Krell KCT versus KRC-HR

Peter,

I have heard others say similar things to what you are saying. A friend and dealer told me that after he changed to the KCT, that except for the improvements with CAST abilities, he prefered the KRC-HR. He recommended that since my system (actively biamped) can't use CAST, I should stick with the KRC-HR.

Are you running CAST?

Richard

Hi,

KCT has less distorsion, much better resolution.
Further it it's more silent and is even less coloured and more neutral.
( This is probably what you react to!? )
The air and clarity is so much better with KCT.
Just listen to the render of dynamical contrast. The bass is cleaner and tighter and the whole presentation is more open. It possesses a "see through transparency" which should appeal to most wanting a feel of a live event present. The KRC-HR however great it is, sounds not as good as KCT when A/B compaired.
Use KCT for a week and switch back to KRC-HR, you won't use the KRC-HR before the KCT. KRC-HR is however very good but not recommended over KCT.

It's long time since you asked, but for readers wondering!
Here is my opinion.

Inpieces,
Are you using cast?

Drrdiamond,

yes i am. I think this way you get the best sound out of the system. There are IC's which are very good, but a better completeness than going CAST i do not think you'll get by using xlr.
If so, it doesn't come cheap!
I found some IC's which do some areas very good. But the the bass impact and total "realism" is very good with CAST.
Maybe if one prefer a smoother, rounder sound, it could be interesting trying a tube based cdp in the system!?
For x series amps, i would certainly go for CAST cables and KCT.