From Krell to McIntosh - Anyone?

I don't own either Mac or Krell, but I've heard nearly everything both make, at length, on equipment I'm familiar with. Now, to be honest, from the very first Krell product to the latest, I have considered that company's sound to be an appalling step backwards that undermines the credibility of "high-end" audio as an idea itself. Really, Krell's acceptance and longevity in the market is positive proof to me that high-end audio criteria are essentially divorced from any notion of music fidelity in reproduction. I haven't heard Krell get anything right, so far.

Now, McIntosh has had its slumps, but not lately. If you opt for MC501 or 1201 monoblocks, or a 402 or 602 stereo amp, I am certain you will be recognize that move as an unconditional upgrade over Krell. Of course you have many other options too. But a pair of MC501s can make you "done" for quite a long time, if music is your chief concern.

Phil

Uh...yeah, could be. Or maybe not. I've been giving Krell a chance over and over again since their debut. Haven't heard music from Krell gear yet. Sound yes; music, no. You have to understand that speaker manufacturers often use associated gear that they believe will not be questioned in demo use. It's the path of least resistance for acceptance, not necessarily an endorsement. But look -- lots of people buy Krell gear and say they like it. My experience is vastly different and I recommomend it to no one, on the merits. The original poster wanted to know whether Mac's upper end amps would be an upgrade. I am sure they will be if he tries them. And I make that recommendation putting my own negative perceptions of Krell on the table, so nothing is hidden. Krell is the sharpest wrong turn of many made by high-end hi-fi in the 1980s, IMO, and the industry in general is still paying for it.

Phil