2. amps-preamps
  3. 1352569145

Fremer lays an Ostrich egg...

From the start, let us say i am a little biased. i read with particular interest the review about the Levinson 53 Amplifiers in the current Stereophile, amps i currently own of course. i also have a Levinson 326S preamp, an EMM Lab CDP, and Von Schweikert VR9SE speakers, all linked up with transparent wire.
my previous amps btw were Levinson 33H mono's which i loved.
According to Mikey, the amps basically suck. no life. no harmonics. uninvolving. flat. they measure great for the most part, except for some anomilies outside of stuff the human ear can detect anyway. they are put together nicely too. But... they have a (dreaded) switch-mode power supply which i get the distinct impression MF decided ahead of time was going to screw up the sound. and so it did (i guess- who really knows what goes on in his head?) so every OTHER sentence in the review emphasizes transparency and dead quiet, neutral sound while the "meat" of the article states the amplifier doesn't have "heart and soul". the Absolute Sound did not reach the same conclusion, but did intimate the amps had an austere quality.
AND THIS is MY review- the ML#53's are not for everybody. they are DEAD NEUTRAL. they are DYNAMIC. DETAILED. my system COOKS when i put on a really good recording of a really good performance. if however the signal lacks in significant areas then I HAVE TO EXTRACT THE MUSIC out of the sound my speakers are making. if i love the performance this is easy for me to do. if i don't care that much about the CD, then it gets sold or just not played that much. other good attributes- the amps never get HOT, they are not impossible to move around (with a little help), they have protection circuitry that kicks in whenever the power goes out. AND FINALLY there is a pair of speakers they won't power up somewhere on the planet. i would like
to see them so i can warn people not to match them up. this could take awhile however.
it floored me when Fremer sold his SF Amati Homage speakers and got Watt Puppy 7's instead. He couldn't say enough good things about the Sonus Fabers, and yet he traded them for a much more analytical sounding speaker, probably for the super-detailed, super focused sound. His reviews of $$,$$$ phono stages are hilarious- what a set of ears he possesses!
when it comes to VPI turntables, he disliked the Aries but LOVED the less-accomplished Scoutmaster. I would guess the Classic-3 is pretty good as well, but i have 0.01% confidence
in M.Fremers' opinion of it. BUT i would welcome anyone ELSE'S professional opinion. At $6,000 it's not an inexpensive investment. add an SDS and a cartridge (and a record cleaning machine) and you're looking at $8500. If in fact VPI (and SO MANY OTHER TURNTABLES) have long engineered an OUTBOARD MOTOR UNIT to isolate noise and enhance the sound, wouldn't you want to know EXACTLY what the deal is with the Classic line? i sure would, and i am a HUGE fan of SOME of VPI's products and i own several.
OTOH, i am a mere peon, peasant, ignorant on the subject of SOTA Analog, and whatever other descripion you might want to label me with. But i think i can say my opinions are consistent and follow a logical pattern.
trying to detect that quality from M.F.'s writings is difficult and at times impossible. and yes, even laughable. i myself have owned (over a long period of time) Levinson, Krell, S. Faber, Pass, and Rowland amplifiers and listened to them in my own home. the ML#53's are very accomplished amps and represent some of the best solid state available, cleaner and faster than the ML-33H's that Stereophile liked so much. Yes they are probably better suited for classical and jazz, and hi-rez recordings are invaluable to bring out the best in them.
but they do not "sound flat and uninvolving". amps don't generally do that anyway- speakers do. Put on a Rachel Podger SACD on Pentatone of Mozart and/or Haydn (or Julia Fisher) and bathe in the warmth of
the sound flowing out of your speakers. Everyone (including ordinary people with ordinary hearing) who have heard my system thinks it sounds "really nice". That's good enough for me. I also think it sounds "really nice".
And i can be pretty picky.
french_fries

Showing 2 responses by larryi

larryi
3,760 posts
 
I hardly ever agree with Mr. Fremer on favorite gear, but, I appreciate that he is willing to more directly speak his mind in a review than most reviewers. I also appreciate the comments of those who disagree with reviews. I find it interesting that people can come to diametrically opposite conclusions about the same gear.

My own experience mirrors, to some degree, Chadeffects. I too find my preference evolves over time. I tend to listen at lower volume and I find that certain tube gear sounds much more dynamic and harmonically flesshed out at lower volume than solid state. I particularly like low-powered SET amps (45 and 2a3), but, I also like OTL amps and certain low-powered pushpull amps. The amp I currently run is a pushpull amp that uses the 349 output tube.

I have not heard the Levinson amp in question. I am familar with the Levinson house sound. I still own a Levinson No. 32 preamp (being used by a friend). In a lot of ways the sound is quite good--smooth, lacking in artificial edginess or brittleness, not harmonically threadbare, and lacking in other offensive qualities. But, for my taste, the sound is a little dull and too polite. I suppose that in the right system it can tame certain excesses, but, to me, most modern speakers also seem to challenged when it comes to delivering realistic dynamics at the lower volume levels. My friend also concurs that the Levinson No. 32 is a little dull sounding with most of his gear. But, it works far better than anything else he has driving one particular amp (old RCA amp with transformer inputs); in this case, compatibility far outweighs any supposed intrinsic quality.
larryi
3,760 posts
 
I wish ALL reviews were "negative" in the sense that they emphasize what the reviewer thought were either issues/problems or had the potential to be such. That is the only way that the opinion of the reviewer can be useful--pointing out areas that the potential buyer should be paying particular attention to because it is easy to miss something that may, in the long run, be a problem. After all, most reviewers get to audition the gear over a far longer period than dealers allow a customer.

It also helps to give detailed description of operational aspects--features, ergonomics, etc. and what issues someone may have integrating the component into different system configurations. Reviewers, such as Anthony Cordesman, are particularly good at the physical description.

I like the fact that Michael Fremer frequently does say explicitly about what he thinks about a component instead of trying to shade comments to suggest disapproval in what is, overall, a favorable review. The problem is that other reviewers don't do the same, so his "pans" stand out way more than they should. It may be the case that his negative reaction is merely the case of system/room incompatibility, or any number of other unique circumstances, but, the pan takes on such great importance because of his stature and the rarity of such events.

If I were in the market for a high powered amp, such as the Levinson, I would not scratch it off the list just because one reviewer panned it, but, I would listen for what that review found troubling.
More to discover