Hey everyone,
I am going to report back on the Valhalla vs. Asgard a bit early.
Reason being I think I have put enough time on the Valhalla to realize that it simply doesn't drive my two primary cans as well as the Asgard does. I sort of knew that the Valhalla wouldn't drive the thunderpants too well seeing as they are relatively low impedance and sensitivity but i wanted to see if the hd600 was much more with the Valhalla than with the Asgard, which in certain areas it was.... I'll start off by just physically comparing the two amps and then dive into the sound.
Asgard vs. Valhalla, the physical appeal:
First off, the Valhalla is much more aesthetically pleasing with its tubes and all, but there is something pleasing about the simple nature of the Asgard which makes it hard to discern which is the best looking in person. After a few days I just couldn't stop looking at the Valhalla and to that end I was completely happy with my purchase of the Valhalla and decided that it was the best looking of the two.
The Valhalla is much heavier in comparison to the Asgard, just the nature of a tube amp... Fit and finish is identical on the two amps, with the exception of while running, the Valhalla power luminary is much more dim in comparison to the Asgard, I realllly liked this! must be a revision.
As for the "heat", both amps generate a fair amount of heat but nothing that would ever concern me. If you have trouble touching the volume knob on either of these amps after a good long listening stint you should probably toughen up your girly hands on the stove... or set a oven mitt next to your amp. (jk, the heat issue is as Jason exclaims-> NILL)
Asgard vs. Valhalla, the "perceived" sonic differences:
For all of my testing I kept both amps at operating temps. The Valhalla was left to burn in for ~40 hrs. I used the same selected tracks with foobar, used my uDAC at the same line out volume, and used 4.5 feet of Blue Jeans Cable LC-1. Headphone of choice was the hd600. The only variable was the amp! (ok maybe me too just a little, but the amp was the only variable when considering the hardware)
Here is the quick and dirty for those of you who don't want to read anymore -> After much listening and discerning what I was hearing I conclude that the Asgard is one hell of a bang for your buck amp. The Asgard is voiced so well that when I first started testing i had a hard time telling that the Asgard was solid state. Yes the Valhalla smooths the mids better and is not really rolled off at the top plus it packs a little more heat in the bass region, "but" for pure listenability the Asgard wins. If all I listened to was Jazz, Classical, and lighter music the Valhalla would be here to stay since these were the genre's that really blew me away when listening with the Valhalla.
More in depth:
Highs: Asgard exhibits a bit of a rolled off top end which most of us have read about or heard. The Valhalla does not continue the trend, in fact it was a little bright before it settled in. Bright equipment rubs me the wrong way so the Asgard was more appealing initially. As my Valhalla sits now it is a pretty even amp. There are some small peaks here and there ie somewhere in the topend and upper midrange. The highs on the Valhalla are crisp and articulate.
Mids: The Valhalla wins here, the tubes really do sound wonderful in this range. As I mentioned before the Asgard is very well voiced. What i mean by that is, it was engineered to have a certain personality. Some of the tracks I listened to sounded better with the Asgard because of this effect on the mids. Because of this the attack was better with the Asgard than the Valhalla.
Lows: Depends what type of bass you like, both are very good in this region. The Valhalla has a juicy bottom end in comparison to the Asgard which is more of a synthetic bottom end. The "synthetic" bottom end of the Asgard lends to its balanced presentation without over doing the bass, yet you still feel a good amount. As far as amount of body, the Valhalla wins, when it comes to balanced grippy bottom end the Asgard wins.
Overall qualities I liked about either in comparison to each other:
Valhalla-> Great depth, the separation is wonderful. More forward than the Asgard. Better low level detail than the Asgard.
Asgard-> Good prat, lends to why i like the Asgard the best. Also it is very "sweet", meaning lacking peaks in response. I basically chose the Asgard over the Valhalla because it was just easier to listen to, I enjoyed the Valhalla very much but wasn't happy with the way all the music i listened to sounded with it. Also, the Valhalla does not do orthos justice, or i would assume any other phone with low impedance and sensitivity.
Simply put, both amps test very similar and are a treat to session. If all you have are high impedance phones then snag the Valhalla, if you have a few lower impedance cans the Asgard will do them all justice! Minus maybe the AKG's which weren't that great with the Asgard.
I hope most of my impressions are somewhat on par with everyone with the Valhalla so I don't feel like too much of an idiot, but whatever, this hobby is so subjective so I wont feel too bad
Enjoy and Happy listening!
M
