Dismiss Notice
We are making some updates and reconfigurations to our server. Apologies for any downtime or slow forum loading now or within the next week or so. Thanks!

Luxman Integrateds Sonic Differences?

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by nyrjoe, Mar 19, 2021.

  1. nyrjoe

    nyrjoe Active Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    New York
    Has anyone done a home demo or in-store a/b of an L550 axii vs l590 axii or l509x? I currently have a 550 which I need to return due to an odd issue with random static, pop noises audible through speakers. Issue aside, the SQ is really good but based on reviews here and elsewhere I’m really interested how the 550 compares to the others listed. I’m not in need of more power but would appreciate any first hand experiences on the sonic differences of these models. I would demo myself but I’m unable too for a few months. Had purchased the 550 unheard online..
     
  2. DramaticTenor

    DramaticTenor Active Member

    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Kind of late to respond, but I have compared all. I prefer the 590 for it's immersive soundstage and rich sound that simultaneously extracts gobs of detail without ever being analytical.
     
    Mr.Sign and MikeJedi like this.
  3. nyrjoe

    nyrjoe Active Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    New York
    Thanks for sharing, much appreciated. Same speakers used when comparing? If so, which? Did you feel the 509x got analytical?
     
  4. DramaticTenor

    DramaticTenor Active Member

    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    I was at a dealer and listened to the entire line. The speakers were the eminently capable Dynaudio Heritage Special. After a half hour, I ruled out the lower end of the Luxman integrateds and kept a/b-ing the 509 and the 590.

    I didn't feel that the 509 was analytical, but it was somehow "leaner." These normal terms are difficult with Luxman. It was not lean, and the 590 wasn't "warm," although there is something about the richness and palpability of the sound stage that gives such an impression. Yet each had extended full sound stages in all dimensions. I have struggled to define the difference, even though the aural differences between the 509 and 590 are immediately obvious. What an extended listening provided was how even while the 590 was "thicker," all the detail, sustains, decays, timbres, etc, were present. It was not veiled, and the 509 was not cold or analytical. The 509 was more bell like. There's a way in which I would like to say that the 590 had more overtones/harmonics which accounted for the thickness, but again, I don't think that is correct because I was able to listen very deeply and follow any part of complex orchestration with ease. In fact, on the 1812 Overture, it was easier to track this on the 590 than on the 509. I also can't ascribe it to the architecture, as I suspect that we were in Class A for both the 590 and the 509 most of the time with only a few dynamic swings pushing the power envelope.

    Hope this vagueness of mine is still helpful...
     
    chipcalzada likes this.
  5. nyrjoe

    nyrjoe Active Member Thread Starter

    Location:
    New York
    @ DramaticTenor, thanks for providing such an indepth review of your exerpience listening to these amps. I've read a lot about the great musicality of the 590 and get a sense from your comments that this is what stood out to you. I'ts also great to hear that the 590 handled the demanding Dynaudio's so well. Looking forward to eventually demoing these myself.
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine