Quote:
Originally Posted by AudioIdiot
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