Stenalx, Based on your summation, the ML2 was an excellently designed/implemented simple/straightforward (relatively speaking) circuit superb sounding class A amplifier. Any idea why the decision was made to add gain stages and feedback thus losing the "magic" of the original? Seems they should have left well enough alone. Charles |
Today's ML's don't have much feedback as the distortion specs show on the 534 and 536 poweramps. The the poweramps have input sensitivity that's almost 3v for full output this is a low gain amp, and distortion figures of 0.3%THD showing low feedback designs. (they don't show the THD for the poweramp section of the integrated's, but one would think it's the same) Maybe they lost their way in the 10-15 years ago when they dabbled in Class-D with the very expensive No.53 monoblocks, with very complex output filters to get rid of the switching frequency, they were probably high gain and high feedback https://www.stereophile.com/content/mark-levinson-no53-reference-monoblock-power-amplifier Interesting read that Mark Levinson wrote on Class-D. Cheers George |
I appreciate ML's comments. I recognize technology moves onward and evolves. I just find it quite admirable that a class A transistor amplifier from 1977 still can on sonic grounds (the most important quality/criteria IMO) outperform so many current production amplifiers. A 43 year old SS amplifier that people still covet for excellent sound quality. Charles |
Any idea why the decision was made to add gain stages and feedback thus losing the "magic" of the original? Seems they should have left well enough alone.According to my records the original Mark Levinson Audio Systems company produced three other amplifiers before Mark lost control of his company, and he and Tom Colangelo were no longer part of it (~1984). Those were the ML-3, ML-9, and ML-11. All of them were much more powerful than the ML-2 (into 8 ohms!), while the ML-9 and ML-11 were designed to much lower price points. And I believe the ML-3 was also significantly less expensive than a pair of ML-2s, while being 8 times as powerful (into 8 ohms). And after 1984 or thereabouts it was essentially a completely different company. Best, -- Al |
Here is an very old shot of the ML3 I had to repair 200 W/channel at 8 ohms, 400 W/ch at 4 ohms, 800 W/ch at 2 ohms It opens up like a clam very thoughtful design for techs and you can power it up like that, it was so big it wouldn’t fit on my work bench, so I used the kids homework table. Some 24 bi-polar outputs per channel 2 x massive transformers, true dual mono amp. https://ibb.co/XCxYmkz Didn’t come within cooee of the 25w ML2 monoblocks for sound quality I just find it quite admirable that a class A transistor amplifier from 1977 still can on sonic grounds (the most important quality/criteria IMO) outperform so many current production amplifiers.If you look at it nearly all tube amps today are based on the 1949 Williamson circuit, https://www.preservationsound.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/WilliamsonAmp_1947.jpg Similar can be said about transistors, especially Matti Otala’s, Nelson Pass, John Curl, etc etc designs Cheers George |
