Mark Levinson 333.5 vs Emotiva XPR-1 Monoblocks

Howdy Rlwainwright;

We have a UMC-200 and XDA-1 (modified power supply). Emo has just completed the "39" firmware upgrade to match the Oppo 103 lip sync issue. Good stuff.

We can't afford to buy the XPR-1 pair with out giving up the 333.5. Mary is extremely reluctant to give up the Levinson. So, before we make a mistake, we thought others might chime in. It's always been we for almost 36 years of marriage. I met her when she was sweet 16 and she was the first girl to say yes when I asked her to dance. The band played "Stairway to Heaven." And.... it continues to be.

Thanks

Levchappy,

Might I ask why you and your wife are considering the change?

Not trying to step on any toes, but Levinson equipment is usually compared to the likes of Krell and Pass, whereas Emotiva equipment is usually compared to the likes of NAD and Rotel. Two completely different classes.

Emotiva equipment is typically reviewed or considered, in light of its cost, as being a good bang for the buck. On the other hand, Levinson equipment is usually review as being good equipment with its cost just being what it is.

My point is that each is good at its price point, but they are in different leagues.

I've never heard the XPR amps, but I have listened to systems built around Levinson equipment and it is good, without qualification.

Simply looking at the specs of each amp kind of tells me that the Levinson is also the better built amp, in spite of the fact that it is rated at less power.

If memory serves, the Levinson is rated at 300 wpc at 8 ohms, 600 wpc at 4 ohms and 1200 wpc at 2 ohms. The Levinson is actually rate down to 2 ohms.

The Emotiva, on the other hand, is rated at 1000 wpc at 8 ohms, 1750 wpc at 4 ohms and according to Emotiva, 4 ohms is the minimum load.

I just looked up the specs on your speakers. They have a nominal impedance of 4 ohms and looking at their impedance curves indicates that they spend a lot of time approaching 2 ohms. I really don't know how this is going to work with a massive amp that is only rated to 4 ohms. Maybe it can deal and maybe it can't.

Really, it seems to me that the Levinson is a good match for your speakers.

Personally, if you just have the upgrade bug, considering the equipment that you mentioned, I'd be looking at upgrading either the pre amp or the DAC.

I have an XDA-1. It is a nice DAC....for the money, but it isn't the last word in anything. The same can be said of the pre amp.

Tonyangel;

All valid points, which is why I started this thread. We don't want to make a horrible mistake. We have a highly modified Audio Research LS2B MKll linestage & Cary CDP 303/300 both done by Great Northern Sound Company.

Our Art Audio Vinyl One phono preamp was modified by RHB Sound Dezign and a friend separated the power supply. We are using a VPI Scout and a Clearaudio Maestro Wood cartridge.

Truth be told, we are Levinson snobs, and it seems that the 333.5 is superior to some of the models from the later series. Our unit was just updated with new parts and both channels were calibrated by Alex Lok in Raleigh

Levchappy,

It sounds like you have some time, thought and money invested in your system. Just a personal opinion, but I feel that replacing a Levinson with Emotiva units would be a step backwards.

If I had to sell the Levinson, just to try the Emotivas, I wouldn't do it.

What are you looking for? More power?

Tonyangel;

I tend to agree with you. I enjoyed our ML-2 Monoblocks and thought they were the best. Then came the 333.5. It killed the ML-2's.

With the XPR-1's, I thought more efficient Monoblocks with twice the power and good technology would give certain attributes common to great Monoblocks as compared to a dual monaural design. However, my heart says the 333.5 is a world class unit in the top 5% of amps.

Also, we wanted to replace our 3 Acurus theater amps with a Sherbourn PA 7-350. It's funny, my friend snubs his nose at "high-end" names while you and Mary and I snub our noses at lesser quality. In audio/HT, we do not enjoy 90% as good for 50% less cost. It's like wearing slightly scratched glasses for a cost of 50% less. We need to compromise a bit of HT multi-channel audio to have truly high-end 2 channel audio.