared to other higher powered amps like LAU, CFA or speaker amps.

Thank you for this excellent comparison!

This was something that I've been wondering about since the LGX was first released, but since the original Cavalli LAu has now essentially become unobtainium (along with all the other OG Cavalli amps), I honestly didn't expect to ever see a well done comparison between them. And it's awesome to hear that the much cheaper and smaller LGX retains a considerable chunk of the LAu's excellent SQ.

Thank's again.

 

[sennfan83261]

Picked up the Monoprice Liquid Gold (LG-X) during the Black Friday sale so around $600 (original $699) to see how it compares to the Cavalli Liquid Gold OG (LAU).
I’ve been wondering if this Monoprice version is a 2.0, something completely different, a variation or what the differences were.

Let me start by saying this amp is very good and well worth the money. It punches much higher than the price point would indicate.

Let the LG-X amp burn in over 4-5 days or about 100 hours to make sure that was done.

I came from the opposite direction than you where the LGX has been my daily driver over the past 14 months and I recently acquired an OG LAu. Nevertheless, I feel that my experience between the two mirrors yours. I would like to add that the greater separation with the OG LAu allows me to discern microdetails more clearly on my planar daily drivers (LCD-3 pre-fazors, HEKv1, and HE-6 (4S)). Still, I feel that the $599 that I paid for the LGX was a fantastic deal (useless internal DAC notwithstanding) given the MSRP of the LAu and the used prices that the LAu is going for these days. Definitely keeping both with the LGX likely heading to my office.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Picked up the Monoprice Liquid Gold (LG-X) during the Black Friday sale so around $600 (original $699) to see how it compares to the Cavalli Liquid Gold OG (LAU).
I’ve been wondering if this Monoprice version is a 2.0, something completely different, a variation or what the differences were.

Have you compared the sonic differences between high gain and low gain with the two Liquid Gold amps?

I haven't been able to hear an OG Liquid Gold yet. I want to. I've been able to either hear or own most of the other Cavalli amps. But haven't been able to audition or hear or demo the OG Liquid Gold yet.

I do like the Monorpice version of the Liquid Gold. It pairs very well with the planar magnetic headphones that I like. It does a very good job of driving planar magnetic headphones in a way that gets them to sound better than they do with many other amps.

But what I have noticed with the Monoprice Liquid Gold X is that it doesn't do that trick as well in high gain as it does in low gain. And I've been wondering if the OG Liquid Gold is similar in that behavior or not. I've never read a review of the OG Liquid Gold that mentioned any sort of sonic issue with high gain. But there are reviews of the Monoprice Liquid Gold that mention that high gain doesn't sound as good, along with my own listening impressions where I consider high gain to be a downgrade in amp and sonic performance. To the point that I won't use high gain and would not consider a headphone to pair with the amp that would require the use of high gain to get the headphones loud enough. To me the Monoprice Liquid Gold is absolutely wonderful in low gain mode with suitable planar magnetic headphones. But if a headphone doesn't have the sensitivity to work well in low gain mode then I'd really need to use a different amp with that headphone.

The OG Liquid Gold does have more power and a higher gain in high gain than the Monoprice Liquid Gold does. A reason for that is because the OG Liquid Gold is bigger and designed to be able to dissipate more heat. The Monoprice Liquid Gold runs high gain at a lower power and lower gain because it cannot handle the heat dissipation that a higher gain would require. And maybe that's the reason why high gain with the Monoprice Liquid Gold X doesn't sound as good? I don't know.

 

[jjshin23]

Have you compared the sonic differences between high gain and low gain with the two Liquid Gold amps?

I haven't been able to hear an OG Liquid Gold yet. I want to. I've been able to either hear or own most of the other Cavalli amps. But haven't been able to audition or hear or demo the OG Liquid Gold yet.

I do like the Monorpice version of the Liquid Gold. It pairs very well with the planar magnetic headphones that I like. It does a very good job of driving planar magnetic headphones in a way that gets them to sound better than they do with many other amps.

