AudioAficionado.org

AudioAficionado.org (https://www.audioaficionado.org/index.php)
-   Mark Levinson (https://www.audioaficionado.org/forumdisplay.php?f=181)
-   -   No523 vs No52? (https://www.audioaficionado.org/showthread.php?t=40523)

gadawg 09-14-2017 12:57 AM

No523 vs No52?
 
Has anyone had the opportunity to compare these two units? I'm thinking about a new pre and don't care about the dac or the phono section ... just looking for the best of the line stages and the multiple main outs on the 52 would be very handy but only if it's still the best of the bunch from ML. Very difficult to find these available to listen to so any experience would be appreciated!

George

tdimler 09-17-2017 08:19 AM

George...

I'm hoping someone will chime in here as I have the same question.....and like you I only care about the linestage. I have a hard time imagining the 523 besting the 52 but there is not a lot of information out there on either.

TD

tdelahanty 09-17-2017 08:29 AM

A friend of mine has the 52. I have listened to it in his home and at my dealer. It is beyond reproach, wonderful in every aspect. Maybe someday I'll be able to purchase the 523 but will always regard it as a compromise when compared to the 52. This sounds smug because the 523 is fantastic and one should be happy to live within his means.

gadawg 09-17-2017 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdelahanty (Post 867420)
A friend of mine has the 52. I have listened to it in his home and at my dealer. It is beyond reproach, wonderful in every aspect. Maybe someday I'll be able to purchase the 523 but will always regard it as a compromise when compared to the 52. This sounds smug because the 523 is fantastic and one should be happy to live within his means.

Thanks for the response! I see you have the 326 same as me currently ... what would you say are the biggest differences between the 326 and the 52?

Thanks again for the info!

George

tdelahanty 09-18-2017 06:35 AM

A darker, blacker, quieter background, a more detailed mid-range and top-end. The mids and highs are difficult to describe, not harsh but some may prefer the slightly softer, more romantic character of the 326.

AND don't forget a boat load of cash :buddy:

Upon reflection all three are really top notch performers, in my case a better power amp or speakers may be in order.

gadawg 09-18-2017 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdelahanty (Post 867523)
A darker, blacker, quieter background, a more detailed mid-range and top-end. The mids and highs are difficult to describe, not harsh but some may prefer the slightly softer, more romantic character of the 326.

AND don't forget a boat load of cash :buddy:

Upon reflection all three are really top notch performers, in my case a better power amp or speakers may be in order.

Thanks for the insight! I'm thinking about the No52 as well as the D'Agostino and the DartZeel pre's as I work towards my ultimate reference system. All are about in the same price range and I understand the D'Agostino and the DartZeel have some similar characteristics. It's going to take a minute to get my hands on these for demo for sure! Thanks again!

George

tdimler 09-24-2017 12:56 PM

I concur on those being 3 great pre-amps I'd like to try! I'd add the Ayre KXR Twenty to that list. The Dartzeel would be my first choice, but it is important to remember the original NHB-18NS only performs well when run via single ended interconnects or the Zeel connection. This has been corrected in the new version but the cost is eye watering.

Karl Maga 10-19-2017 08:38 AM

I have not done any research on this, so I am truly asking the question. Not using it sarcastically.

Why do you conclude the 523 is a compromise?

My dealer, in describing in person conversations with the ML engineers who designed and manage the products, attributes to them the statement that the new products (523, 526, 536, etc.) are as good as anything ML has ever produced.

You must consider my limited experience when I say: The 523 and 536 combination leave nothing to be desired in my system. I have heard extensively the McIntosh, D'Agostino, Classe and Krell products at the dealer and don't find them to be any better. In some cases, not as good.

gadawg 10-19-2017 08:26 PM

I'm hoping to find some of the new ML stuff at Axpona this spring as I can't find any dealer around me that has any on display that actually functions. That's totally a dealer issue but that's another story! When I sent an email to ML and asked about differences between the No52 and the 523 they responded and said that depending on the rest of the system I might like one over the other. That's telling me they think they have outdone the 52 with the new product. Again ... would love to hear it myself.

rnrmf1971 10-19-2017 10:17 PM

Considering the 523 was introduced after their well regarded integrated amp 585 and the 52, I think there's a good chance that the 523 is exceptional.

