LUXMAN L509X VS M700/C700U

Power conditioner, for a small system, inexpensive, great surge protection and very good noise removal:

https://amzn.to/2vOooi3

Right now ~ $120

Nice to hear!!
I've never tried a Luxman Tube, but the integrated tubes have always interested me.... but really have no long term use for them.

So, I wrote to Luxman America and asked the question regarding 590 power directly. :)

That really is what I should have done ages ago. I'll post the reply, so long as they agree with me. :D

Best,
E

Erik, Luxman’s published power specs are confined to the Class A pieces, from what I’ve seen. The 505/07/09 are all A/B, and specified in a straight forward manner. The L-550 and L-590, both Class A, (but later switch to A/B), but only are specified as Class A.

So, your inference is good, but my inference is not, based on what?

Your hypothesis is not implausible, but how would a neutral third party judge between the two of us?

So, we know this:
Luxman underrated the 590 in a way they have not underrated the 509 or 507. That is, the measured performance of the 509/507 are much closer to published spec.

We don't know why.

I only offer a hypothesis, that the heat sinks can't get the amp past the FTC.

I don't think this is bad, by the way. It is a smart compromise.

erik what I understand that the first few watts is what it counts and 590 has enough watts

Hi OP,

I guess my point was lost. :) Based on the reviews, I think the 590 is a much bigger amp than it's rating, as I wrote above. 


Being in LA in an apartment, with 90+ degrees outside I can't afford a Class A amp and am very happy with my compromised 507. :)


I think it will be interesting, given the similarity of output stage, and damping factor of the 700 and 590 if you find any difference at all.  I had forgotten how similar these two amps are.


Shame we aren't made of money so we can just order the m900. :)

Best,

E

Interestingly, the 590 and 700u share output transistor topology and have very similar damping factors.

The m900 however uses 2x the number of transistors per channel, and cuts the output impedance by half.

As I wrote before, the issue I was most worried of is VERY easy to hear. The OP should have no issue at all judging for himself.

Hi @builder3

Eric, please cite your source on the all of you claims you made two posts up about the Luxman class A’s, legality of power ratings, etc, etc.

I have no issue at all with having my sources questioned, though I am not a paid contributor, so please keep your questions polite. I know it’s hard in an online forum, but I would appreciate it if you gave me the benefit of the doubt and treated me as some one trying to be helpful. I did cover a lot of ground in very few statements and I can see how it can seem to be incoherent.


Please understand that I really am a Luxman fanboy, so I was trying to be quick about my typing. I myself own a 507ux, which is A/B.

I will give you two hard fact sets, and then my inference.

First, the FTC rule I was talking about:

https://www.iqaudiocorp.com/pages/FTC-amplifier-power-spec.html


This is how Stereophile measures when they determine an amplifier’s legal power rating. It isn’t the only thing they measure. For more on that seek out Stereophile’s pages on their measurement process. If you’ve followed Stereophile’s amp reviews you’ve read a few times when amps did NOT make it past the warmup period. They shut down and had to cool off before they could be meausred fully.


Next, let’s talk about the Luxman 590. According to their website it is a 30W / channel amplifier:
http://www.luxman.com/product/detail.php?id=1#spec


I honestly believe that this amp will produce at least 30 W / channel per the FTC regulations. I was really more curious how it could be SOOOO very low in power, given it’s power consumption at idle and full power. Wow, that’s one inefficient amp, even by class A standards. :)  Fortunately my question was answered in this A’gon thread:


https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/luxman-l-509x


Specifically with this British review:

http://www.navratilaudio.cz/novinky/Luxman_L590AXII_HFW.pdf


They measured it at 90W/Channel or 156W/channel into 4 Ohms. Substantially better than the rating of 30.
So, based on this, I make an inference that Luxman may have chosen to underrate the amp to keep the heat sinks in the same form factor as the other integrateds in the line, which was not a limitation on the stand-alone amplifiers.

That is, to meet the 90W/Ch rating of the FTC they could have kept all the circuits the same, but been forced to use much larger heat sinks.

You seem to have some strong opinions on amps you’re never seen or heard, but only read about.

Please explain what part you feel I was making unfounded claims on.

Best,

Erik

BTW, I love my Luxman integrated and the only amps I've heard better are the D'Agostinos.

My only reason for suggesting to keep your separate is the damn low mid-bass issue. It may be helped by a bigger amp with more current and output stages.

Since you already have the amp, I'm suggesting you keep it and get a matching pre, but listening is key, and honestly, when these issues come up they are NOT difficult to hear.

Listen with an integrated to something with significant bass, especially electric guitar or kick drums. Switch amps. Hear no difference? Buy what is cheaper, smaller and more convenient.

Does one amp magically sound more full and breaths easier? Buy that one.

Like I said, every time I've seen a speaker with an impedance curve like this they become very amp fussy. I have even seen speakers with this drop deliberately created to make the speaker seem more demanding. Like I need a Dominatrix for a speaker, but apparently many do, and prefer the speaker that will demand a beefier amp.

The Luxman integrateds are VERY VERY GOOD.

The Luxman Class A integrateds are also very good, but I think the power issue makes them quite curious things.

Based on reviews I've seen, the power supply and output stage seem built for higher output than claimed, but the heatsinks are not. To rate an amp at x watts legally you have to preheat them, and run at steady state.  The Luxman can't do it, so you have to think of it more like a smaller amp with enormous dynamic headroom.

+1 on borrowing / listening for yourself.

I stand by my recommendations, based on where the OP is starting from, but I also think the OP's wallet and ears matter more than mine. :D

If the OP had started with a Luman SS Pre and wanted to go something to soften the highs, I'd completely agree, go tubes.
However, the OP is starting with an Oppo HA-1 which, IMHO, is awful. If he can listen to that, then going to the Luxman will be a huge improvement across the board.

He _should_ listen.

Also, yeah, I have problems with the Triangle horn tweets, but I wonder now how much of that is placement. Don't toe those in, and make sure you have lots of high frequency absorbers around the room, especially between and behind the speakers, including the floor.

I think the C700 will be transformative.

UM, I'm not sure if I'm the right person to answer you, since you have two components I find pretty bright, the Triangle and Oppo.


The Luxman's are wonderfully extended and smooth with nothing to prove. They are considerably less laid back than some neutral amps like Parasound. They have more bass than some very expensive American Class A amps.


Given the impedance curve, those speakers are "discerning" of amplifier current. I'd stick with the amp you have, and upgrade the pre.


My biggest concern for you is that listening to them you may miss character you are currently enjoying.