2. digital
  3. 1311720438

Mark Levinson n°39 or dedicated DAC?

Hi,

I currently own a Mark Levinson n°383 (integrated amp) and have been offered to buy a 39 (CD player). A lot of my music is now stored uncompressed on a server and I've been looking for a good DAC for a while now.

The 39 has two digital inputs that would allow me to connect a source (eg. Ipod) and benefit from both my CDs and the stored music.

I know the 39 is not the youngest anymore but I'm still hesitating between buying it or move to full digital with a DAC like the one from Bryston. The 39 would be the perfect match with my 383 but is it really outdated. Technology has not evolved that much (lots of figures but lots of marketing too).

Anyway. What would you do or recommend?

Buy the 39?
Buy a dedicated DAC?
Alternative?
pmichellon
st01
36 posts
 
A good move ... I have a Proceed CDP which is very similar to the ML39 ... only real difference is an 18 bit DAC vs the 20 bit in the ML. I just acquired a Sony 5400es and even after 20 hours burn-in in I was pleasantly surprised at the improvements that have occurred in the digital realm. Feeds a CJ Premier 14, ML331 and Thiel 3.6's.
4musica44107
520 posts
 
Buy a dedicated DAC if you have a transport or digital source you like. I have a 390S that served me well enough until a transformer blew. Now it just sits in an attic closet because I do not want to deal with the hassle and obscene costs associated with getting Levinson gear repaired. A good digital transport/source and a great DAC (There are so many; the best I have heard is the new one from Acoustic Plan) will IME far outperform a Levinson 39/390S, or any other CDP of the same vintage as the 39/390S. YMMV, of course.
tonyptony
617 posts
 
I have a Proceed CDP which is very similar to the ML39 ... only real difference is an 18 bit DAC vs the 20 bit in the ML. I just acquired a Sony 5400es and even after 20 hours burn-in in I was pleasantly surprised at the improvements that have occurred in the digital realm.

St01, without going to far OT can you describe a bit more the comparison between the CDP and the Sony? Is your Proceed the CDP, or CDP2 or 3?
st01
36 posts
 
Hello Tonyptony ... responding to your question my unit is the Proceed CDP from 1997. I am not aware of a CDP2 or 3; they used that type of designation for an earlier generation product called PDP, PDP2 and PDP3. Is that what you were thinking of?

Any way the Sony sounds better than the CDP on many fronts. First instrumental timbre, next tighter bass as well as more bass ... e.g. the bass player in a jazz band is now much closer to the live performance, and finally less of the edginess one can hear in some CD's. The CDP was very musical, and still is, but D to A conversion technology appears to have advanced and the Sony benefits from it. The Sony requires a lot of burn-in ... out of the box I thought I may have made a mistake, but after 25 hours it was better. After 100 hours there were no doubts ... I listened to Mozart's 40th at Avery Fisher and while that sound was still fresh in my mind, to both the CDP and Sony at home. Dispelled all doubts as the instrumental timbre was so much closer to the live performance. I hope this answers your question.
More to discover