In the electrical department (not the marketing section which was Mark's personal thing) you had to give the man credit. He recognized and hired a small handful of creative people that knew their business--Dick Burwen, Tom Colangelo etc. They laid down the basic design and then Mark would Levinize it using his special magic. I lost interest in the outfit after he left (or was forced out--depending upon whom you listen to). The Madrigal and Harman years. What sort of amazes me is that it's more or less the same kind of outfit from a market perspective.
Seems from technical point of view you likely won’t hear a difference, both competent enough to be transparent, surely if you got the gear acquisition syndrome then of course you should do the upgrade, but if bank account matters better save up and enjoy music
Speaking of SOUND, I wonder how your system sounds ? Speaker placement and reflexion/absorbtion wise ?
As you can see I own vintage Mark Levinson, the 23.5 amplifier is one of their best sounding amplifier, the 32 pre amp is legendary I have never heard a better sounding pre amp I don't think its even possible some say Tubes sound better but that's if you like colored sound nothing wrong with that I hope one day to buy an Audio Research Tube Pre amp as well, the 360S DAC sounds really amazing but this probably is something that I will be comparing against newer DACs when I get my hands on one, I was thinking about the Bel Canto DAC strange its not listed on ASR its up there with the very best in the audiophile world. Speakers are also vintage by Dynaudio, the Confidence 5 has spooky mid range, tweeters are also considered one of the best, the Esotar T330D costing $1000/pair for those who want to build there own speaker, they no longer sell them to DIY, the Bass is very controlled, fast but it lacks the lowest frequencies this is a hard speaker to drive however when everything is right sitting in the sweet spot there are no words to describe the sound its as though the artist is there in front of you a warm three dimensional sound, there is nothing like the midrange of the Dynaudio Confidence 5 along with their silky smooth dome tweeters. I will be buying the Levinson 33H and a pair of Wilson Audio Sasha DAW in the future. I heard the Wilson speakers they sound amazing delivering deep punchy bass will be interesting when I compare them to the Confidence 5.
Good question, I recently moved still buying furniture, a carpet would be a good Idea. Speakers are isobaric loaded they sound best close to the wall although I did turn them facing straight forward, sounds much better, these speakers are very sensitive to every little move. My room can use more sound absorbent furniture as well, there are too many hard surfaces still sounds great but I will have to re evaluate after I place a carpet and perhaps some decorative acoustic panels on the walls.
A slight negative deviation at lower levels seems to be sort of a thing with PCM1702 and PCM1704. (-0.1 dB at -70 dBFS doesn't sound too bad, but it still means ~-109 dBFS absolutely speaking. Something like 18 bits effective.)bought this DAC because I saw a measurement in stereophile that said it had superb linearity and it easily bested the built-in DACs in SACD and DVD-A products of the time:
NB, above is -K grade parts in both cases. A well-tweaked PCM63P-K could still beat a PCM1702-K thanks to external adjustments (which the 1702 dropped). The above +0.5 dB at -92 dBFS --> ~-116 dBFS, -1 dB at -90 dBFS --> ~-108 dBFS.
Fig.11 Linn Numerik, departure from linearity: PCM1702 DAC (top, offset by 4dB); PCM63 DAC (bottom) (2dB/vertical div.).
That's pretty darn near real 20-bit performance there. +0.5 dB at -109 dB --> ~-126 dBFS. The older KPS-20i had some raggedness at low levels going on, and comparing to a case of known 16-bit truncation (SB Omni 5.1) leads to me believe that it was truncating at 19 bits. I doubt too many would have cared in 1992, but it's probably not ideal if you're actually using it as a DAC-pre.
Fig.2 Krell KPS-20iL, departure from linearity (right channel dashed, 2dB/vertical div.).
No surprises there, except for this oopsie:
Fig.3 Mark Levinson No.390S, right-channel departure from linearity, 16-bit CD data (2dB/vertical div.).
Yeah that's right, dual AD1853s (theoretical DR: 119 dB(A) spec) truncated to what looks like 16 bits with a bit of offset or something.