Karl Maga 10-24-2017 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gadawg (Post 873403)
I'm hoping to find some of the new ML stuff at Axpona this spring as I can't find any dealer around me that has any on display that actually functions. That's totally a dealer issue but that's another story! When I sent an email to ML and asked about differences between the No52 and the 523 they responded and said that depending on the rest of the system I might like one over the other. That's telling me they think they have outdone the 52 with the new product. Again ... would love to hear it myself.

The dealer issue is disappointing to me in the extreme. Considering that I spent the last 20 years as a manufacturer’s rep (Sales Engineer) for two of the worlds preeminent computer technology corporations, I have some experience with the impact on the brand that dealers affect. They’re invaluable to the brand.

Mark Levinson - or Harman, simply does not have dealer cultivation and nurturing in their strategy. Contrast that with McIntosh.

I have 0% regret for my ML purchases because of their sonic attributes. But I was suddenly and unexpectedly forced into retirement a couple months ago the age of 55 for health reasons and I may need to sell some of my gear (probably not). The lack of robust demand for pre-owned ML gear is in part due to the lack of retail interactions wherein customers and dealers experience the delight and joy of this fine gear.

And I assure you, there is much to enjoy and delight in. The No. 523 and No. 536’s are special.

gadawg 10-25-2017 11:41 PM

Mike,

Hoping you find a way to remain healthy and are able to continue to enjoy our wonderful hobby! Wishing you the best!

George

Karl Maga 10-26-2017 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gadawg (Post 875024)
Mike,

Hoping you find a way to remain healthy and are able to continue to enjoy our wonderful hobby! Wishing you the best!

George

Thank you George, my health is stable. I’m not worried about that for the next 15 years, but the retirement changed my income level. Until that settles, I’ll have to defer significant additions to my system. Thank God it’s (my system) already in great shape!

tdimler 02-18-2018 07:41 PM

Thought I should chip in here. I recently had a 523 on loan.

Super piece of gear....beautifully built...and heavy!

Very, very smooth sounding. Hard to fault.

I have an all digital setup and my Mytek Manhattan II DAC has an excellent analog pre-amp so adding something like the 523 means spending a lot of coin for very marginal improvement.

The 523 gets my highest recommendation, but it was also eye opening as to how good things can sound direct from a great DAC.

Karl Maga 02-19-2018 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdimler (Post 900515)
Thought I should chip in here. I recently had a 523 on loan.

Super piece of gear....beautifully built...and heavy!

Very, very smooth sounding. Hard to fault.

I have an all digital setup and my Mytek Manhattan II DAC has an excellent analog pre-amp so adding something like the 523 means spending a lot of coin for very marginal improvement.

The 523 gets my highest recommendation, but it was also eye opening as to how good things can sound direct from a great DAC.

Your post compelled me to do a “side-by-side” comparison today. What I observed: my No. 523 brings a ton of value and improvement compared to my Bel Canto 2.7 straight to the ML 536 amps. Perhaps the Manhattan II analog is that much better than the Bel Canto. As a DAC, my Bel Canto sounds superb. I wonder if a better DAC would make a noticeable difference? :scratch2:

gadawg 05-30-2018 08:15 PM

1 Attachment(s)
And the wait is over .... more to come once the burn in is complete but I can tell you it’s going to be positive for the Reference 52 for sure. :D

George

gadawg 06-02-2018 12:17 PM

First observation ... the built in phono section is superb! With the 523 I thought it was close to but not as good as my ARC PH8 which I considered amazing since I was comparing a $7000 phono section to the “built in” section. With the 52 ... It is quieter and much more detailed with a velvety quality the PH8 just can’t match. I’m hearing much further into the music than before and again thought the PH8 was really good. One note on break in ... while good out of the box it really opens up after first 48 hours. Can’t wait to hear how much better it gets over the next few hundred hours.

