Any Levinson owners/critics out there?


I am looking to build a new two channel digital system. I can read specs and listen at my local dealer but I am interested in the thoughts of real owners and past owners about levinson products. What is good, what is bad, why do you keep it, why did you get rid of it etc. I am looking to spend about 10k (used) on digital source and amplification.
I will be using Revel Studios or B&W nautilus 802's. Other products in this category are welcome. Keep in mind that cosmetics are important to me. I know that ONLY THE SOUND MATTERS, but when one pumps buttloads of discretionary income into the joy of music, PRETTY is an easier pill for those who just don't understand to swallow. (spouses) Thanks for your input.
Brian
griswold
I own Reference 20.0 amps, 380S pre, 36 DAC, and 37 transport. I am very pleased with all pieces. However, I did own a 38S, and did not care for it. It was too dark and sounded like a curtain had been dropped on the soundstage. I have also heard the 26 (I think that's the right number) pre-amp. It was fantastic, and though I could not compare the 380S or the 38S to the 26, my guess is the 26 and 380S are fairly close in terms of transparancy and imaging. As to the DAC. I've heard the 360S and it is clearly superior to mine--but for critical listening I mostly listen to vinyl. I have heard (mostly on this website) that the Aero Capitole is something to audition for a digital front end. Less money and as good or (most have said) much better sound--leaving you a few more $ for amplifier(s).
I bought a 39 CD player and upgraded it recently to a 390s. The 390s sounds much more dynamic and more detailed/brighter. I really like the build quality, and I appreciate the availability of an upgrade path. ML is a highly reputable manufacturer, a high end boutique producer with the consistency and commitment of a large corporation (i.e., Harmon International). Cosmetically, the unit is OK -- it doesn't look exotic (no blue lights or fancy glass a la MacIntosh or Hovland) or ultra high tech, more like pro-rack stuff that's had its rough edges rounded off for consumer use. This CD player doesn't seem to share many cosmetic elements with ML's basic amps.
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
One of my favorite system is a combination of Levinson reference gears + transparent reference cables + Revel Salon. I heard it few years ago at the Stereophile show in LA. I felt this system had the ease of pace, and very true soundstage. Female vocal was excellent. Although the room the system was in was a bit small in my opinion, I felt this system sounded much better than the Martin Logan statement/Wilson Grand Slamm they had in the bigger conference rooms. I spent quite a bit of time in this room that weekend.

I've also heard the Levinson #33h driving the Nautilus 801s at the local dealer. It sounded pretty impressive as my first impression. I had meant to go back and spend more time with this setup as I had been considering upgrading to the 801s or the Salons.

I currently have the Levinson #333, #37 in one system, and #36 in another system. I think the Levinson gears are very neutral and polite. If you like to sit in the front row of a concert, or get that "in-your-face" sound, this amp might be too polite for you. But if you tend to sit in the middle rows of a concert hall, I think the Levinson amp would be an excellent match for your speakers.

Many critics complained about the lacking of midrange bloom with Levinson amps. I recently added analog to my rig, and I found the mids to be very sweet. I would think this comment is more of an analog-digital argument rather than an attribute of the amp.

Good luck