Brian:
I had admired Levinson from a distance for perhaps the last 15 years. Thanks to a great local dealer, I've been lucky enough to listen to the latest and greatest Levinson components and compare them with many of their worthy competitors equipment. I've listened to alot of gear over the years, and what I come away with is that the Levinson stuff does not add or subtract from the source material as it was recorded. Whether your subjective opinion finds that "good" or "bad" is just that - your opinion.
Allow me to continue to overuse some worn-out audio adjectives in describing what I mean. Some people love the "warmth" of tube gear and prefer that "warmer" sound. Tube equipment in general does present a characteristic smoothness to its sound. Some of these enthusiastic audiophiles have been known to characterize Levinson gear using adjectives such as "cold", "dark", or "analytic" by comparison. I won't disagree with their perspective; by comparison Levinson does not exhibit the same velvety sound that some reviewers characterize as "warmth". To be fair though, music in performance does not present those characteristics either. I believe it's just as unfair to claim that a component is "better" because it creates an illusion as it is to claim another is "worse" because it does not.
I do alot of live recording - using some of the finest microphones and electronics available. My opinion is that Levinson presents the recoded source as accurately as is imaginable. Music that was artfully performed, recorded, and mastered takes on a holographic image in the listening room - it doesn't sound warm, it sounds REAL; and there is a difference. Unfortunately, the other edge of that sterile blade is that it leaves any blemishes on the source program nowhere to hide, and perhaps that's where Levinson rightly acquires the "analytic" moniker. From a listener's perspective this is viewed as either a good thing or a bad thing (and may very well sum up much of the controversy in the audio camps).
Two years ago I made the plunge and I was only sorry that I had waited so long to do it. I currently own a 380 pre-amp, a 332 power amp, and a 39 CD processor that I just sent out to be upgraded to 390s status. I am presently running these balanced (highly recommended) using Transparent Reference cable throughout. Am I a happy with my system? Let's just say that I'm chomping at the bit until I get my 390 back.
Good Luck!
Alan Goldenberg
I had admired Levinson from a distance for perhaps the last 15 years. Thanks to a great local dealer, I've been lucky enough to listen to the latest and greatest Levinson components and compare them with many of their worthy competitors equipment. I've listened to alot of gear over the years, and what I come away with is that the Levinson stuff does not add or subtract from the source material as it was recorded. Whether your subjective opinion finds that "good" or "bad" is just that - your opinion.
Allow me to continue to overuse some worn-out audio adjectives in describing what I mean. Some people love the "warmth" of tube gear and prefer that "warmer" sound. Tube equipment in general does present a characteristic smoothness to its sound. Some of these enthusiastic audiophiles have been known to characterize Levinson gear using adjectives such as "cold", "dark", or "analytic" by comparison. I won't disagree with their perspective; by comparison Levinson does not exhibit the same velvety sound that some reviewers characterize as "warmth". To be fair though, music in performance does not present those characteristics either. I believe it's just as unfair to claim that a component is "better" because it creates an illusion as it is to claim another is "worse" because it does not.
I do alot of live recording - using some of the finest microphones and electronics available. My opinion is that Levinson presents the recoded source as accurately as is imaginable. Music that was artfully performed, recorded, and mastered takes on a holographic image in the listening room - it doesn't sound warm, it sounds REAL; and there is a difference. Unfortunately, the other edge of that sterile blade is that it leaves any blemishes on the source program nowhere to hide, and perhaps that's where Levinson rightly acquires the "analytic" moniker. From a listener's perspective this is viewed as either a good thing or a bad thing (and may very well sum up much of the controversy in the audio camps).
Two years ago I made the plunge and I was only sorry that I had waited so long to do it. I currently own a 380 pre-amp, a 332 power amp, and a 39 CD processor that I just sent out to be upgraded to 390s status. I am presently running these balanced (highly recommended) using Transparent Reference cable throughout. Am I a happy with my system? Let's just say that I'm chomping at the bit until I get my 390 back.
Good Luck!
Alan Goldenberg