ML 390s vs. ML39

The 390s seems more dynamic and colorful, without overemphasizing any part of the frequency range. The 39 was also flat in frequency but felt more compressed. I have characterized this before as the 39 having a "New England" sound and the 390s sounding somewhat more "West Coast," without the overemphasis of the frequency extremes that this suggests. Yeah, you can hear the difference.

Check the listings for a used 39. The upgrade cost will depend on whether you want to upgrade the faceplate as well as the electronics. Ask your dealer, he's the one who's gonna have to do it or send it in to Madrigal.

Just got my 390s back. I know it's not broken in yet, and I've been without it for almost a month, but it sounds significantly more liquid than the 39 did. Prior to sending the 39 out for the upgrade I had been listening to 39 direct through a HeadRoom Max headphone amp driving a pair of Sennheiser 600 cans (we moved, and our new place wasn't done yet). This gave me an opportunity to listen very carefully to some familiar discs and try to discern where the improvements might appear (if at all).

Everything about the 390s seems smoother, more open and dynamic. The depth of detail with the 39 was good, really good - but this is a quantum step up. Still building my listening room, so I won't be able to really judge it for awhile yet - by then it should be nicely broken in.

You can pick up a clean 39 for $3500 and then the upgrade will cost you another $1800 ($2300 if you have them swap out the faceplate). So for under 6k you end up with a player that sounds as good or better than systems (one or two-piece) costing twice as much (or more). As far as finding a 390s used? I don't know - I'll be keeping mine for a long, long time :)

This question has been asked several times before. My answer is that the 390S upgrade is a no-brainer for anyone who owns a 39. I agree with the comments that described the sound of the 390S as "more liquid", or "smoother" than the 39. I like to say more "continuous".
BTW, I own a 39 which I had upgraded to a 390S a few months back.
Craig Zastera

Mine is in for repair, and I'm weighing whether to do the upgrade. Sounds like it will be worth it. I have been using the 39's preamp direct into 334, with astounding results (B&W 804's). Now I am thinking of adding a pre-amp, and wonder if the upgrade should be done on the 39 if I add a 380s. Also considering a tube preamp, possibly the new Mac C2200, as it has a phono stage. I'm not sure if I would run the 39 or 390 direct to 334, or use it through a tubed pre. Any ideas? Probably a 380s with a good tube phono stage might be the way to go for the table. Or would there be a smooth way (short of disconnecting/reconnecting) to use the 390 direct with the balanced output, and rca from tube preamp to the 334?

The 390S upgrade gave us more. The word is more. The transparency is more. Drums are more hollow. Instruments are more real and natural. Voices are more real and life-like. I bought the 39 without audition. I upgraded without audition.

Use the balanced output direct to amplifiers and you will experience more. I'm pushing Thiel 3.6's with Levinson ML-2 monoblocks. I'm carefully switching cables between phono and cd. This is not a matter of if you should, but when you will. Do it!