Fig.5 Mark Levinson No.390S, waveform of undithered 1kHz sinewave at -90.31dBFS, 24-bit external data.
Bump.
A slight negative deviation at lower levels seems to be sort of a thing with PCM1702 and PCM1704. (-0.1 dB at -70 dBFS doesn't sound too bad, but it still means ~-109 dBFS absolutely speaking. Something like 18 bits effective.)
From Linn Karik+Numerik review
NB, above is -K grade parts in both cases. A well-tweaked PCM63P-K could still beat a PCM1702-K thanks to external adjustments (which the 1702 dropped). The above +0.5 dB at -92 dBFS --> ~-116 dBFS, -1 dB at -90 dBFS --> ~-108 dBFS.
From Krell KPS-20iL review (an early CD player / DAC-pre from ~1995, also PCM63P-K):
That's pretty darn near real 20-bit performance there. +0.5 dB at -109 dB --> ~-126 dBFS. The older KPS-20i had some raggedness at low levels going on, and comparing to a case of known 16-bit truncation (SB Omni 5.1) leads to me believe that it was truncating at 19 bits. I doubt too many would have cared in 1992, but it's probably not ideal if you're actually using it as a DAC-pre.
I can't imagine the No. 360S would have remained an example for outstanding linearity for very long, 1999 saw the release of high-performance delta-sigma parts like CS4396/97, AK4394 (following the 96 kHz part AK4393 late 1998) and AD1853. The No. 390S with dual AD1853s seems to have been released in 2001. Its linearity:
No surprises there, except for this oopsie:
Yeah that's right, dual AD1853s (theoretical DR: 119 dB(A) spec) truncated to what looks like 16 bits with a bit of offset or something.
I would have said 'let's hope this was fixed in firmware later on', but this review seems to be from 2004, well after release.
Uh... I dunno? My general assumption would be 1 kHz dithered fade, seems a bit hard to get down to -120 dB on 16-bit material otherwise. And they had an Audio Precision something or other (System One I guess) going.
Happen to know any with linearity results available online? I'm having a really hard time finding any that the folks at Stereophile would have tested. Had no luck with models from Burmester, Carver, Denon, Pioneer and Onkyo picked from Vasiltech's list.
I don't buy their explanation, given that the -90.31 dBFS tone does seem to be slightly louder than it should be. Decently clean though. Guess this one could use some trimming.And though the –90dB undithered tone has a good waveform (fig.8), it shows a slight downward slope from left to right indicative of the already-noted power-supply hum.
Fig.5 CAL Aria 3, right-channel departure from linearity (2dB/vertical div.).
Fig.4 CAL Aria 3, spectrum of dithered 1kHz tone at –90.31dBFS, with noise and spuriae (16-bit data, right channel dashed).
Fig.5 Krell Reference 64, departure from linearity (right channel dashed, 2dB/vertical div.).
Of course the CDP-X779ES was first-rate in all respects, too. The older CDP-X555ES was generally good but clearly unhappy with the full-scale square wave which I assume made the digital filter overflow - so clearly not an intersample-over king, this one:Spectral analysis of a 1kHz undithered tone at –90.31dB (fig.4) is strikingly good, without question the best we have measured on any all-in-one player, and equaled only by the Stax and Esoteric D-2 processors. The same goes for the Sony's low-level linearity (fig.5); the right channel only is shown, the left was slightly better at less than 2dB departure from the correct level down to below –112dB! And the Sony's 19+20kHz IM was similarly superb (fig.6), with nothing amiss worth commenting on.—Thomas J. Norton
Fig.4 Sony CDP-77ES, spectrum of dithered 1kHz tone at –90.31dBFS, with noise and spuriae (16-bit data, right channel dashed).
Fig.5 Sony CDP-77ES, right-channel departure from linearity (2dB/vertical div.).
Ha. I was already suspecting that these slightly older (pre-xx9) models had some issues in this regard, they have a somewhat mixed reputation. That might mean that everything with a CXD1244 filter is a bust.
