Here's a mini review of the Asgard 3.
I compared it to the Lyr 3 and Jotunheim. I mainly used the Modi 3 for the comparisons, but the conclusions also held when using the Bifrost 2. I mainly used the Aeon Flow Closed, but also spent significant time testing with the HD6XX. The Lyr 3 used the TungSol from Schiit. I tested a range of music including classical, classic rock, electronic, and metal.
Some caveats:
1. I generally prefer planars over dynamics
2. The Lyr 3 and Jotunheim are two of my favorite amps that I've heard
3. I enjoy large sound stage, but value clarity and detail in the upper mids and treble extension to a greater extent
4. I've only been in higher end audio for a couple of years
Overall, the Asgard 3 sounded to me slightly less resolving, warmer, and slightly veiled vs. the Jotunheim and Lyr 3. In many ways it adds strengths from both the Lyr 3 (sound stage) and Jotunheim (strong bass response, fast transients). It sounded great with dynamic headphones, but didn't pair very well with my MrSpeakers planars in terms of upper mids and treble detail.
All have excellent build quality, very smooth potentiometers with channel imbalance only at very low listening levels.
I'll try to break down what I heard into categories:
Sound Stage: Lyr 3 > Asgard 3 (close to Lyr 3) > Jotunheim
Bass response (slam): Jotunheim > Lyr 3 > = Asgard 3
Bass detail: Lyr 3 > Jotunheim > Asgard 3
Mids (clarity, resolution): Lyr 3 > Jotunheim > Asgard 3
Treble (extension, clarity, resolution): Lyr 3 = Jotunheim >> Asgard 3
Imaging: Lyr 3 > Jotunheim = Asgard 3
Dynamics: I'm not yet able to give a good enough description of dynamic response yet. I think they are all very dynamic sounding to me in terms of differentiation of different volume levels of different sounds.
With the AFC, the Lyr 3 is the best amp I've heard for extended time. The transients are crisp and fast, sound stage is expansive, imaging is tight, and bass response is robust. All this is achieved with ease and with the Lyr 3 it has power to spare. It's very smooth and turning up the volume keeps everything smooth without treble glare or mids shouting leading to fatigue. The Jotunhiem is similar, but adds more punch to the bass and treble, at the cost of sound stage. It's as if all the sound is collapsed into a smaller sphere, but with greater intensity. With the Asgard 3, I felt the AFC needed more power. It got very loud even at 10 o'clock on high gain. It just had this veil over the treble and upper mids that lead to a congested almost too warm sound for me (again I'm a bit of a detail treble-head). The lower mids and bass sounded great however. Detail was lower overall and resolution was less than with the Lyr 3 and Jotunheim to my ears. The main issue with the AFC was that sharp treble elements like cymbals, snare drums, etc. sounded mushy and overly damped with the Asgard 3, whereas they were sharp and realistic on the Lyr 3 and Jot. This may be related to the low impedance, but hard to drive nature of MrSpeakers headphones. I don't have other planars to test on this. Newer Hifimans might do fine.
I will say that I preferred the Asgard 3 over the THX 789 AAA.
With the HD6XX everything changed. The Asgard 3 sounded fantastic. It gave the HD6XX sub-bass! The mid bass was well controlled and very present. The HD6XX is a bit mids forward and maybe the Asgard 3 pulled that back a bit. I didn't notice any problems with the treble either. It may be that I'm not listening for as much treble detail in the HD6XX vs. the AFC. I also listened to the E-Mu Teak a bit and they sounded great as well. I still prefer the Jotunheim and Lyr 3 sound signatures overall, but the Asgard 3 is a lot of fun with dynamic headphones especially for the price.
I think for the asking price this amp is great and pairs very well with the HD6XX. The Modi 3 / Asgard 3 / HD6XX is a really amazing sounding combination for the price.
