K&K any comments?

I had the opportunity for an extended evaluation of the K&K Phono Preamp. I wanted to like it; assumed I'd enjoy it; was predisposed to buying it, but decided against it. Whether it works for you depends very much on your system attributes. While you can easily interpret my comments as a negative review, I intend them as descriptive of what I experienced. In a system where phono is the primary source and you have brightness to compensate for elsewhere in the system, the K&K may be quite viable for you. Certainly 30 years ago as the phono section of a full preamp, it would have been considered excellent.

The K&K is superbly smooth, to a fault. It has a creamy signature sound that is euphonic, unintrusive, tonally commendable, and is certainly very easy to live with. But it is dynamically unexpressive, always damping musical excitement. I found it tonally accurate but softening of detail, obscuring of articulation, quite old-school in being creamy but uninvolving. No snap or jump. It chisels off every edge it encounters. It spackles over the textures in brass instruments, which many people like because it makes horns sound like they wished they sounded, rather than with the brightness and sometimes harsh texture horns in real life actually have. Guitars, harps, plucked strings are harmonically correct but their energy is damped. Dynamic projection is tamped. The sound stays on the other side of the room behind the baffle plane of your speakers. But everything is buttery smooth.

Spatial imaging, soundstaging are excellent. Among the best. Noise is higher than I'd like to hear in a contemporary design.

I'm tube-centric but impressed by some solid state phono gain stages. I directly compared the K&K to Manley Steelhead (tubes), Jasmine LP 2.0 (solid state), Bel Canto Phono 1 (solid state). Cartridge is Denon DL103D. Linestage, Klimo Merlino Gold. Amp, Audion Black Shadow 845 monoblocks; also Audiopax 88 monoblocks. Speakers, Zu Definition. Also listened on Stax headphones driven by a vintage Stax SRA 3a tube headphone driver. The Zu Definitions are wideband, exceedingly revealing, lots of dynamic jump factor. The K&K sounds beautifully smooth, dynamically anemic, uniformly softening in detail on my gear.

Build quality, parts selection and quality, overall execution is to a high standard. Tube rolling did little to change the essential dynamic blandness of the K&K. For me, this phono pre came in fourth among the units directly compared. It committed no sins of commission and for that alone it can earn a place in some listeners' systems. However, for me, the K&K's sins of omission preclude me recommending it.

Phil

He asked. Not raining on the parade. Aside from that, these threads are used subsequently by others to inform decisions later. And it isn't clear the order for the K&K has been placed.

The poster could infer from my post how to compensate.

The K&K is nearly $2,000. The Jasmine LP 2.0 is under $1,000. The Bel Canto Phono 1, when it was still in the Bel Canto line, was $1195. The Manley Steelhead is $7300 -- the outlyer -- and I just happened to be able to audition one at the same time. The Bel Canto handily beat the Steelhead, by the way, so Steelhead did not set the pace for this comparison.

Phil

I had the K&K in my system for well over a month. It got lots of hours and I felt it had stabilized before I drew conclusions. Additionally, half a dozen other people joined me for comparisons at various times and assessments were aligned. Last, a vendor exhibiting at HE2006 here in L.A. stopped by to run the comparison for an exhibiting decision and their preference too ran against the K&K for the same reasons. In that context, we also listened to the K&K with a Modwright Preamp, as well as with the Klimo Merlino Gold. However, I am sure the units owner will continue to bake it in and I'll have a chance to hear it in the future. If things change, I'll be happy to say so.

I agree that fast stages that etch leading edge transients are a problem if they don't deliver the full tone behind the attack. I reject components that do this, but it's not what I hear in the group that comprised this comparison. Anyway, the K&K sounded pleasant and old school to me, as I said committing sins of omission, not commission. Which is what you want if you have to live with flaws.

I evaluated the K&K with the stock tubes because tube subs did not change the basic sonic character of the unit. The smooth signature seems to be intrinsic to the circuit, not the tube. I have some 6n1pev, which are a trace quieter, and I tried the ~sub of various NOS 6922 (Siemens, Valvo) and CCA (Telefunken, Seimens, Valvo, Zaerix, Sylvania). Results were mixed, with nothing able to significantly alter my impressions of the preamp.

I do agree RFI rejection seemed quite good, as any gear that can't reject RFI shows that flaw in my area immediately. However, the K&K was discernibly but not agfressively the noisiest of the group I directly compared it to. Now, that said, it's a comparative comment. Phono is noisy by modern hifi standards and the noise alone wouldn't have precluded me preferring the K&K.

To be clear, this was a Total Phono SE factory-assembled unit that was loaned to me for evaluation by its buyer. Not a kit, not customized.

Anticipating a possible break-in issue with the MC input transformers, I also used a couple of external step-up transformers into the moving magnet inputs, including S&B. Same result. The sonic signature of the active gain stage of this unit is overriding of secondary influencers and is very strong. Since phono sections are particularly subject to highly individual preferences, I assume that it reflects the listening bias of the designer, and I fully understand why some people are enthusiastic about the K&K. It just hasn't been convincing to me as earning an unconditional recommendation. But if smooth is your first order criterion, then this has it. For me, the K&K is nice but regressive, and makes music less expressive and more emotionally remote than I expect from hifi. I understand why others disagree.

Phil

And no, 4yanx, the rest of my system was not the culprit in the K&K's inability to project sound into the room. If you know Zu Definitions and any decent 845 amp, you know this is not the case. The system is highly involving, dynamic, spatially convincing and infused with jump. All the other phono stages took full advantage of those traits. With the K&K in, it all sank back. It was like listening to really good phono in 1975, by comparison. Pleasant and smooth but not projected. More to the point, my digital player has more projection with plain Redbook CD than the K&K, with same performance material, and that isn't true with the compared phono pres.

Phil

4yanx, Dan,

For the record, while I do have Zu Druids on a second system and did listen to the K&K there, my evaluation and comments of record were in the context of the higher resolution Zu Definitions I have on my primary system. Dan, I'd be happy to discuss both Zu speakers in detail with you. You're welcome to send email with your questions.

4yanx: You're right, many circa 1975 phono sections of preamps were better than separate phono preamps on the market today, but none had the dynamic life and projection, combination of transients + tone that are possible now with better components and more evolved understanding of what the cartridge is handing the pre. Most circa 1975 phono sections were pleasingly euphonic compared to the better higher-accuracy phono stages available now which also benefit from being discrete, with their own power supplies. My 70s reference is not uncomplimentary, merely descriptive for those of us who owned that generation of equipment then -- Audio Research SP3a-1, for instance.

I wouldn't try current Russian 6922s in the K&K, but the NOS tubes I cited are quite robust, especially the German Post CCa. I experienced no problems while I had those tubes in the circuit. Perhaps the K&K would have truncated their tube life if used long-term. I was experimenting, so willing to accept that risk. Oh, I also tried the K&K into a Django TVC with fully baked S&Bs. Still no change in basic signature.

Druids and Definitions have some distinct differences. If you heard Druids and did not care for them, that reaction may not apply to Defnitions. Again, my eval is in the Definition context.

As for my sonic vocabularly, it expresses what is meaningful to me. I fully recognize that I may not be describing sound to the prevailing AA/S'phile/HiFi+ standards.

Phil

Ah, Plinko, but Pedrillo's subject line is: "K&K any comments?"

I think my initial answer was entirely within that mandate. Moreover, his post said, "I think I finally decided on..." That's less than a definitive decision to purchase. And then, "Is there anything I should know?"

In what way did my first response post deviate from this query?

Phil