Krell or Mark Levinson amp.?

Krell was selected by HI-FI as there reference system!

Mark Levinson. I have had a ML 23.5 since 1995. Superb quality, superb sound not lacking in any respect. I have upgraded my preamp twice and speakers once but haven't changed amplifiers.

Both have the same level of build quality and have wonderful reputations. To answer your question you need to tell us what speakers you are using? The Krells are more in your face and the ML's are more layed back or dark in some people's opinion. If you have a speaker that's a little analytical in its presentation the Krell might be too bright. I own Thiel 3.6s and a Krell KSA200s. Its a wonderful combination since the Thiels are very low impedence and would sound a little harsh with the MLs. The reason is the Krells have slightly more power at lower impedences. I think you get a bit more power for the dollar with the Krells, and slightly better resale value with the MLs.

I feel that it's the ML stuff that has the rep for erring on the side of bright at times. And Krell has the rep for having the most tubelike (i.e. "correct") midrange (except for the new "c" series). Levinson amps have been measured to have a higher damping factor (usually), so the bass can be more controlled, and sometimes winds up sounding not "round" enough. IT ALL CAN BE TUNED WITH CABLES THOUGH (unbelievably so), so it's not terribly dependant on the choice of speakers. I've heard a VTL amp that sounded more like transistors than my Krell KAV-250a (mine with my speakers almost sounded like a CJ tube amp in comparison, yet it played effortlessly much louder). He had very bright cabling, and had electrostatic speakers that were also adjusted very bright (he must've had some hearing loss). Very analytical and unnatural sound. Anyway...besides, ML is owned by Harman, might as well be owned by Microsoft, Standard oil, or OPEC. How much more money could they possibly need? I am all in favor of Revel taking some market share from Wilson, however.