George

gadawg 06-18-2018 11:45 PM

Mark Levinson No52 Reference Review
 
1 Attachment(s)
Ok ... I've managed to get over 200 hours on my new ML No52 Reference and it seems to have stabilized at around 100 hours so I feel comfortable sharing my impressions at this point. First, right out of the box I'll say that I knew this was a special preamp. It was a lot of fun to listen to immediately and was much more detailed than my No326s right away. I also noticed better bass extension and detail, and a much bigger sound stage. Fresh out of the box it was a little eager on the top end but not so much I didn't already really like it. Over the next 100 hours the top end became much more natural sounding without losing any of the amazing detail I had been hearing. I also had a No523 on hand and while it is an amazing product and I feel deserving of the reviews its getting, in my system it really couldn't open up the music like the 52 did nor did it have the incredible tonal saturation and density of the 52. The 523 had great detail, bottom end and potentially a slightly bigger sound stage ... really kind of reminded my of the ARC Ref6 sound stage size. Where the 52 really shines is in the timbre and harmonic structure of the music ... horns seems more brassy, drums were more taught, guitars more beautiful sounding, voices more liquid.

The 52 has the ability to present as many different layers as the recording can offer and at times I found myself thinking that I had just heard something further back or in between other instruments where with the 523 or 326 the sounds didn't separate themselves as easily. That said, there is no doubt that the 523 is much better than the 326s its just that the 52 was in a different league. It was one of those times where when you first turn it on its immediately apparent things just got a lot more intense.

One more quality the 52 has in droves is how quiet it is ... it is deadly quiet. At times music just jumps out of nothingness to a degree that its almost a little startling. In this regard it reminds me a little of the Boulder 2110 which is the only other product I've heard that sound emerges from absolute blackness. That said that would be where the similarities between the 52 and 2110 end and which you prefer would largely be a matter of taste. While I'm discussing the quiet nature of the 52 this would be the perfect time to discuss the phono section that is built in. It is one of the quietest I've ever heard. To me it sounds very much like what I'm hearing in the line stage. With the 523 I still preferred my ARC PH-8 which is an excellent phono pre. With the 52 I had a slight preference for the built in phono section which to me is amazing as the PH-8 is no slouch for sure! The only downside of the phono section is that is has a strange selection of loads to load your MC cartridge with. For me it worked out ok because I have a Transfiguration Proteus with an impedance of 1 ohm so I have settled at a 77 ohm load on the Pre. It only goes to 330 ohms though before jumping all the way to 47k. It does have one "custom" slot that a dealer than supposedly configure for any custom impedance but I thought it strange there was no 500-1000 ohm settings. Again, not an issue for me and if I need to change it I can so not a big deal for me.

The preamp operates in pure Class A mode and it has two main outputs that are driven by their own output buffer so what you connect to one doesn't impact the other. Each balanced output has an impedance of just 25 ohms so it should have no issue driving any amp or length of cable out there. There is an Aux output which can be configured as fixed or variable so you can effectively tri-amp if you wanted to! I have mine connected to a pair of the new 536s which are just fine for me! The remote is also one of the best hand held remotes I've used and while the form factor is identical for the remote between all three units the volume control on the 52 and 326s function the exact same way. The 523 will tend to get going a little too fast if you hold down the button and I found myself having to back off the volume just a bit often.

So ... I think I have found the pre that I will live with for quite a long while. The amps aren't going anywhere either for that matter. The only difficult question is if the 52 is worth double the price of the 523? Well, to me it was because I bought it. To others, depending on the rest of the system you may prefer one or the other. To be clear they are both great preamps but if you're asking ... the Mark Levinson No52 Reference pre can hold its own with any preamp out there. There's only a handful I could say that about and its definitely in the group! Gets my highest recommendation!

George

Karl Maga 06-19-2018 08:23 PM

Glad to hear that you are pleased with the No. 52! As we’ve agreed in the past, the No. 536 amps are extremely good. They don’t get the recognition they deserve outside of those who have heard them.

AudioIdiot 12-23-2018 05:36 PM

against the 32
 
Hi Gadawg,

I am curious how the 52 would stand up against the 32?
As far as I can see the 52 is very similar but also very different.
I never heard the 52, but found the 32 exceptional in 2004.

The 52 looks much easier to build, and maintain (or repair) but does it sound a lot better?
Cheers

Masterlu 12-23-2018 06:29 PM

AudioIdiot... Welcome to AA! :wave:

Cohibaman 12-23-2018 06:52 PM

Mark Levinson No52 Stereo Preamplifier Review

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/...lifier-review/

gadawg 12-24-2018 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudioIdiot (Post 946025)
Hi Gadawg,

I am curious how the 52 would stand up against the 32?
As far as I can see the 52 is very similar but also very different.
I never heard the 52, but found the 32 exceptional in 2004.

