Headphone Amps

A/B Comparison #9

• Sigma 22 power supply.
• Three-channel "Active Ground" topology.
• See http://www.amb.org/audio/beta22/

LCD-2

First off, I noticed that the Little Dot had no problem driving the 50 ohm, fairly inefficient LCD-2. The attainable volume level was way louder than I would ever use, but still clean. Second, I heard SOME of the same frequency-emphasis differences as I heard on the HD800.  The midrange and lower treble was a little emphasized by the Little Dot.  However, the rest of the highs did not sound much different between the Beta-22 and the Little Dot.  Except MAYBE a little less upper-top treble and not quite the transient ability from the Little Dot, but then again maybe this was just my brain expecting less upper treble and less transient ability because that's what I heard on the HD800.  The sound of the treble between the Little Dot and the Beta 22 was so close that I'm not really sure there was much - or any - difference.  There WAS a little more midrange and low treble, but the additional midrange seemed not as pronounced as with the HD800.  The lower treble - the "presence" range around 2 kHz- sounded just as it did on the HD800.  This was not unwelcome, really, on the LCD-2's; the amount of extra lower treble was quite modest and added a little something nice to the sound.  Bass, however, was a different story.  Here again I think the OTL tube amp is running out of driving current at the lowest audio extreme. Bass was GOOD from the Little Dot on the LCD-2's, while from the Beta-22 it was GREAT.  There is a little less deep bass level from the Little Dot and also bass did not sound as well controlled on the Little Dot - fast very low frequency bass synth runs tended to kind of blur together on the Little Dot but these low notes sounded sharp and distinct on the Beta 22. Whereas I liked the Little Dot with the HD800's pretty well, it didn't do that much for me on the LCD-2's.  It was OK on the LCD-2's but I'm a man who likes my bass so really I wouldn't choose to use the Little Dot with the LCD-2's.

HD-800

OK, this amp was hard to get matched levels with the Beta-22. This is getting to be a habit with these tube amps.  Matching SPL for a 1000 Hz tone did NOT give an impression of equal loudness- the Beta-22 sounded louder / fuller.  So, back to white noise and the 'scope as with the Bijou.  This resulted in a much closer perceived match in loudness with music.  Again, this tells me that the frequency response of the Little Dot is not ruler flat in the audio range.  What I heard on the HD800's was a little extra midrange and low treble from the Little Dot. Also, the highs were "sweetened" a bit - that tube harmonic character at work, I think. The very upper upper highs were a little lacking in comparison to the Beta-22.  Bass from the Little Dot was very good, on the HD800 I could not hear any difference between Little Dot and Beta-22 on the lows.  Transients were a little blurred by the Little Dot (or one could say they sounded a bit "etched" on the Beta-22, depends on your point of view.) So, overall, this gave the Little Dot a somewhat romantic, ever-so-slightly lush sound on the HD800s. A little less "open" sound, those upper highs and transients give the Beta-22 a more "open" sound, but I have to say that on the HD800s  I could really get to like the slightly more "present" or "romantic" sound from the Little Dot.  I wouldn't say that the Little Dot "tamed" the HD800's highs, it was more that the sound of the Little Dot just suited the HD800 in a certain way.  If you are listening for the last bit of detail and resolution, the Little Dot doesn't seem to go as far as the Beta-22. But that doesn't mean the Little Dot didn't portray detail and offer resolution, what I mean is the Little Dot doesn't go AS FAR down Resolution Road as the Beta-22 does. Like I said, I could really like the Little Dot on the HD800.  And I was glad that the bass wasn't warmed up as some tube amps tend to do.

MY CONCLUSIONS

Noticeable difference in sound between this amp and the Beta-22.

I like the way this amp is "voiced"  when using the HD800. Was it  better than the Beta-22? Well, no probably not really as detailed, as accurate. But it does offer a DIFFERENT listening experience which has some strong points and which I will  continue to enjoy IN ADDITION TO having the Beta-22.

Really, the Little Dot Mk III seems to offer very good value for money in a tube amp.  Note that I did not like it on the LCD-2. If I couldn't afford a Beta-22 for the LCD-2, of all the amps I've compared, I'd go with the M³ for the LCD-2.

The Little Dot is a pretty conventional OTL tube amp, a cathode follower I think. Build and parts quality is good but not fanatical.  Cosmetics are very nice, however, a really nice finish and good overall layout make the Little Dot MK III a pretty nice little desktop amp. It's an attractive looking component. Also, it can be used as a line stage preamp, which is pretty nice.

Stereophile's Sam Tellig liked the Little Dot MK III quite well, and said it gave him what he wanted from tubes- he called it "rich, warm, spacious..."  and while I would say that it changed the sound to make it A LITTLE more "tubey" in the mids and treble on the HD800's, I don't know that I'd represent the amp's ability to add euphonious sonic presentation as strongly as Tellig did.