[net.audio] Julian Hirsch's test of the Levinson ML-3

pmr@drutx.UUCP (05/23/84)

Re: Article <955@hou5d.UUCP>

Notice that in JH's test of the ML-3, he had to bypass the switchbox
that he usually goes through because of the large wires and connectors.
This is one of the major reasons for the improvement in the quality of
the sound, not to mention the obvious.  The ML-3 is a great sounding amp
but so are many of the others previously tested.  The difference is that
these previously tested amps had to be routed through the switch panel.

If people would bypass the A/B speaker switch in their equipment and use
better wires than 18 gauge zip, they'd hear things they never heard before!

		Yours for higher fidelity,
		Phil Rastocny
		AT&T-ISL
		..!drutx!pmr

rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (05/25/84)

Phil has posted almost the same article twice.  Either there's a site
that's editing news messages before duplicating them, or Phil really hopes
for some comment.

>Notice that in JH's test of the ML-3, he had to bypass the switchbox
>that he usually goes through because of the large wires and connectors.
>This is one of the major reasons for the improvement in the quality of
>the sound, not to mention the obvious...
Oh, lordy!  Then why should I buy ML-3's for the price of months of house
payments when all I need is some huge hunks of copper running around my
living room (plus a little work to shore up that end of the house so it
doesn't start to liszt from the added weight:-) ?

>If people would bypass the A/B speaker switch in their equipment and use
>better wires than 18 gauge zip, they'd hear things they never heard before!
Is a switch one of those nasties that purists can't stand, or are Julian
Hirsch & Co. so inept that they can't build a reasonable box to switch
audio frequencies.  Now, I don't maintain that a good switch for oomphty
watts at audio frequencies should cost under $1, but it just ain't that
hard to do.  And sure, 18-gauge zip cord is marginal but is the assertion
that JH normally uses nothing heavier?  (Personally, I'd expect something
closer to 14-ga to be reasonable, but no sense being a fanatic about it
without good cause - which I HAVEN'T yet found.)
-- 
...Stop to smell the flowers.				Dick Dunn
{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd				(303) 444-5710 x3086

dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (05/26/84)

If you look at the graph of frequency response of the ML-3 in the
Stereo Review article, you notice that it is hardly flat--there is
a broad, 1dB peak from 2khz to 20khz, centered aroung 10 khz, and
and the bass falls off by 1.25 dB at 20hz, starting at approx 100hz.

These sound like minor frequency aberrations, but they are psychoacoustically
significant in double-blind tests--the emphasis of the upper midrange and
high frequencies sounds subjectively "better" than a flat curve.  Given
equal power conditions, with all amps equalized to give a flat response,
I doubt that one could identify the ML-3 versus a standard Japanese amp.

Now, as Hirsch points out, it is entirely appropriate to admire such a
piece of technological overkill, even if its sound isn't quite flat.
It is built like a tank, all components are of the highest quality
(at $5400 they ought to be) and let's face it, even we non-golden ears
can appreciate a slight coloration of the sound.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca