Atma-sphere MP-1 vs Mark Levinson 32

Thank you both very much. The ML is so user-friendly and has such incredible features that it is hard to part with - but I wont know how much better the sound could be until I try a tubed, truly balnced preamp. Is the Lamm truly balanced? Why is that I cannot find a review (other than TAS Golden ear award with the M60 - 1/4 page - on the MP-1 - could it be that it is just not as "special" as the MA 2?
It is really hard to get advice about it, which is why I especially appreciate your input. How about the BAT VK-51SE?

Mike,
I've just looked at your system......fantastic! (I have little Kharmas - 3.2)
it seems the only thing you're short is a coupla Indra i/cs.......:)

Springbok, if you look through the Atma-Sphere Owners Group web site, as I believe you have, you will find people there who believe the Atma-Sphere MP-1 is a superb preamp that is an exceptional fit to the A-S amps. They like the detail, transparency, neutrality and speed of this preamp. Also, they value the low impedance balanced connection that is supported between the two A-S products. Note that the key to this match is not just true balanced circuits, it is also the very low 600 ohm impedance for the connection between amp and preamp. Other preamps will have to connect at the MA-2s high input impedance setting.

That being acknowledged, other listeners have not found quite the same magic in the MP-1 when compared to other top competitors like the Lamm L2 and Aesthetix Callisto Signature. Differences I've heard commented upon are in low level detail resolution, dynamics (which is certainly not a problem for the MA-2 amps) and ultimate naturalness of reproduction of timbre (also not an issue with the MA-2s).

You ask about whether the Lamm is a truly balanced design. I don't know. But I'm not at all sure that being balanced should drive your decision. All of the Aesthetix gear is truly balanced, but I am running my Io via it's RCA outputs into my A-S MA-2s with excellent sonic results. (Of course I do want to try it on balanced interconnects, but that requires obtaining an identical interconnect cable terminated with XLRs to accomplish.)

As to the BAT, many people certainly admire this preamp, but, imo, the Lamm L2 and the Aesthetix Callisto Signature are in another league. For my listening priorities (which may not be yours!), I would consider the Aesthetix Calypso linestage before the BAT; the Calypso delivers a naturalness in rendering the timbre of instruments and harmonic overtones that the BAT simply misses to my ear. Also, the Calypso easily will give you all the flexibility and user convenience via remote control that you liked in the Mark Levinson, plus more.

As you note, what you are trying to determine is not easy; it is very difficult to be able to hear much of this gear, let alone hear it under any sort of conditions that allow one to differentiate what one is hearing from which component within the system.
.

Springbok10, thanks for the kind comments.....i have had others tell me to try the Indra's.....but after a few years of numerous cable comparisons.....i'm done with cable comparisons for awhile.

i have had the BAT VK50SE in my system and actually overall i preferred the #32.....i have not had the VK51SE in my room. your amps and speakers are simply at a level where you will get the benefit of the most refined gear. your 'little' Kharma's do some things better than my 'big' ones.

the Lamm L2 is not fully balanced. it has single-ended inputs and balanced outputs. i agree with Rush that balanced is way down the list of priorities unless you have very long interconnects.

i had the same challenge you are facing of wanting a no-compromise preamp but needing remote input switching and remote volume control. there are many different 'correct' approaches to solving this challenge. what i did was to use a passive Placette RVC (remote volume control), very short i.c.'s between the RVC and my amps, and then have long interconnects between the RVC and a custom passive switchbox near my sources. this give me conveinience and a 'pure' signal path. some think that passive has penalties in performance.....my experience in direct comparison with the units i have mentioned here is that i have preferred passive every time.

my approach isn't for everyone but just be open-minded to possibilities.

3 years ago i was EXACTLY where you are. i had just bought Kharmas, i owned the #32, and i was demoing the MA2's.....you can see what I did.

good luck!

I will dispense with input gain controls and even a remote for the pure sonic virtues. I will look into The Aesthetix and pursue further the MP-1. Again, I appreciate this help.
Rushton, what single-ended i/cs are you running between the Io and the MA2? Unless I misunderstand him,if you read what Ralph writes and I thought I heard him say it, the true balanced attributes of the AS system are a big strength(?)and not to use it is under-using his design. Am I wrong?
In any event, I will be interested to hear how you find the sound when you try running balanced i/cs. So if you were I and you could spend close to 10K (what I hope to get for the ML)on a preamp (hopefully, used), given my requirements - balanced design and all the sonic virtues that the ML (minimally) lacks - transparency, speed, soundstaging, vibrancy and coherence as well as great strength in the upper midrange - which would you buy:)? (I dont know the cost of any of the preamps mentioned except the MP-1, BAT and Lamm)