[oqvist]

Bump and thanks for the review. Another american amp for you to try is the Goldpoint headphone Pro.

 

[Asr]

Quote:

He means amplifier topology.  The Gilmore Lite (Dynalo) is class A push-pull, while the Asgard is class A single-ended.  The sound is different.  
What do the terms Push-Pull and Single Ended mean?

 
Oh ok, thanks for the clarifying info. I mistakenly took the "single-ended" as the counterpart to "balanced".
 
Quote:

I might end up looking for a good replacement for the GLite in a few months perhaps a GS1 would drive the LCD2 and AD2000 effectively?

 
I'd think you'd have to look into more higher output-power amps (than the GS-1) to adequately drive the LCD-2. The GS-1 is only a marginal upgrade over the Gilmore Lite sonically, I wrote a review comparing the two a few years ago. (I suspect the only reason I'm satisfied with the LCD-2 on the GS-X is because I'm running it balanced - even though I haven't bothered to compare it to single-ended.) A low-gain B22 would probably be a great amp for the LCD-2 and AD2000.
 
Edit: looks like I didn't write a review of the GL vs GS-1, but I did do the listening comparison years ago. I'll re-iterate my opinion: the GS-1 evens out the frequency balance (less treble, clearer bass), but IMO anyone hoping for a major sonic "improvement" will be disappointed. The bigger reason to get a GS-1 over the GL is for its features (gain switching, dual headphone jacks, dual inputs, loop output, pre-amp output).
 
Quote:

Another american amp for you to try is the Goldpoint headphone Pro.

I won't be trying any more amps from now on, thanks for the info though.

 

[KuKuBuKu]

My god...never thought what looked like some ordinary Hammond enclosure would look so sexy in an actual picture...
 
the Avenson Audio has balanced TRS inputs, and will then have mono outputs. Is this amp balanced? As in, could you make a balanced TRS cable for this?

 

[K3cT]

Thanks, Asr. I always enjoy reading your reviews.
 
When I first heard the Gilmore Lite in a meet, I was pretty unimpressed as it sounded pretty thin and harsh but only when a kind friend lent it to me for an extended audition that I began to appreciate its quality using my own source and headphone. I've said it here before in the Concerto thread IIRC but perhaps the reason that some people don't seem to be too impressed with it is because it's too clear as it doesn't really add anything to your system. Nevertheless it's not perfect for the reasons that you had stated there. 
 
Anyway, if you don't mind me asking, how do you find the M^3 compare with the Asgard as both employ MOSFETs in their topology? 

 

[Asr]

Quote:

the Avenson Audio has balanced TRS inputs, and will then have mono outputs. Is this amp balanced? As in, could you make a balanced TRS cable for this?

You'd have to ask Avenson Audio about this. There's a note about the TRS inputs on the product page: http://avensonaudio.com/headphoneamp.php
 
Quote:

Anyway, if you don't mind me asking, how do you find the M^3 compare with the Asgard as both employ MOSFETs in their topology? 

I never directly compared the M3 to the Asgard and I don't have either of those amps anymore. However, I did find the M3 to be more capable of driving different headphone loads - it drove pretty much all of my headphones at the time effectively, which included the HD800, T1, HP1000/HP2, AT AD2000, and K701. It was ok for the LCD-2 but not really great - but I think I'd say it was better for the LCD-2 over the Asgard. That said, I think there are probably better amps for the LCD-2 than the M3. My specific M3 had a bit less treble tilt and more mid-range than the Asgard too, but since the M3's op-amps can be rolled I'm sure that probably affects the sound from build to build.

 

[dprojansky]

Thanks for the review. Well timed for a current buying decision.

 

[chesebert]

I have the M3 (637/627) w/ Sig11 and 2 Asgards (one early and one late production). M3 is a little better at both extremes and Asgard is a little better in the midrange. The late production Asgard is better than the early production in terms of bass performance and driveability. Neither one is necessary better than the other, however.

 
Quote:

You'd have to ask Avenson Audio about this. There's a note about the TRS inputs on the product page: http://avensonaudio.com/headphoneamp.php
 

I never directly compared the M3 to the Asgard and I don't have either of those amps anymore. However, I did find the M3 to be more capable of driving different headphone loads - it drove pretty much all of my headphones at the time effectively, which included the HD800, T1, HP1000/HP2, AT AD2000, and K701. It was ok for the LCD-2 but not really great - but I think I'd say it was better for the LCD-2 over the Asgard. That said, I think there are probably better amps for the LCD-2 than the M3. My specific M3 had a bit less treble tilt and more mid-range than the Asgard too, but since the M3's op-amps can be rolled I'm sure that probably affects the sound from build to build.

 

[sling5s]

Asr, you are so right.  I was initially taken by the Asgard.  It was warm and smooth with good instrument separation and I thought this going to be great with Grados.  Yes, it did tame the highs off the Grados but the midrange was so thin and blurred that I had to keep turning up the volume in an attempt to get some kind of midrange fullness and clarity but all it did was make my Grados shrill in the upper midrange.  
 
 
Edit: I will say that JH13pro sounds nice out of it.  While it does sound a little slow, it takes the sibilance off the Jh13pro and gives it a nice airy presentation.
 
 
 
 
 

 

[localmotion411]

Great review; thanks!