Asgard 2 vs Valhalla 2. Solid State vs Triode OTL

[PHC1]

I was asked by a few of our members to directly compare the Asgard 2 to Valhalla 2 headphone amplifiers.

Both have seen constant use for about a month and I have not noticed any significant sonic changes in either so I consider them broken in at this point.

Based on the specs alone, the Asgard 2 and Valhalla 2 are on the opposite side of the power curve and loads based on headphone impedance. The Asgard being the typical solid state amplifier that increases power into decreasing loads impedance wise and the Valhalla increasing power into increasing loads such as the 300 ohm Sennheisers.

For the comparison I used the 300 ohm HD650 and 80 ohm Elear and Utopia headphones.

Let me start by saying that both have the Low and High gain switches on the back so that ultra efficient IE headphones can be used along with lower sensitivity headphones. Nice feature. I used the High Gain mode on both but even engaging the Low Gain and turning up the volume pot works just as well with no discernable difference in sound quality.

Having warmed both up for 2 hours, the direct A/B comparison began. Both are fed by Schiit Gungnir Multibit DAC that has 2 sets of SE outputs as well as XLR. I obviously used single ended since those are the inputs on both of the headphone amps under discussion.

To keep things simple, I used a few tracks of few genres of music. Specifically the

1. Yo-Yo Ma J.S. Bach "Allemande" track. I like this album for the beautiful/simple, rather well recorded unaccompanied cello suites in D Minor, D major and C minor. The D minor being the darker, soul stirring version and my favorite. The $2.5 Million dollar Cello Yo Yo Ma plays with is an incredibly rich and beautiful sounding instrument.





2. Ramsey Lewis Trio, Time Flies album, "Hide and Seek"





3. Melody Gardot the Absence, Se Voce Me Ama track.




Before I get to the actual differences, I have to say that I have always been of the opinion that a great solid state amp should sound like neutral tubes while a great tube amp should sound like a great solid state amp. Let me elaborate on that. If the sole reason why one wants tubes instead of solid state is the warmth, then chances are the solid state under current use is grainy or lacking body, conversely, if one yearns for solid state then the tube amp one is using is simply not adequate in controlling/driving your speakers or there is something else amiss in the system. Some of the best examples of both SS and Tubes I have personally heard would not give you a clear hint as to their topology if you were not aware.

So it went with the Asgard 2 and Valhalla 2. One is a great solid state amp and the other a great tube amp. Believe me that I am not hesitating to call either "great" and this is no exaggeration. How can these rather inexpensive or should I say "affordable" amps sound so good? I don't know, ask Schiit team how they accomplish that. Or perhaps it begs the question why others want so much more of your money for their product?

It is difficult to pinpoint the differences as hard as I try and focus and listen deeply switching between both. They both drive any of the four pairs of headphones with equal grip and control. Not going to find a significant difference here going back and forth until you really start focusing not on the sound but the essence of the music itself.

Forget about complex music, they will both sound virtually identical. Two amps from the same manufacturer with different topologies but maximum extraction of either design. Class A solid state vs Triode OTL Tubes.

Does that mean I could not tell a difference? I did.

1. Getting back to Yo Yo Ma for example. Listening deeply to the Cello being artfully played by Yo Yo Ma's extremely talented hands, the Asgard brings out slightly more "wood" out of the cello. Valhalla brings out slightly more "strings". Both being virtually identical at the same time save for that little difference one would never notice at first... It is not resolution or bass differences as on other music they are about equal within normal listening volumes. Same musical passage, slightly different presentation. Keeping in mind these are very small differences.

Both are extremely beautiful sounding amps effortlessly recreating the full harmonic bloom of the bow being drawn over the strings of the Cello, Yo Yo Ma's breathing between the passages and the full palette of the different tones and complex harmonics of the cello itself. Yo Yo Ma's musical message to us, the listeners, is beautifully recreated through either amp. Neither amp backs down when it comes to full harmonic bouquet. No overly romantic tube bloom here nor is there any solid state sterile presentation tendencies. I'd be very surprised if any of the seasoned audiophiles could guess with their eyes closed if they were listening to tubes or solid state amp in this case. Just as it should be.



2. Ramsey Lewis Time Flies album, track Hide and Seek playing, both amps effortlessly recreate the piano and the bass lines followed by an aggressive and stupendously dynamic drum solo towards the end. Either amp fills the eardrums with all the attack and fury that is unleashed on the drum set. Once again, neither backs down. The Asgard emphasizing and rendering the drum attack and the tightness of drum head skin ever so slightly more. The Valhalla bringing out a touch more of the drum body harmonics. Once again I had to struggle to hear it and can't say for sure I'd be able to tell the difference between the two with eyes closed.


3. Melody Gardot Se Voce Me Ama track.

The simple and melodious intro with the acoustic guitar followed by the duet of male/female vocals. Both voices are clearly delineated in this track with the Asgard but the Valhalla was able to edge ever so slightly ahead with slightly more palpable headphone images and more clearly fleshed out both vocalists with a finer level of micro detail and a broader spectral differences in timber. Seems the biggest difference out of the smallest of differences between the two amps still lays with the all important midrange. Even then, sometimes I prefer the Asgard and sometimes the Valhalla. No clear winner and certainly no losers here.