The 52 looks much easier to build, and maintain (or repair) but does it sound a lot better?
Cheers

I think the short answer is yes. It’s been a while since I’ve listened to a 32 but I’d sum it up like this ... the 32 had an incredibly low noise floor, great detail, a very good sense of space between instruments, great bottom end extension and wonderful timbral reproduction. The 52 does all of that at about the same level or a tiny bit better but where it really excels is in the area of 3 dimensional holographic soundstage reproduction. Listen to the first three tracks of Becks Morning Phase and you’ll be convinced you’re in the recording not listening to it. Robert Len’s Hope DSD128 recording will do the same thing. I can list many others but the 52 renders a 3 dimensional soundstage in a way that usually is reserved for tube preamps. Now...I’m not saying it generally sounds like a tube product because it doesn’t ... just has the sense of space and presence we usually associate with that. Combine that with everything else that it does so well and you have a preamp that is simply in another league than most and embarrassed by none regardless of price. If you like the 32 the 52 is even better. One note though ... it does take its sweet time breaking in from new so you have to be patient. Think 1000 hours to get the very best out of it. I think it really is the best ML has ever built.

George

AudioIdiot 12-24-2018 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Masterlu (Post 946029)
AudioIdiot... Welcome to AA! :wave:

thanks, this looks like a really nice, informative and friendly forum

AudioIdiot 12-24-2018 06:14 AM

thanks for the reply Gadawg.
I do believe you, but I am quite puzzled by the changes in design from the 32 to the 52.
As a former audio engineer I designed many audio products, some really expensive ones. This all stopped in 2005, but my love for audio never disappeared and since 2 years I am fully addicted to great sound and the stuff that comes along with it.

In 2004 I compared the No32 with my latest design, a two box pre-amp for an established high-end audio company (also listed in the manufacturers forum here at AA). I believe it retailed for around $20k. The cost was also substantial.
We compared it to the No32 and although the differences were not day and night, the 32 just was a better amp.
As my free-lance design work stopped due to more work with my day-time job I never got to the bottom of it, but the no 32 always kept in the back of my mind as "the" pre-amp.
When the 52 came out I was less impressed with some of the design choices.

As I am new here I am not yet allowed to post a new thread, but when that happens I will do so with a (technical) analysis of what I think the differences are. If the AA community agrees the 52 is better than this could become interesting reading and again proof that great sound can not always be explained by technical choices.

Cheers.

gadawg 12-24-2018 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudioIdiot (Post 946105)
thanks for the reply Gadawg.
I do believe you, but I am quite puzzled by the changes in design from the 32 to the 52.
As a former audio engineer I designed many audio products, some really expensive ones. This all stopped in 2005, but my love for audio never disappeared and since 2 years I am fully addicted to great sound and the stuff that comes along with it.

In 2004 I compared the No32 with my latest design, a two box pre-amp for an established high-end audio company (also listed in the manufacturers forum here at AA). I believe it retailed for around $20k. The cost was also substantial.
We compared it to the No32 and although the differences were not day and night, the 32 just was a better amp.
As my free-lance design work stopped due to more work with my day-time job I never got to the bottom of it, but the no 32 always kept in the back of my mind as "the" pre-amp.
When the 52 came out I was less impressed with some of the design choices.

As I am new here I am not yet allowed to post a new thread, but when that happens I will do so with a (technical) analysis of what I think the differences are. If the AA community agrees the 52 is better than this could become interesting reading and again proof that great sound can not always be explained by technical choices.

Cheers.

Some of the technical choices were puzzling to me as well like the use of op amps rather than discrete outputs but like the Esoteric CD players I think the magic is in the implementation of the parts just as much as it is the parts chosen. Many companies use the AK chips but just can’t match what Esoteric is able to do with them. ML went all discrete in the their new preamps but they just can’t quite do what the 52 does. Now ... I’m thinking they will upgrade the 52 soon and maybe take the advanced design of the 52 and go discrete. Might be even better. Just a note I think if you subscribe you can post immediately. Glad to meet you and looking forward to hearing more about your thoughts technically.

