The Levinson 33h? Pros and cons?

I was wondering how the 33h holds up against the competition?
I am considering purchasing a pair, but am unsure if they will meet the demands of my Revel Salons. I believe that the 33h will in fact sound better than the Levinson 436 series (they are Levinson's current Reference since the 33s were discontinued), but I'm biamping (maybe triamping if you count the pair of Revel Sub 30s I'm using also)and with the double pair of 436s I never run out of power. There is no current way for me to hear a pair of 33hs in my system or for that matter for me to hear a pair thus the deleimma. See my system for more info.
if the 33's could not deliver.....then this is not their problem ! IMHO.

The 33H's, though lack a bit of power for 'aggressive' listening periods, they still stomp the 436s in EVERY respect. The Salons will prefer their massive damp factor, huge current and you will enjoy their sound much over the 436s. Don't get me wrong, the 436s are nice, but they are not the 33H's.

I have heard the 33s, 33Hs, and 436s quite a bit. This would include the following:

B&W Signature 800s, 2 pair in a room.
Wilson Audio WP V's, 2 pair in a room.
Wilson Audio WP VIs, 2 pair in a room.
JBL K2S9800SE, 2 pair in a room.

Each set we experimented with the 4 33's, 4 33H's, and 4 436s.

We actually ran the ML40 with a 7 pack of 436s, biamping the front stage with all of the above.

Now, the funny part? We ended up with the JBL S800s running as monoblocks to the K2S9800SEs. That is a great match and magical amplification to that speaker. That amp to other speakers sucks, but to the K2, awesome.

The Revel and B&W need more current than the JBL amp can deliver and the 33H (or the Krell FPB-350MCx / FPB-450MCx) are probably the absolute best match for these speakers.
Now, I would be remiss to omit the LAMM amps, but with limited experience with LAMM, I can't comment much. Krell and Levinson are GREAT with the Revel and B&W.

Hope this helps.

i have 33h's and eggleston andra-2's. every time i listen i get chills- realistic yet musical- not analytical at all. incisive, dynamic, lifelike. i wonder how the 33's sound compared to the 33h's leaving aside the huge difference in power- i only heard the 33's once a long time ago. the dealer said they broke their hand truck trying to move them...! i think "most" people would agree the
33h's are a bit more practical, but when you get right up on top of them, even they are massive. i usually don't like to overstate things, but i really love these amps. reference?
yeah, okay. sure. i recently heard halcro's, but soundwise they were "clean and clear" but uninspiring; as for pass aleph amps, i could listen to them all day.
Cons: Global warming.
I use 33h amps (driving Nova Utopia Be’s) and find them to offer massive amounts of power (more than what I would ever need) over all types of music. They deliver incredible bass and/or volume if need be without stress. (I must add that my version runs at 230V/20A with filtered mains power). I am surprised at your need for so much power even though Revel’s have a lower sensitivity of 86db.

My previous amp was the 432 and have also listened to Halcro’s (not impressive and am in agreement with French_Fries assessment). The 432 is simply outclassed by the 33h.

Pros: musical, transparent…
Cons: brutal at revealing weakness in upstream components/cables

After looking at your system (btw – I also use SR cables), I suggest:
1. Swap 436s for a pair of 33h’s (and use filtered power as 33h current gain section doesn’t use regenerated AC)
2. Upgrade Revel’s to speakers that offer higher efficiency – Maxx 2 or Nova. These go low and would therefore not need additional subs and are mono-wired.
3. Use SR absolute reference interconnects between 32 and 33h.
My preference is for less components and cables…

Hope this helps.
You may have a bit more headroom if you are bi-amping with four 400 series amps, but the 33H (and 33) use power regeneration, and feature better parts quality than the roughly half the price 400 series (the 33H and 33 were designed and made at the zenith of the two-channel market in the mid/late 90's -- Madrigal, like most other manufacturers trying to survive and profit in a market that is now 90% home theater, moved to more affordable, more compact, home theater-friendly amps with the 400 series). If your system is primarily used for home theater, then there is no need for 33H's. On the other hand, if your system is primarily for music, the 33H should be better.

I run my Salons with 130 watt/channel triode tube amps (VAC 140/140 Mk. III's). The best sound I have ever heard from Salons is my friend's pair, which is powered by CAT JL-1 Limited Edition tube monoblocks. Of course, very few tube amps will drive Salons properly due to their low impedence in the bass -- solid-state is much safer with these speakers.
I own Studios, and have since 2001 or so (with a short break in 2003). I've spent a lot of time listening to Revels with various amps, and have heard them with a wide variety of Madrigal gear (Proceed AMP5, ML 336,33H,33,43x), Krell (from the integrated up to the latest FPB), Aragon, Music Reference, Linn, and most recently, Lamm. I use the Lamm M2.1s (200wpc hybrid monos) on my Studios now, and they are by far the best I've heard. As long as I'm using a non-SET friendly speaker, my amplifier of choice will be the hybrid Lamms.