In summary, it would be difficult for me to say which I really prefer, or would recommend more. On the one hand, the Valhalla 2 with some tube rolling if you so desire can be coaxed into something a bit different than with stock tubes with various results while on the other hand you have a beautifully sounding solid state amp that you can expect consistency from for many years without additional expenses of NOS tubes or tube life and replacement cost.

What I can tell you, is that if you are looking for a great headphone amp, I can vouch for either of these wonderful music makers with virtually any set of headphones. Headphones being the far and most important variable of the end result as the voicing of the headphones far exceeds the differences between these two, affordable, hard working amps that will give you countless of pleasure for not a big outlay of your money.





[IMG][/IMG]

[bart]

Serge, splendid review once more!
Thank you for taking the time to describe the differences between these 2 devices.
They both seem marvellous examples of how you don't have to spend thousands of $ to get very decent sound.
Kudos to Schiit.
I'm so happy you're posting here again Serge.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by bart

Serge, splendid review once more!
Thank you for taking the time to describe the differences between these 2 devices.
They both seem marvellous examples of how you don't have to spend thousands of $ to get very decent sound.
Kudos to Schiit.
I'm so happy you're posting here again Serge.

My pleasure Bart and thank you. Hopefully someone will find my posts useful and gets to try these wonderful amps for an affordable price and enjoy them like I do.

[Jack in Wilmington]

I've had my Musical Fidelity for many years now as I've been quite satisfied with it paired to my Senns, but the Asgard and the Valhalla have got me thinking about a move. A lot of that has to do with Serge's writing skills and the way he presents the product. Bravo

[Puma Cat]

Really terrific review, once again, Serge. Thanks for pointing some of the distinctions between these two fine amps. Sounds like, that for the most part, they are quite similar in overall character, which would be understandable given they were designed by the same person. Seems like that they are somewhat different more to being designed for specific kinds of headphones, as you describe, rather than differences in their respective sonic qualities.

Cheers,
PC

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Jack in Wilmington

I've had my Musical Fidelity for many years now as I've been quite satisfied with it paired to my Senns, but the Asgard and the Valhalla have got me thinking about a move. A lot of that has to do with Serge's writing skills and the way he presents the product. Bravo

Musical Fidelity X-Cans? I would suggest the Valhalla 2 for the HD600 if you don't mind going with tubes again. On the other hand, if you don't want tubes anymore, the Asgard 2 will get you there without them.

Since I also owned the MF X-Cans for some time in the past, I can without reservation recommend either of the Schiit headphone amps or perhaps even stepping up to the Lyr 2 for a tube/hybrid solution as an upgrade.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Really terrific review, once again, Serge. Thanks for pointing some of the distinctions between these two fine amps. Sounds like, that for the most part, they are quite similar in overall character, which would be understandable given they were designed by the same person. Seems like that they are somewhat different more to being designed for specific kinds of headphones, as you describe, rather than differences in their respective sonic qualities.

Cheers,
PC

They are Stephen. What impresses me the most is not even so much the tube Valhalla 2 which by itself sounds fantastic for the price but which is almost expected of tubes. What impresses me even more is that the solid state Asgard 2 can pull off such a smooth and dynamic performance without a hint of grain or cheap solid state sound and be as liquid and engaging in the midrange like tubes. The Asgard 2 is the real value and quite an accomplishment for $249.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by PHC1

They are Stephen. What impresses me the most is not even so much the tube Valhalla 2 which by itself sounds fantastic for the price but which is almost expected of tubes. What impresses me even more is that the solid state Asgard 2 can pull off such a smooth and dynamic performance without a hint of grain or cheap solid state sound and be as liquid and engaging in the midrange like tubes. The Asgard 2 is the real value and quite an accomplishment for $249.

I think the reason is that Jason Stoddard is a brilliant circuit topology designer. He seems to value very musical, sweet, mellifluous sonic attributes; just as Conrad-Johnson and Tim de Paravicini of E.A.R. do. This means that the tube and SS products of all three companies all have similar qualities. This is consistent with the fact that Jason personally prefers the sweeter, more musical sound of Gumby vs. the higher-res, more "neutral" Yggy.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by Jack in Wilmington

I've had my Musical Fidelity for many years now as I've been quite satisfied with it paired to my Senns, but the Asgard and the Valhalla have got me thinking about a move. A lot of that has to do with Serge's writing skills and the way he presents the product. Bravo

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

I think the reason is that Jason Stoddard is a brilliant circuit topology designer. He seems to value very musical, sweet, mellifluous sonic attributes; just as Conrad-Johnson and Tim de Paravicini of E.A.R. do. This means that the tube and SS products of all three companies all have similar qualities. This is consistent with the fact that Jason personally prefers the sweeter, more musical sound of Gumby vs. the higher-res, more "neutral" Yggy.

Stephen, I owned and enjoyed an EAR/Yoshino Acute 3 tubed CDP. It was very musical but there is no way I can compare that sound to the Schiit Gungnir/Gumby DAC. Gumby by far is the more resolving, dynamic and accurate DAC than what was inside the EAR Acute CDP. I think they renamed the Acute tubed to "Classic" now.Both sound very analog and musical but comparing Gumby to the Acute is like comparing an Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor to a Boeing P-26 Peashooter from the 1930's.

Gumby is the modern sound, resolving, accurate yet analog smooth while the EAR Acute was the "old school" let's charm them with tube warmth and lushness type of sound, dynamic contrast and details be damned.

Now, EAR has some new CDPs and even a four PCC88 tube DAC and those I have no idea of what they sound like.