George

AudioIdiot 12-25-2018 11:31 AM

Thanks George,
I am glad I wasn't the only one who questioned their choices.
There is a full written analysis waiting to be posted, but I need to reach 10 posts .... !!!!
Peter

gadawg 12-26-2018 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AudioIdiot (Post 946232)
Thanks George,
I am glad I wasn't the only one who questioned their choices.
There is a full written analysis waiting to be posted, but I need to reach 10 posts .... !!!!
Peter

Peter,

So I went back tonight and did some reading on the 32 Reference as its been a long time and my memory isn’t what it once was ... I was surprised to find that it made use of the instrumentation quality op amps like the 52. Actually the op amp boards look very similar to what was in the 326s. Both were a substantial upgrade over the 380. If you go back real far you can find units that used actual transistors mounted on heat sinks but that appears to have changed in the later Madrigal era. Harmon continued that up until now and I’m guessing will bring out new Ref product that follows their new design directions. I’ve owned a 380, 326 and now 52 Ref and the 52 is the best but the 32 is very very good and if you find one in great condition you’ll have an excellent unit at a bargain price. I did listen to a 32 but it’s been a while

In fact ... the 52 seems to be more of a refinement of the 32 rather than re-invented. There are a ton of open box pictures on the web of both units and there are a ton of design similarities between them. One of the biggest differences was the material for the circuit board which I believe stopped being available at some point on the 32. I can only say I wish they had ‘refined’ the 33H rather than produce the 53’s! I’m betting the next Ref amp isn’t too many years away now that the 536s bests the 53s in many areas IMHO.

George

AudioIdiot 12-26-2018 05:44 AM

George,

I have a schematic of the 32 (most pages at least) and it is a very complex unit.
Especially the multistage power supply. The actual schematic of the audio path is quite straightforward. and all happens on the lower board of the actual amp.

I think "refinement" is quite a good word for what happened. I do believe that the 52 is substantial lower in cost to build.
Peter

AudioIdiot 12-26-2018 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gadawg (Post 946290)
Peter,

So I went back tonight and did some reading on the 32 Reference as its been a long time and my memory isn’t what it once was ... I was surprised to find that it made use of the instrumentation quality op amps like the 52. Actually the op amp boards look very similar to what was in the 326s. Both were a substantial upgrade over the 380. If you go back real far you can find units that used actual transistors mounted on heat sinks but that appears to have changed in the later Madrigal era. Harmon continued that up until now and I’m guessing will bring out new Ref product that follows their new design directions. I’ve owned a 380, 326 and now 52 Ref and the 52 is the best but the 32 is very very good and if you find one in great condition you’ll have an excellent unit at a bargain price. I did listen to a 32 but it’s been a while

In fact ... the 52 seems to be more of a refinement of the 32 rather than re-invented. There are a ton of open box pictures on the web of both units and there are a ton of design similarities between them. One of the biggest differences was the material for the circuit board which I believe stopped being available at some point on the 32. I can only say I wish they had ‘refined’ the 33H rather than produce the 53’s! I’m betting the next Ref amp isn’t too many years away now that the 536s bests the 53s in many areas IMHO.

George

So to actually respond on the topic of this thread.
An alternative (because of budget) would be a 326s for me. They appear a bit more often on local eBay. What I can see is that indeed some design elements are copied from the No32. However the power supply doesn't come close. This doesn't mean that it is no good, but it does not have the isolation the 32 has. In my opinion a 52 and 32 will sound good no matter how poor the AC is, but a 326s needs a clean supply. And the rest of the equipment still does as well as I have not seen any other component (source or power amp) that uses this kind of isolation from the mains supply as the 32 and 52 have.
In my situation with fully isolated balanced AC mains (pos and neg 115V AC) the 326s could perform quite well.

The discrete designs from the Madrigal area you refer to is the 26 for instance. I borrowed that unit once and reverse engineered it to get the schematic. Not a design I would like to use, but for its days quite a daring design. unbalanced in the middle and a balanced to unbalanced input option with just a discrete inverter amp to get balanced out.
But these amps are getting quite old now.

AudioIdiot 01-04-2019 06:31 AM

Happy new year to all of you.

So, I did some investigation on the 523.
And to be honest I am quite impressed. The signal path pf the 523 is kind of completely discrete.
In theory this should give a better performance. It is done all in SMD technology and therefore quite compact. The volume control looks identical to the 32, 52, 326 ... it looks like they used better resistors. But it looks like a 10-bit ladder network, where the 32/52 is 16 bits.
This should give a less precise volume control and only 60 db of control range so I am not sure if this is correct, but less components in the signal path so in theory better sounding.
Can someone confirm that it goes down to -60dB and then silent?

