Springbok, if you like your Atma-Sphere amps, you probably will not care for the Mark Levinson in your system. The AS MP-1, or the Aesthetix Callisto, or the Aesthetix Calypso, or any of several other tube line stages would probably be a better match. That being said, I've never directly compared the AS MP-1 and the Mark Levinson in the same system. My thoughts are based on having heard each of them in different systems, and neither in my own system. I have the Atma-Sphere MA-2 amps and strongly considered the MP-1, but ended up going with the Aesthetix Io with volume controls instead due to my emphasis on vinyl.
Showing 7 responses by rushton
Springbok, if you look through the Atma-Sphere Owners Group web site, as I believe you have, you will find people there who believe the Atma-Sphere MP-1 is a superb preamp that is an exceptional fit to the A-S amps. They like the detail, transparency, neutrality and speed of this preamp. Also, they value the low impedance balanced connection that is supported between the two A-S products. Note that the key to this match is not just true balanced circuits, it is also the very low 600 ohm impedance for the connection between amp and preamp. Other preamps will have to connect at the MA-2s high input impedance setting. That being acknowledged, other listeners have not found quite the same magic in the MP-1 when compared to other top competitors like the Lamm L2 and Aesthetix Callisto Signature. Differences I've heard commented upon are in low level detail resolution, dynamics (which is certainly not a problem for the MA-2 amps) and ultimate naturalness of reproduction of timbre (also not an issue with the MA-2s). You ask about whether the Lamm is a truly balanced design. I don't know. But I'm not at all sure that being balanced should drive your decision. All of the Aesthetix gear is truly balanced, but I am running my Io via it's RCA outputs into my A-S MA-2s with excellent sonic results. (Of course I do want to try it on balanced interconnects, but that requires obtaining an identical interconnect cable terminated with XLRs to accomplish.) As to the BAT, many people certainly admire this preamp, but, imo, the Lamm L2 and the Aesthetix Callisto Signature are in another league. For my listening priorities (which may not be yours!), I would consider the Aesthetix Calypso linestage before the BAT; the Calypso delivers a naturalness in rendering the timbre of instruments and harmonic overtones that the BAT simply misses to my ear. Also, the Calypso easily will give you all the flexibility and user convenience via remote control that you liked in the Mark Levinson, plus more. As you note, what you are trying to determine is not easy; it is very difficult to be able to hear much of this gear, let alone hear it under any sort of conditions that allow one to differentiate what one is hearing from which component within the system. . |
Springbok, my choice, based on my listening priorities*, would be the Aesthetix Callisto Signature. If you do a search here in Audiogon you will find a number of posts from Albertporter praising this unit. Jonathan Valin (TAS) uses the Callisto in his reference system and has very high praise for it (Golden Ear Award). I have the Aesthetix Io Signature phonostage, with volume controls and second power supply option, running straight into my amplifiers and I continue to be amazed with it's sonic capabilities. The Callisto line stage is of the same quality: superb in all the areas you list. The standard Aesthetix Callisto MkII lists for $9,000; the Signature version for $11,000 (a worthwhile upgrade). The second power supply option would add another $3,000 but it can be added at any time down the road. For description and pricing, see Aesthetix's web site: http://www.musicalsurroundings.com/aesthetix.html ...* You can read my listening priorities, to determine if they are close to yours, at the end of my review of the Walker Proscenium Gold Signature Turntable. The Aesthetix gets to all of my list. . |
Springbok, thank you for your kind words about my comments on the Walker Proscenium turntable. Lloyd Walker has shared with us a stunning achievement. As to the LP vs. CD (and SACD for that matter) comparison, this has been done by people whose ears I trust and who have made an investment in both high quality LP playback and high quality CD playback, among them our own Audiogon contributors Mike Levigne and Albert Porter. Here are just two comments they've posted recently on their experience. If you search the archives you'll find others. Mike Lavigne - just yesterday in a thread about SACD versus vinyl: http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/331584.html Albert Porter, who has the Walker Proscenium turntable and Aesthetix Io and Callisto - see his comment to my Walker turntable post: "Your review should help people understand why I've raved about my Walker Proscenium so many times and why digital is so difficult for me." http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ranlg&1083208495 I continue to find vinyl playback more satisfying than the best CD systems I've heard (SACD gets closer). But, high quality vinly playback demands a commitment to get everything working well together and properly tuned, and the highest quality playback is not inexpensive (and neither is the highest quality digital playback). My tradeoff is that I don't buy some of the newer performances of works I would enjoy having because they are only available on CD and I choose to reserve that money for more LPs. :-) Good luck in your search for a new line stage. I hope you will share with us what you decide on. With kind regards, |
Opinions vary. What you quote was, obviously, Jonathan's experience. I asked Jim White (the designer of Aesthetix) his opinion on the issue. He told me that results can be system dependent, but in every system he's heard a balanced configuration tested against a single-ended configuration, the balanced configuration has "won out" sonically. This comes back to my original caution: don't buy a unit ONLY because it is has a balanced circuit design, whether Atma-Sphere, Aesthetix, BAT, conrad-johnson or other. I bought the Io because it has superlative sonics in any of its configurations. I believe Albert Porter (who uses both the Io and the Callisto) uses the Aesthetix gear in fully balance configuration from input device (including from the cartridge) all the way through, and I believe he has said he prefers the balanced configuration. This is contray to Jonathan Valin's opinion, and I trust both of them to be very discriminating in their listening skills. It may be a matter of the mix of other components, like interconnect and speaker cables, that influence one's reaction: the truism in this hobby, particularly at this level, is that everything affects everything. And remeber, at the time of this article, Jonathan's notion of "its competition" was a $25000 Messenger. Albert - can you weigh in here with your experience?? . |
Springbok, in re-reading this, I discover I need to be more succinct. Jonathan's report on his experience does not jive with other comments I've heard. There is no reason I know of that the Callisto would sound less than superb in balanced mode. Albert Porter is one person I know of on this board who has listened to the Callisto in both single-ended and balanced mode. He runs balanced between phono to Io and Io to Callisto. He currently runs single-ended from Callisto to his VTL 750 amps, but I think that is because they are single-ended only. But also note: the Callisto's output impendance is higher than the 600 ohm low impedance connection you could use in an A-S MP-1 to A-S MA-2 setup. That low impedance connection is standard in the recording industry, but only A-S is using it in consumer equipment. Ralph would say that this low impedance interface is the key to reducing dependance on the quality and cost of the interconnects. |