In what ways is Mark Levinson better than Krell?

.
Rsbeck,
.
My comment about the later Levinson amps being not very musical is a relative pont. I am comparing them to the Levinson 23.5 specifically (and some tubed amps).
.
What is your frame of reference ? Have you listened to a 436 and a 23.5 in the same system with the same recordings on the same day ? Have you ever listened to a good-tubed Amp vs. the 436 in the same system on the same day and A/B compared them ?
.
When you have done any of the above (if you have), you are entitled to make your comment of "ridiculous". If you have not done any of the comparisons on the same system, you are not rude, just ignorant and your opinion is merely limited to you experiences.
.
Rgds,
Larry
.

I too own a Levinson amp.
I recommend that you get the Krell.
Why?
Because you listened to both units you are considering, and preferred the sound of the Krell.
Trust your own ears!

Good luck!

Larry --

>>When you have done any of the above (if you have), you are entitled to make your comment of "ridiculous".<<

I have done the above so I guess I am entitled. You know what? It feels good to be so darn...entitled.

>>If you have not done any of the comparisons on the same system, you are not rude, just ignorant and your opinion is merely limited to you experiences.<<

Whew, I just barley escaped ignorant and landed on the Park Place of entitlement. This hardly ever happens to me!

But seriously, folks...

I'm not out to slag anyone else's gear, so I am not trying to be rude. I have done a fair amount of listening to lots and lots of gear, so when I defend the honor of my dear old Levinson 436, I think I have earned the right to sit at the big people's table and talk. Please note, though I have owned both the Levinson and the competing Krell and sold the Krells, I did not dump on the Krells, either -- and I was sincere in my comments.

Hello,
I agree with Cello and with his comments about ML and I
would like try to explain some differences between older
and the latest ML models.From the tehnical view newer
models take the advantages from the latest tehnology.For
example,No.32 famous preamp has excellent measuring
performance with numerous advantages, like superior
revolutionary dc power supply,and only from that segment
is better in every details than older series (better
diode,elco caps,trafo,small filtering caps,etc.),but
something is missing.I did not listen No.32,but some of
my friends did,because there was one model available in
my place.The comments were - sounding very impressive,no
doubt,but it is more clinical and a little beat cold in
compare with better Krell's.
I heard integrated 383 and was very dissapointed.
Too bright and clinical.The only Krell that was under
their reputation was integrated 250,but many people think
that was not real Krell.Model 300&400 are fairly better.
Older ML's are made in discrete technology and that is the
reason why it seems that they are more friendly to human
ears.Latest series use more operational amps technology
and despite the fact that todays op. amps are better and
better,they still exhibit too many compromise in compare
with fully discrete topology.If you look under the cover
of the No.32 you will find so many op.amps.
And at last,Krell is still leader on the solid state market
stronger than ever ( unfortunately i am not the owner some
of their gears )and ML lost the position on the market,
cause their prices are not in order with sonic performance.
I guess that is only logical reason why Harman decided to
close that story.Personally,I am not happy with this
desicion,but ML will stay in history of the hifi, beetwen
the best's ever.

Thanks all to the posts - voice of experience no doubt -these are valuable comments for someone like me, just getting into the liquid and transparent league of equipments the world has to offer, which I simply adore. I

I will try to hear 23.5 and 235, and hunt one down on the used market.