Mark Levinson & Others

@jjss49

I have to agree with your assessment of Mark Levinson. I spent a lot of time on the 90’s auditioning Levinson… and have actually had a Levinson system in my car for the last 15 years. It is very sterile… well accurate… polite, but to me extremely un-musical. I remember a major dealer told me that people that bought ML just called up and ordered it after a favorable audio review… they never came in and bought it as a result of auditioning. I was certainly never tempted. Did everything right… but no emotional connection.

It is interesting you put Rowland into the same class. A couple of the best systems I have ever hear (Wilson + Rowland)… but, yeah, while amazing there was a certain similarity. While I have to say as far as holographic the Wilson + Roland was the best system I ever heard…however,  I did not want to own one. My current system is much more musical and satisfying, although it cannot do the acrobatics of the Wilson / Rowland).

Anyway. Interesting comment. I need to go find another Rowland system to listen to.

I just went through this myself. I wanted an integrated and was dead set on the Gryphon Diablo 300. Lucky for me, I had a dealer down the street that happened to have two of them for sale. He suggested that I compare it to others prior to buying it. I demo’d that night an Esoteric F1, Krell 300i, and a Luxman 509x. All of these I used the same source (Aurender A30) and speakers (Magico S3).

The prior day, in a different shop I tested the Boulder 866, Accuphase 380 and McIntosh MA12000.

It is hard to compare different things that are not in the same store, so I will just say that the McIntosh and the Accuphase were very close to each other. WIth the speakers and room I had in shop #2 I like the Accupahse the best, but not by much of a margin over the MA-12000. The dealer told me that The Accuphase lacked a bypass mode for HT which I later found out was wrong. The Boulder was painfully bright, I didn’t like it at all.

Shop one all three were really great. The Gryphon which I was dead set on buying I found to be a bit too rolled off. The Esoteric was great but I wasn’t a fan of the sound stage. I found little to no definition or separation in the instruments. The Krell and Luxman were quite similar in sound quality as well as sound stage definition. In the end I bought the Luxman. For me it edged out all the others for over all sound quality, build quality and over all esthetics. For me it hit high marks in every category not just a few.

So if you are able to, find a Luxman dealer and demo the 509x. I compared it to integrateds costing 2x as much and the Luxman was the better unit. Now that is for my ears and my musical tastes, but if you dig into some reviews on it, many others will say the same thing.

Good luck in your search.

aged thread here

but fwiw, i would agree that among purported high end brand name amplification i always felt levinson and jeff rowland were meh... luxury housings producing mediocre sound

@jl1ny

Sorry, my bad, I should have been more specific. An Audio Research tube amp. It is easy to forget they made some solid state amps. They are so known for their tube amps (and tube preamps, and tube phono stages).

Integrateds...  I really like my Esoteric preamp and amp.  Here is the top flying integrated, which was recently phased out, but it is still outstanding.

The current holder and lead model is Esoteric's F-03A; read about here:

A few years ago, when I was looking to put together a simple system, I wanted to get a Pass Labs Int 250.  A solid preamp and great amp all in one.  I let a used one get away for something like $6,500.00 dollars.  Not a small sum of money, but for that model, that was a good price. 

@ghdprentice 

Fwiw- I had a ARC D400MKII (solid state) I replaced it with a Levinson 335. the ARC was very nice, definitely more laid back with a richer tonality. But the Levinson kills it with low end control, detail and a bigger denser soundstage. Definitely a level up. 

I initially wanted a big ass Krell FPB 300 or 600 (one day!) but couldn’t find one that was in exceptional condition inside and out. I eventually scored a Levinson 335 that was completely serviced and cosmetically perfect. It’s a little tank but way more acceptable in size than the Krell and the street lights don’t dim when it’s playing. Plus it barely gets warm even during long listening sessions. I love it. I have it paired with a Levinson 380S pre. I had read some forum posts claiming that Levinson can be dry and un-involving. I dunno about that, maybe I got the synergy right with all my components and cabling.

No_Money

Did you like the 5805 when it worked? Is the 585.5 really a big step up for you? I was thinking 5802 but cannot find any info on its reliability and hearing your story might make me skip the headache and jump up from the start. Or I'm going another way completely. 

i had 2 5805 units that failed completely right at 6 months. They gave me a great deal to move up to a 585.5

I would steer clear until someone owns up to what caused these failures. I was one of MANY in my area alone. 

the 585.5 is great and has been solid for over a year now.. 

As mentioned in prior post, they (536) sounded great to my ears.  The 526 now heard the linestage and DAC.  Think this preamp is special.  The 536 really sounded great, hope I have the means to purchase at some point in future.  I cant comment on design.  Sound wise I wouldn't hesitate. 

I was considering Mark Levinson myself as my dealer was just raving about them. I auditioned the 5000 series equipment. I didn’t audition the 500 series. I use to service consumer electronics. IMHO the new Mark Levinson equipment is completely overpriced! Also doing a lot of digging, a lot of software issues with the 5805. I don’t know the total extent of that issue. From a service standpoint I feel the 534/536 is poorly designed in the fact that the filter caps live on the amp board mounted over the output transistors sandwiched right against the power transformer. I see faulty power supply caps prematurely! They are really priced out of range considering the competition of many brands depending on your tastes. Look up the review on these amps and look at the pictures that they display. These are not your vintage Mark Levinson. To me it’s not par with build quality vs price tag. Anyone else’s take or opinions? Regards, Greg 

I have to disagree. The newer stuff is pricey but it's excellent I have a 526 preamp I am listening to through a levinson ML23.5 and older Matrix speakers.   The phono stage is magnificent and I am really enjoying it.  I have both tube and solid state. Right now listening to a Linn LP12 Troika and it's goosepimple territory with the ML23.5. Also a Cardas fanboy but tried Transparent with this setup.  Excellent synergy.   I have not yet tried the 526 dac or linestage going -  to soon. I am mainly vinyl.  The 23.5 is wonderful, trying to save for the 536 amps.  I heard them and they are special.  I don't know anything about the pieces you mentioned but the new design team Levinson put together, in my opinion did a great job.  At some point older Levinson products need maintenance, that can be pricey.  I hesitated in going after the amp I found and even posted about the cost.  After hearing the 23.5, I committed.  Will easily rebuild if needed but mine had little use .  Won't look back. 

Mark Levinson is a very highly regarded brand among some audio folk. I have never liked the brand. To me it is highly accurate, dynamic but unmusical. It removes the music… might be good for studios.

I want dynamic, detailed and highlu]y musical. My first choice would be Audio Research… they have integrated at the $5K and $10K price points. Krell would work also. But I would at least listen to an ARC.

I picked up an old ML CDP (no 39) with a built in pre-amp/volume control as a back-up for my Ancient Audio Lektor Prime that had to be sent back to the manufacturer to be repaired. Other than being a redbook only CDP, I am quite pleased with the no 39. It is especially dynamic and mates well with my 300b SET.

Thanks MC! And Happy MC to you today!

A better question is how was ML able to get a good reputation in the first place?

And yes readily available used is a bad sign.