Fig.3 Sony CDP-X555ES, waveform of 1kHz squarewave at 0dBFS (2ms time window).
(Unless, of course, you can turn down the volume, which I didn't check - it's a feature on some players. The chip itself does have selectable digital attenuation. If RM-D991 is in fact the correct remote, there's buttons on there as well. Those appear to be controlling a motor pot though, common to both headphones and variable line-out. Dangit, Sony. I mean, the ATT pin does seem to be hooked up as well, just not sure what for - fade-in/out? The CDP-970 doesn't bother with it at all. CDP-X77ES has the pin hooked up but no level control, just fade-in/out.) In the Philips camp, even the oldest filters will cope fine. Still missing some NPC filters, too - I have 5803 - 07 - 13 - 40 - 41 - 47 (no 18, 45, nothing A/D side). Nothing for any DAC pre-SM5864 either, only a block diagram for the SM5861.
Uh... I dunno? My general assumption would be 1 kHz dithered fade, seems a bit hard to get down to -120 dB on 16-bit material otherwise. And they had an Audio Precision something or other (System One I guess) going.
Happen to know any with linearity results available online? I'm having a really hard time finding any that the folks at Stereophile would have tested. Had no luck with models from Burmester, Carver, Denon, Pioneer and Onkyo picked from Vasiltech's list.
Here's a bit of an exotic one finally:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/california-audio-laboratories-aria-mkiii-cd-player-measurements
I don't buy their explanation, given that the -90.31 dBFS tone does seem to be slightly louder than it should be. Decently clean though. Guess this one could use some trimming.
Had no luck with Krell either, just one model with PCM64:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/krell-reference-64-digital-processor-measurements
A Sony CDP-X77ES can do it of course, but that's boring delta-sigma (well, not so much at the time).
https://www.stereophile.com/content/sony-cdp-x77es-cd-player-measurements
Of course the CDP-X779ES was first-rate in all respects, too. The older CDP-X555ES was generally good but clearly unhappy with the full-scale square wave which I assume made the digital filter overflow - so clearly not an intersample-over king, this one:
Ha. I was already suspecting that these slightly older (pre-xx9) models had some issues in this regard, they have a somewhat mixed reputation. That might mean that everything with a CXD1244 filter is a bust.
Speaking of Sony, I guess there isn't anything resembling a datasheet for the CXD2562 DAC? The '90s seem to be filled with proprietary, undocumented ICs in Japanese players.
I did find another goodie in Stereophile 08-1990: Stax DAC-X1t with UltraAnalog D20400 20-bit DAC modules (wonder how many are still working these days, these don't seem to have been overly reliable?). "This is the best linearity performance I have measured." Well, for $12,000(US) in 1990 money, it better be. Basically looks like the Sony X77ES above. The D20400 is neat, I found both the datasheet and an article.
The same issue also contains the Theta DSPro Basic (2x AD1860), another good performer with just some slight positive deviation around -90/-100 dB, and a tad more affordable at $2000. The Wadia X-32 also makes an appearance, but this complex beast with its DSP prowess and staggered DACs for a high effective oversampling ratio is not overly outstanding in the linearity department and features a slow rolloff filter.
The Esoteric D-2 is in 10-1990. Again superb linearity (4 x PCM1701P-K - I don't think I have a datasheet for this one either). And again the 1 kHz square wave looks chopped off... *checks list* Wouldn't you know it, it's the bloomin' CXD1244 again. So my theory is confirmed - bummer, that's a good filter. I mean, as long as you're giving it a bit of attenuation I assume it'll be fine, the feature just has to be made available to the user. I checked the D-2 manual, it's on the remote. As it appears to be with the CDP-X55ES. Phew. Disaster averted, just make sure you turn down loudness war era material a bit.
Say, you wouldn't have a test CD with a 1 kHz 0 dBFS square wave and some players sporting the older CDX1144 and CDX1088 filters floating around...?
@amirm
Interesting - have you ever tried a Chord DAC? A bit of a generalisation, but I would have expected the DAC's you list to have less meat on the bones.
