2. digital
  3. 136738-86984

Mark Levinson pre-amplifiers compared

On advice from Audiogon discussants...and I thank them....I purchased a ML 523 and have
posted my ML 326-s for sale.

A review of the four ML pre-amplifiers I have owned may interest some.

1. ML 10 pre-amplifier....purchased around 1983 (and returned two weeks later) following a dealer's assertion that it incorporated the characteristics of that brand's more expensive pre-amplifiers, at a much lower price.
False !  It was dull and flat.
2. ML-7, purchased around 1983.  Narrowly chosen over the Spectral DMC-10 (I believe the alpha version).
The Spectral had the ethereal high end which the ML-7 entirely lacked, but at the sonic cost of a 'thin and
watery' mid-range and base.  The ML-7 within its frequency confines was magnificent.
I attempted 12 or so years ago to improve on it, borrowing the top-of-the line CJ solid state
pre-amp for comparison.  The ML-7 easily won.
3. ML 326-s, purchased two years ago.  Finally a conclusive improvement over the ML-7.
The high frequencies were extended and euphonic, the sound more detailed throughout the
sonic range, the tonal balance as accurate as my 'live' music listening experience allowed me to judge.
This is a wonderful pre-amplifier, its tonal neutrality, sweet high frequencies and sonic detail such that if I had not committed to the ML 523 I could forever be happy with it.
4. ML 523.    The sound is immediately distinguishable from that of the 326s.  The 523 offers an 'air transparency' and 'articulate transients' (to quote the Stereophile reviewer) that the 326s cannot match.  This was, to date, most obvious when listening to a choir performance, on vinyl.  The complex tonal characteristics of the different choir sections required no effort of imagination to differentiate, the spatial positioning was equally bold and 'observable', the 'air' around the voices and their high frequency transients a sonic treat.  ML 523 brought something new and irrepressibly enticing to my living room.
I must at the same time comment on the overall tonal balance of the ML 523 which in one sense...and perhaps I am wrong about this.. hewed closer to that of the ML-7 than to that of the ML 326s.   While the ML-7 more or less lacked a top 'top end', it has been described (accurately, I believe) as having 'slam and midrange punch'. The 523 has an overall fuller sound than that of the 326-s. and maintains what one might still call 'slam and punch' throughout the frequency spectrum.

Regarding loudspeakers, the ML 523 makes more evident the high frequency 'ring' and midrange 'bogginess' which render the B&W 802D2's less accurate than their 802D3 successors.  Those faults of the 802 D2's in particular respect of reproducing piano music
bring into perspective an aesthetic dilemma.  The D2's are gorgeous sculpted loudspeakers, D3's close to being eyesores.  Purchase of D2's 'upgraded' with the D3's high and mid-frequency sections, but retaining the woofer cabinetry of the D2, would for me be a no-brainer.  I said as much to B&W in an e-mail, but of course they did not reply.

Would replacing my 532h amplifier with a ML 534 make much difference ?

Thanks to all,
'seventies'

seventies
mmcelyea
26 posts
 
I went from a ml 532h to a 534. Very noticeable difference in sound. I'm using Focal Sopra 3 which go down to 3.1 ohm. 
The new 534 is a much better amp especially in the bass and treble. 
Stronger, tighter and more detailed bass and the treble was more extended and smoother. Detail all around was better but still had the great organic mid range that the 532h has. 
seventies OP
31 posts
 
Thanks for the 532h-534 comparison.
Does the 534 have or seem to have the same 'bottomless' power reserve that the 532h does, and have you 'noticed' or otherwise been concerned by what one review described as that amplifier's 'running hot'?  
Your comments surprise me insofar as I had assumed that 'upgrading' amplifiers already at this level would produce little if any noticeable result...so again thanks.
mmcelyea
26 posts
 
Yes unlimited power even thought it's rated lower. actually seems like more with the stronger bass. Mine runs warm but not to hot.
I have mine out in the open so there's plenty of air. The 532h also ran warm and this isn't much more than that. 
I thought the bass would be better due to the higher current for my speakers but was surprised how much better the treble was. 
Soundstage is very similar as I thought the 533h was excellent in that area.
 There is more detail and air throughout the entire frequency range.
If you like the sound of the 532h the 534 just ups everything. 
seventies OP
31 posts
 
Your last comments offer what may be a viable however expensive solution to the dilemma inherent in appreciating the B&W 802 d2's visual aesthetics while attempting to tame their high frequency 'ring'.  Of course the midrange could be tighter, as the d3's offer, while few object to their lush base.  The d3's apparently tame the 'ring' by thickening the tweeter enclosure, as their product launch emphasized.  Assuming my floor can take the weight I'll see at what price a 534 may be available.  Again thanks for very relevant and helpful discussion.
mayoradamwest
116 posts
 
hmm, @seventies, I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but B&W is owned by a California company as of 2016 (they operate as a software startup in the SF Bay Area as well), and were previously owned by a UK-based holding company. 

Also, while aesthetics are certainly personal, and I do think the 800 D3 series has perhaps a polarizing look, I personally find the 800 D2 series particularly ugly. It looks like a speaker designed in the late 70s and early 80s (subjectively the worst 20 years of design in history), whereas the new D3 has a more modern look (and even matches well with my mid-century modern furniture. 
More to discover