What they also could have done is manipulate the gain of the first stage and at low volume settings reduce that gain. That would actually be quite clever as most line-amps have 12 to 18 dB of gain and a volume control that is often attenuating the gain with more than this 12 to 18 dB.
With a source that delivers 4V you have more than enough voltage to drive most pre-amps, so you attenuate most likely most of the time.

The power-supply is also quite extensive. multiple stages and also discrete.
Not the regeneration of AC like the 52 and 32, but still quite extensive.
I would say that the power-supply is better than in the 326.

The team responsible for the 523 is different than who did the 52 and 326. This is when the team moved to the Harman, Lexicon premises.
You can see that the 5xx series have a different build, different design choices and although still very much a Mark Levinson, the look different from the outside.

So the original question of this thread is still open: How does the 52 compare to the 523?

Cheers, Peter

gadawg 01-04-2019 07:47 AM

Hi Peter,

You can read my other threads on this topic on the site as over the past year I’ve gone from the 326s which I enjoyed for 4 years then put the 523 along with the 536s in my system. The 523 is an entirely new level above the 326s. Both have low noise noise and have great detail but the 523 soundstage is in another league both in terms of height/width and depth. The presence the 523 brings to the table is really quite amazing.i had that in my system for a few months and actually spoke with Todd E at Harmon about the 523 and 52. They think the 523 comes very close to the 52 in some areas and betters it in others. That said when I put the 52 in my system it was clear it is in another league than either the 326s or 523. 326s doesn’t have the presence and soundstage of the 523 or 52 and the 523 just isn’t as detailed as the 52 and the 52 kicks it up a notch in soundstaging again and the phono section in the 52 is much quieter than the 523. They all image very solidly, have great harmonics and bottom end extension and detail. The new team at Harmon has done a great job with the 523 and 536s and they are quite proud of their work. Heck the 585 is a solid integrated as well. The only area I really feel like they’ve totally missed the mark is the 519 and 526. The Dac section they are using is nothing special and those units are expensive so I feel they have very little value. I had the 526 in the system for about a week and the Dac is just like most other 2-3k DACs.

On last note ... had I never heard the 52 I would have been thrilled with the 523 although I would have gone with a separate phono pre which I might still do but the one in the 52 is really good.

George

AudioIdiot 01-04-2019 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gadawg (Post 947684)
Hi Peter,

You can read my other threads on this topic on the site as over the past year I’ve gone from the 326s which I enjoyed for 4 years then put the 523 along with the 536s in my system. The 523 is an entirely new level above the 326s. Both have low noise noise and have great detail but the 523 soundstage is in another league both in terms of height/width and depth. The presence the 523 brings to the table is really quite amazing.i had that in my system for a few months and actually spoke with Todd E at Harmon about the 523 and 52. They think the 523 comes very close to the 52 in some areas and betters it in others. That said when I put the 52 in my system it was clear it is in another league than either the 326s or 523. 326s doesn’t have the presence and soundstage of the 523 or 52 and the 523 just isn’t as detailed as the 52 and the 52 kicks it up a notch in soundstaging again and the phono section in the 52 is much quieter than the 523. They all image very solidly, have great harmonics and bottom end extension and detail. The new team at Harmon has done a great job with the 523 and 536s and they are quite proud of their work. Heck the 585 is a solid integrated as well. The only area I really feel like they’ve totally missed the mark is the 519 and 526. The Dac section they are using is nothing special and those units are expensive so I feel they have very little value. I had the 526 in the system for about a week and the Dac is just like most other 2-3k DACs.

On last note ... had I never heard the 52 I would have been thrilled with the 523 although I would have gone with a separate phono pre which I might still do but the one in the 52 is really good.

George

Hi George,
I thought you never tried the 523, I must have misread.
I agree with the built-in DAC of the 526, even though I never heard it, it should not be part of a good line/pre amp. And if it cost 3K extra it should outperform a unit of twice the price as it sits in a design that cost >15k
In fact, the phono board should be an option too in the 523 in my opinion. Some will never use it and then don't want to pay for it. Indeed you need the choice. I prefer everything separate so you can tweak, mix and match.

