From first hand experience comparing a Levinson 432 (something most would consider high end) against even older high end, but lower powered class A/B units from Sony, Heyrbrook, Robert Grodinsky and McCormack, there are indeed a lot of similarities at first listen especially considering the price differences we are talking about. This was on 8ohm speakers, my Sony SS-m7 as well as a pair of PSB Synchrony Ones at a local shop. But differences become more apparent after even a few minutes. The Sony (TA-3200f) had a notable coloration to the sound. I guess what many would call graininess. Certainly this could partly be explained by the age of the amplifier (not its design but by the age of the components within). It did not have the natural sounding timbre of the others, particularly the Levinson (and a late '70s Sony class-a amplifier, the TA-n86b). Nor did it have the sense of space. It had subjectively 'more' bass, though that doesn't mean the bass sounded more realistic or even subjectively better.
The Grodinsky Model 5 and the Levinson were similar in many ways. Both could be described as smooth sounding amps. The common usage of words like smooth, grainy, dark, bright..suggests to me that many others don't think all amps sound alike, either. The most notable difference on easy to drive speakers was the sense of space portrayed, the quietness of the background, and possibly related to that, the way they handled reverb and room information. Both presented a large soundstage but the Levinson was much more subtle about it. The reverb was allowed to decay very naturally until it was inaudible while with the Grodinsky it seemed to trail off more quickly, as if it was being cut short. Very subtly, and it wasn't anything I'd noticed until a head to head comparison on the PSB Synchronys. The McCormack DNA .5 sounds a lot like the Grodinsky amp, though I'd say it has a bit of a darker sound too it. I only listened to that amp for a short time, though, as it wasn't mine.
The Heybrook P2 is a Tim de Paravicini design, and a nice little 70-80wpc amplifier from the '80s. At low volume without a lot of dynamic peaks in the music it doesn't sound remarkably different than the Levinson. When dynamics hit, it loses out. It, and every other amp I have, loses out to the Levinson in the overall effortlessness of the sound. The 432 simply does not seem to be there, at all. The others, make themselves known by slightly squashing dyamics, slight timbre colorations, and a less expansive sense of space. All of those things are less apparent at low volume. Also, with more efficient speakers some differences related to overall power would of course be lessened. With more demanding speakers the Heybrook can sound anemic and takes on a slightly fatiguing character. It sounds really great on easy to drive speakers in smaller rooms, though. Which, being a small British amplifier is probably what it was designed for..the smaller rooms common in many English homes.
It doesn't do much good, really, to only compare amps within their operating range. Because how well an amp deals with things like sudden dynamic peaks or difficult loads is often why they are more expensive. It's like saying "This expensive amp sounds like a cheap amp when not asked to do anything that an expensive amp is designed to handle". That said, even at low volume, there are things like subtle dynamic shifts, timbre, note decay and smooth high end response that a lot of cheap amplifiers don't do too well with.
None of this was scientific but that does not mean that I don't think science should play a huge role in the design of our gear..I just listen subjectively so these are my subjective thoughts on the comparisons.
Last edited:
