2. amps-preamps
  3. 1073429617

Krell KRC-HR or Krell- KAV 280p

I'm looking for some help.I'm just about ready to purchase a preamp and I'm stuck between the Krell KRC-HR and the Krell KAV-280pI have read all the reviews about the HR but I'm hard pressed to find reviews on the KAV 280p.I was able to find one and it seemed very good but I was wondering what actual users feel.Acording to the people at Krell they fell that the KAV-280p is the better unit.I can purchase a new KAV-280p for the same price of a used HR ($2400.00)so money is not the subject.
Please don't wait to voice your opinion I need to make a move soon.
Thank You,Tom
tpomatico
drrdiamond
671 posts
 
This is just my opinion, and others here on audiogon (and that of an unnamed friend/dealer):

The question is not weather the KRC-HR is bettered by the KAV 280p, but whether the KCT is better than the KRC-HR.
Most of the people that I have talked with feel that unless you can utilize the CAST technology, stick with the KRC-HR.

Here is another example of: If you buy the KRC-HR on the used market, borrow the 280p from the dealer, and if I am wrong and you like the 280p better, you should easily be able to get back all the money for the KRC-HR.

Richard
>>Disclaimer>>..I own the KRC-HR
tpomatico OP
1 posts
 
Thanks JB and Dr. Rich,
I didn't want my post to be too long so I didn't list my gear but I think I should.Mirage M3si speakers,Aragon 8008MKll amp,Krell MD10 transport,Krell Studio DAC,Music Hall MMF7 turntable,Rega Fono turntable preamp(soon to be upgraded),Transparent Audio Music Wave Plus speaker cables and interconnects.
slashedzero
5 posts
 

Just to add to this very old thread, for people looking for info on the 280p. I have just compared it to the KRC-3. Both are excellent pre-amps. The 280p is more detailed and slightly analytical sounding; especially voices are very life-like; lots of deep bass; somewhat "dry". The KRC-3 is rounder and warmer, with less detailed bass, but a truly excellent pre-amp as well, with a great coherence between instruments and voices. It's really a matter of preference; the 280p is more "real," the KRC-3 sounds nicer and more "cozy". Not really a day and night difference either, but still quite noticeable. 

It may be interesting to remark that the 280p has SMT components (very small, surface-mount resistors) whereas the KRC-3 has full-size ones. In the manual of the 280p Krell says that this shortens and therefore improves the signal path. It may be more difficult to service (but not sure).

Another interesting comparison I did is between the HTS 7.1 pre-pro and the KRC-3. They were virtually identical, underlining the great stereo performance of the HTS 7.1. Imaging and detail may have been ever so slightly better in the KRC-3, but I'm not even sure. One advantage the KRC-3 has is a very detailed level/volume adjustment; the 280p seems to move in bigger steps, and the HTS 7.1 definitely has larger steps (still, quiet listening volume would be around step 6-8 on the HTS 7.1, so it's fine enough for most purposes). All preamps were tested with my Krell KAV 3250 power amp through B&W 803s speakers.


For those wondering: I'm likely keeping the 280p, but partly because of the visual match with the 3250, and because I need theatre bypass, which the HTS 7.1, itself being a prepro, doesn't have.

gareneau
110 posts
 
Slashedzero,

Have you had an opportunity to hear Krell's KCT preamp?
slashedzero
5 posts
 

Almost six years later... 😀 No, I haven't had the pleasure listen to a KCT. I still have my 280p - excellent and solid preamp!

More to discover