Mark Levinson 383 vs McIntosh 6900?

[antonkk]

Which one would you choose for the same price (a guy I know sells both) and why?

[Ski Bum]

Let me start by saying that I am almost certainly in the minority among the McIntosh-adoring members of this Forum. I think Mark Levinson makes a fabulous product, and their current generation of amps have a warm musical sound that you might like as much or more than the McIntosh component.

Some pros and cons:

The ML has only half the power of the Mc.

The ML is built like a tank. IMO, its sound is more dynamic and does an amazing job with transients. I've never done a head to head audition between the two units so it is difficult to offer an opinion on things like tonality, resolution, bass control etc.

If you don't need the extra power of the Mc, have the "guy you know" audition each of them with your speakers. That's more reliable than anything anyone on this Forum can tell you.

[TONEPUB]

Im a McIntosh owner, but I agree with SkiBum. The Mac is kind of retro cool, but the Levinson definitely offers more musical detail and control.

If possible, give them both a listen with your speakers. That is the ultimate judge.

Not knowing how much headroom the Levinson piece has, you might be surprised at how well it will do, considering its rated at half as much power! Back in the old days they made a pair of 25 watt class-a monoblocks that would keep up with 100 watt amps from other people!

Good luck on the hunt....

[Ski Bum]

antonkk:

After submitting my post above, it occurred to me that I haven't seen a ML 383 in a long time. The Mark Levinson website shows the 383 as a "Classic Product", which is ML-speak for an out-of-production component. Perhaps, this is why your "guy" can get it for you at the same price as the Mc (which, I believe, has a MSRP about a $1000 lower). BTW, there is no replacement integrated amp from ML so if you like the 383, its the only way to go for a ML integrated.

[Blackie]

I used to sell Levinson so I've heard the 383 in a number of systems and have had it in my home system too. The best way I can describe it is that when you put music on the initial, intellectual reaction is "that sounds good!" but about a minute later you're reading the liner notes, talking to you friends next to you, etc. everything but listening to the music. It is one of the most UNinvolving amps I've heard but it is not bad "sounding" by any means, it just does not let you disappear into or get excited about the music. Personally if a piece of gear doesn't have the ability to make me stop what I'm doing sometimes to just pay attention to the music then it's not for me. It also is a bit underpowered for many speakers (and this is coming from a guy with a 50wpc Class A integrated). If you search the Audio Asylum forum there any many folks over there that have had the same experience with the 383. I've never heard the 6900 so I can't comment on that.

[J.A.W.]

I used to sell Levinson so I've heard the 383 in a number of systems and have had it in my home system too. The best way I can describe it is that when you put music on the initial, intellectual reaction is "that sounds good!" but about a minute later you're reading the liner notes, talking to you friends next to you, etc. everything but listening to the music. It is one of the most UNinvolving amps I've heard but it is not bad "sounding" by any means, it just does not let you disappear into or get excited about the music. Personally if a piece of gear doesn't have the ability to make me stop what I'm doing sometimes to just pay attention to the music then it's not for me. It also is a bit underpowered for many speakers (and this is coming from a guy with a 50wpc Class A integrated). If you search the Audio Asylum forum there any many folks over there that have had the same experience with the 383. I've never heard the 6900 so I can't comment on that.

Funny, I have exactly the opposite experience, especially since I got my "small" Quad 988 electrostatics.

[Casino]

I used to sell Levinson so I've heard the 383 in a number of systems and have had it in my home system too. The best way I can describe it is that when you put music on the initial, intellectual reaction is "that sounds good!" but about a minute later you're reading the liner notes, talking to you friends next to you, etc. everything but listening to the music. It is one of the most UNinvolving amps I've heard but it is not bad "sounding" by any means, it just does not let you disappear into or get excited about the music. Personally if a piece of gear doesn't have the ability to make me stop what I'm doing sometimes to just pay attention to the music then it's not for me. It also is a bit underpowered for many speakers (and this is coming from a guy with a 50wpc Class A integrated). If you search the Audio Asylum forum there any many folks over there that have had the same experience with the 383. I've never heard the 6900 so I can't comment on that.

I tend to agree with Blackie. I'm no expert on ML as I've only heard ML units a few times, but in my limited exposure I also do not find the sound as "involving" as what you get from a Mac. I HAVE had extensive listening sessions with the Mac 6900 and found it more to my liking - there was a warmth and tonal balance to the sound that I found made me "want" to keep listening.

Actually, the ONLY reason I didn't get the 6900 and went with Mac separates is that I still horse around with my Nakamichi cassette decks from time-to-time and the 6900 does not have a "tape loop." Of course, you can easily hook up tape decks to the 6900, but you can't do an instant source/tape comparison on-the-fly, which negates a prime advantage of owning a three-head deck. If you don't care about a tape loop, the 6900 gives you essentially the same electronics and power as its equivalent separates (MC202 amp and C42 preamp) at a significant savings.

[motorcitydave]

I'd go with the 6900. I never cared for Levinson. I had the 26 pre and 23 amp. Emphasis on had.