Mark Levinson No. 23.5 vs new Class D power amps?

[Mikig]

That will take some close board-level diagnostics. Sorry I can't help remotely.

Thanks anyway!!

 

[A.wayne]

Wow, just noticing SIY , been awhile hope all is well ...

As to the levinson vs Class D , never did a direct compare , but from observation they are two different sounding beast , the bass drive and articulation cannot be matched with class D ..


Regards

 

[SIY]

the bass drive and articulation cannot be matched with class D

Uh huh.

 

[ahofer]

Contrary to a lot of comments, the good ones are not cheap.

Counterpoint: A p252 can be had for about $600, and, absent a really killer load, I doubt anyone could tell it from any more expensive, transparent, amplifier (like the Benchmark).

 

[Snarfie]

I saw a Mark Levinson No. 23.5 power amp for sale and read up on it, reviews of that time (decades ago) are super positive about the power, performance and capability of this power amp.

I got to wondering how the newest (2023/2024) Class D amps that are smaller, less costly (some of them) and consume less power, yet put out prodigious power (400 watts at 8 ohms, etc.) would fare against this amp (and others of that era) from brand names? Are they as musical? Will they be around in 30 years?

Has anyone done a direct comparison of their Mark Levinson No. 23.5 and a Class D? Or done data specs/measurements on the Mark Levinson No. 23.5?

Any discussion about if a (Quality) amp is more or less musical is interesting. Many years ago 80ties 90ties i had a top audio set included 2 class A 50 watt mono amp's an a close to ideal acoustic room but no room correction DSP which was in this circumstance probably not necessary.
Before the above class A mono amp's i had a NAD 2200 that was replaced by the mono amp's. My impression was that the mono amp's were more seperating the sound in a 3D way so more space between instruments voice that lead to better imaging but we are talking not a big difference the NAD 2200 sounded more analytic more straight forward bit less space between instruments voices. So my final impression was the the mono amp's sounded more musical. Today i use a NAD C 370 comparable with the NAD 2200 but now in a horrible acoustic room but corrected with DSP (Mathaudio Room EQ) the imaging gaind so much quality that it is the same even slightly better than in my former close to acousticly ideal room. So question is if i still had the class A 50 watt mono amp's would that add even more imaging and or sound quality in combination with DSP. Did people here on ASR encounters such Qualty sound difference between amp's using DSP taking in account quality amp's as comparison.

 

[Theta]

I won't be around in 30 years.

We will miss you.

 

[A.wayne]

Gla

Uh huh.

Glad to see you are still with us and consistent Siy ....


Regards

 

[DSJR]

I 'heard' one of these, ML28 driven I think - and it was a wonderful experience back then BUT, we're talking thirty-five years or so now? Krell had all the attention in the UK back then and 'those that knew' always said the Levinsons were actually better. In any event, early Krells basically cooked themselves to death unless fan cooled I gather.

The only reason for getting the ML these days is maybe brand cachet. We sold the Nakamichi Stasis based amps back then and I owned a PA5mk2 (the importers were very generous on trade deals for staff) and the PA7 model also fetches large used amounts, despite mk1's all needing capacitor remedial surgery to correct a circuit error I gather. Lovely vintage boxes, but today, a new Purifi or latest Hypex based design would do more, consume less in doing so and would I suspect see most of us out if not abused thermally.

 

[Theta]

I 'heard' one of these, ML28 driven I think - and it was a wonderful experience back then BUT, we're talking thirty-five years or so now? Krell had all the attention in the UK back then and 'those that knew' always said the Levinsons were actually better. In any event, early Krells basically cooked themselves to death unless fan cooled I gather.

The only reason for getting the ML these days is maybe brand cachet. We sold the Nakamichi Stasis based amps back then and I owned a PA5mk2 (the importers were very generous on trade deals for staff) and the PA7 model also fetches large used amounts, despite mk1's all needing capacitor remedial surgery to correct a circuit error I gather. Lovely vintage boxes, but today, a new Purifi or latest Hypex based design would do more, consume less in doing so and would I suspect see most of us out if not abused thermally.

Class H is the answer.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Ah, yes, the ML 23. The original dates back to the mid-80's, and it cost around $4-5k back then. So it was seriously expensive AF, like all Levinson gear, and the obscure object of every audiophile desire. It was a great piece in it's day, but take a look at the Stereophile numbers. It's basically a 200WPC into 8 ohm stereo amp with a very nice stiff power supply, so a near constant voltage source down to even 2 ohms. But the distortion is .1%! That's a Sinad of 60 db, and the distortion is 3rd harmonic predominant. That may indeed be audible in some circumstances. In any case, one of my other Amps is a Behringer A 500 which I paid $150 seven years ago on Amazon. Amir gave it a headless panther. It's distortion number of .04%, which translates into a Sinad of 68 db, and that distortion is 2nd harmonic predominant.

So, I'll take my Purifi Eval 1 over it every day of the week, the Behringer, too, for that matter.