Soliciting Member Perspectives: Levinson vs Bryston vs Audio Research

I think the original owner of my system was aware of some synergy with Aerial Acoustics, Audio Research and ML. The components seemed to have been carefully selected and matched. My AR LS-16 runs into the Proceed via balanced XLR and drives the Aerial Acoustics 7Bs.

I can say a lot of things about the SQ of this system that may or may not be accurate or relevant based on my inexperience. But the one thing I can say with some certainty is that the system is invisible or maybe transparent. The speakers simply disappear and there is never a sense that sound is 'coming out of them'. It is just right there in the middle of the room.

Finally, a thread I can contribute to ...

When I was auditioning equipment for my current system 25+ years ago, I compared Bryston and Levinson amps. I had a hard time hearing much difference between the Bryston 4B and whatever the corresponding Levinson was, especially enough of a difference to justify the huge cost difference. I also compared the Bryston 12B preamp against a Conrad Johnson preamp that was a little more money (sorry, don't remember that model, either). The CV was noisy to the point of interfering with my enjoyment of the music. The Bryston was noticeably absent from the sound, meaning it didn't add any coloration. These auditions were through Martin Logan Quest speakers. I purchased the 12B, 4B, and Quests.

Fast forward to a year ago. I finally acquired a pair of ML CLS IIz speakers. I hooked up my Bryston equipment and compared to the Quests, the CLS sounded edgy. I got listening fatigue fairly quickly. I put the 4B in my theater system with the Quests and got an ARC D240 amp. It is a much better match with the CLS as the sound is musical again. I love the CLS speakers; still some of the best speakers I've heard.

I just sent in my BP12 for an overhaul; second time in the 25+ years that I've owned it. I think it's a great preamp (others will no doubt point out preamps that they like better). It's got a nice phono stage for my moving coil cartridge (AT OC9) and I like having balanced outs for the amp. I find the music very engaging and lifelike in my rig.

When I called Bryston about the repair (wish I could remember who I spoke to), I asked whether I should consider upgrading given the age of the preamp. His response was "Absolutely not." When I pushed a little, he replied "Enclose a letter saying you'll sell it to the repair tech for $5 and I'll gladly take it off your hands." That made me laugh and reaffirmed my desire not to change a thing. No audiophilia nervosa here. :)

I have owned Levinson 27, 27.5 and 29 amps and 36 DAC.  All are great products and pride of ownership high.  Have never owned ARC until recently when I bought a Ref 110 amp. I have to say it is the best sounding amp I have ever owned but I like tubes.  Bryston never owned any.  The older Bryston amps were too harsh or detailed for my tastes but the newer ones much better I hear. 

The largest problem with current ARC preamps is tube life. I am retired, and listen over ten hours a day. that would mean yearly replacement of tubes in a REF 6 Let alone how fast tube amplifiers would need tubes replaced. I do own a very nice ARC SP-15 I keep around. Levinson is just not even a starter to me. old ones use Camac which is just a PITA. New is ?? Well not much press.Bryston? I like Bryston. Lots of folks bad mouth Bryston. Who cares. the latest stuff is very good. lasts forever.
If someone gave me a REF 6. and a dozen sets of spare tubes...Hey sure great.

Replace tubes every year? The tubes in my LS-16 are original. Maybe they sound terrible? I don’t know.