I am building my own pre, something that still works for me as the mechanics are easy and it doesn't need control. It will be like a Lehmann Decade on steroids. A step-up transformer as MC input. the first 10 to 20 dB you get "for free" with no additional noise is to me the only way to go. Too expensive in a pre-amp mentioned here as it will add $2-3k to retail price.

But currently I am enjoying Roon/MQA/hires audio via the Meridian Ultra DAC so much that vinyl is a bit on background now.

So I hear (read) that the 523 is very good, but sonically a different animal. Maybe indeed the change of the team and the influence of Todd E who earned his credits at Krell and naturally brings his own flavor of choices.

An interesting quest though, searching for the ultimate pre ....

audible1 01-15-2019 12:38 AM

Hi I've just bought a 526. I am seriously impressed with it. I have only tried the XLR input from my cd player and it is most impressive. I can try out the DAC section of the 526 later using my Esoteric K1 grandioso as a transport.

gadawg 01-16-2019 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by audible1 (Post 949269)
Hi I've just bought a 526. I am seriously impressed with it. I have only tried the XLR input from my cd player and it is most impressive. I can try out the DAC section of the 526 later using my Esoteric K1 grandioso as a transport.

Yeah ... I would stay with the DAC in the Esoteric for sure. I tried the 526 and for me the DAC was about at the level of a typical $2-$3k dac. I'll be interested to hear your impressions but the DAC to me simply didn't fit with the quality of the rest of the unit. It is an awesome preamp though for sure so enjoy and congrats! Congrats on the K1 also!

George

audible1 02-15-2019 08:28 PM

I did some listening with AES/EBU cable from the K1 grandioso to the ML526. The ML isn't too bad, if my audio memory serves me correct, it is about as good as my old K-03x sounded. I no longer have the K-03x or K-01x, besides, the K1 grandioso is really a great leap above the K-01x.

Don't know, whilst i'm not using the inbuild 526 DAC, it isn't hurting having it here. May come in handy one day.

gadawg 02-16-2019 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by audible1 (Post 953509)
I did some listening with AES/EBU cable from the K1 grandioso to the ML526. The ML isn't too bad, if my audio memory serves me correct, it is about as good as my old K-03x sounded. I no longer have the K-03x or K-01x, besides, the K1 grandioso is really a great leap above the K-01x.

Don't know, whilst i'm not using the inbuild 526 DAC, it isn't hurting having it here. May come in handy one day.

Congrats on a seriously great preamp. What amp(s) are you driving with it?

George

allhifi 09-28-2020 09:31 PM

The Superb, Mighty 'No. 52' (no longer) ?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by gadawg (Post 946085)
I think the short answer is yes. It’s been a while since I’ve listened to a 32 but I’d sum it up like this ... the 32 had an incredibly low noise floor, great detail, a very good sense of space between instruments, great bottom end extension and wonderful timbral reproduction. The 52 does all of that at about the same level or a tiny bit better but where it really excels is in the area of 3 dimensional holographic soundstage reproduction. Listen to the first three tracks of Becks Morning Phase and you’ll be convinced you’re in the recording not listening to it. Robert Len’s Hope DSD128 recording will do the same thing. I can list many others but the 52 renders a 3 dimensional soundstage in a way that usually is reserved for tube preamps. Now...I’m not saying it generally sounds like a tube product because it doesn’t ... just has the sense of space and presence we usually associate with that. Combine that with everything else that it does so well and you have a preamp that is simply in another league than most and embarrassed by none regardless of price. If you like the 32 the 52 is even better. One note though ... it does take its sweet time breaking in from new so you have to be patient. Think 1000 hours to get the very best out of it. I think it really is the best ML has ever built.

George


For sure; no doubt superb.

To touch upon Break-in/Settling time, it has been my observation (and other listeners) that the following 'chart' may be useful for determining 'settling-time' for stubborn gear:

DAYS / (%) Break-in / HOURS

30/60 / (60%) ( 750)
60/90 (90%) (1,500)
90/100 (100%) (2,250)

Less rigorous gear/cable (50% of above)

Quick 'Settling' product/cable (Halved again)

pj

william t 12-31-2020 08:18 PM

Audible- what amps and speaks are you using? I have a 526 on route--thanks

william t 03-12-2021 10:38 PM

bump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©Copyright 2009-2023 AudioAficionado.org.Privately owned, All Rights Reserved.