But what I have noticed with the Monoprice Liquid Gold X is that it doesn't do that trick as well in high gain as it does in low gain. And I've been wondering if the OG Liquid Gold is similar in that behavior or not. I've never read a review of the OG Liquid Gold that mentioned any sort of sonic issue with high gain. But there are reviews of the Monoprice Liquid Gold that mention that high gain doesn't sound as good, along with my own listening impressions where I consider high gain to be a downgrade in amp and sonic performance. To the point that I won't use high gain and would not consider a headphone to pair with the amp that would require the use of high gain to get the headphones loud enough. To me the Monoprice Liquid Gold is absolutely wonderful in low gain mode with suitable planar magnetic headphones. But if a headphone doesn't have the sensitivity to work well in low gain mode then I'd really need to use a different amp with that headphone.

The OG Liquid Gold does have more power and a higher gain in high gain than the Monoprice Liquid Gold does. A reason for that is because the OG Liquid Gold is bigger and designed to be able to dissipate more heat. The Monoprice Liquid Gold runs high gain at a lower power and lower gain because it cannot handle the heat dissipation that a higher gain would require. And maybe that's the reason why high gain with the Monoprice Liquid Gold X doesn't sound as good? I don't know.

Yeah, I agree with you and not a big fan of high gain on either amp. The comparisons were done only in low gain because at high gain I feel some of the finesse is lost and it gets a little shouty at times. It's not that the LG-X does a bad job with planar because the high and mids are very good on it but the differences start to occur in the bass region. After hearing other amps (LAU, CFA3, and Pass Labs INT150 with speaker taps) you notice the difference. One of the passages I listen to is The Dark Knight (Why So Serious) around 3:27 hits some low sub bass and on the LAU you still get a good amount of thump with the 1266TC which is lacking in the LG-X. Trying to match the thump on the LG-X by switching to high gain or low gain with higher volume can get you there but the rest of the song is just too loud and loses control.

Again, my planar is the 1266TC so I can't speak to other planar headphones and know the 1266TC along with Susvara, and HE6 OG are some of the most power demanding headphones out there. Without that power the bass falls short and to get enough power to get that bass to sing and still controlled is jumping into the $2000+ range for amps. The difference is like a tube amp - The 1266TC sounds good on the DNA Stratus and EC Studio 300B but the low end just can't produce what the higher power amps can do effortlessly. It's not bad by any means and rather good but to get to great takes more power.

 

[Pharmaboy]

I have to laugh a little at this talk about low vs high gain on the Monolith LGX--because I could never use high gain without blowing my brains out from volume. Even on low gain, this amp has too much gain for either of my systems, which forces me to use the volume pot rotated too far left, risking channel imbalance.

Add to that the issue of a volume "hump" at ~10:00 on the dial (where a sudden jump in volume is heard). Until I got a DAC with a volume pot, using either DAC in my 2 office systems, I would just approach the perfect volume for my planar headphones (~10:00 on that dial) when the volume would jump up and be way too much.

Once I started using a DAC with its own volume control (set to 75%), I was finally able to adjust my LGX to any volume desired. It's a great sounding amp, especially with planar headphones, but it does have a few gain & volume issues to contend with. Nevertheless, for what I paid, and for the sake of my planar headphones, I'm happy with this amp.

 

[CopperFox]

LG-X can power all of the dynamic headphones without any issues but struggled a little with the planar 1266TC.

Power - LG-X can power most of the dynamic headphones just fine but the 1266TC starts to lose control in the bass region. It gets a little bloated sounding in the mid bass and loses that punch in the sub bass compared to the LAU.

I don't hear any loss of bass control on the (16 ohm 90db/mW) M1060C. On the contrary - it is IMO the best SS amp for bass quality and quantity that I've used. I haven't heard the original LG though.

But it can be seen from the MLGX's specs that it does produce more current into a lower impedance load ( than it does into a higher impedance load ), and AFAIK the original is somewhat more powerful?

 

[jonathan c]

An issues of LGX ‘circuit protection’ being activated at musical crescendos?

 

[Pharmaboy]

An issues of LGX ‘circuit protection’ being activated at musical crescendos?

I'm not aware of it, though maybe it's possible. If so, it would only happen at very loud levels I could never come close to.