McIntosh MX119/134/135 pre/pro or Krell HTS 7.1

I have owned the MX132-MX134 and now the MX 135 and I can say the 135 definetly exceeds the performance of the 134 in both analog 2 channel and digital 5.1 channel. The movie soundtracks that I have such a U571-River Wild-Saving Private Ryan etc have a much better central focus and I noticed more information pouring from my speakers.
The TI Chip Mc uses in the 135 is much much better than the Motorola chip used in the 134. As far as the 2 channel goes the 135 is as close to having a seperate 2 channel pre amp that I can imagine. As far as the Krell I really haven't listend since it doesn't offer some of the flexability the Mc's do. Like bass control, tone control, preset tone/surround set ups, sub in-out with 2 channel etc

Keep the krell. Theo obviously has actually looked at the HTS7.1. The krell as an all analog pre-amp pass throu ability. If you use this for two channel, espcially with a balanced source and amp, you can't go wrong.

As far as the flexablity. apparently an 3 filter parametric eq for each speaker and a global parametrice eq all with multimple preset memories is either to complicated for theo or not enough.

As far as the sub thing, yeah krell calls that full range or full range plus sub

Many people think of the Showcase 7.1 instead of the HTS 7.1. I can understand that. The HTS 7.1 has more features than I'd ever use, more I think than the McIntosh. But I am most concerned with the sound. What should one expect from the McIntosh pre/pro compared to the Krell.

It may not be of that much concern, I think I'll end up changing the front amp(s) before changing the pre/pro.

Eunis2921 - care to loan your monoblocks for a month? You have a very nice set-up.

Dave

If you were to switch from the Krell to the Mac. I would have to say you would lose dynamics. The Krell has an very transparent and very imediate sound. what is on the disc is what you get. Some people don't like krell becuase of this, they want more of a "tone control". Or they want everything to have a similiar sound. You will get that with the MAC. The MAC is slighty fat sound. It won't be as dynamic, however the MAC has a wonderful way of making bad stuff sound good, but it also makes great stuff sound good.

As far a changing the amps. Why? What is it that you what to change sonically. Where is you system lacking? IYHO.

Kudo's on the DV-50. Absoultely the best universal on the market (other the the bigger esoteric's).

As far as the borrowing the FPB's - Willow groove is little bit of a hike for me. But, check with the guys at Soundex, I am sure they would love to let you try something in your home.

Hey Dave. Sounds like you want a change. Just go for it and see what you think!

I had a KSA100 and now have a McIntosh MC7200 which I like much better. But everyone is different...

For what its worth, the MX135 won the 2005 CEA Innovations Award in the "audio" category. Many other pre/pros were also in the running but the McIntosh was the winner.

Aball,

Yeah, this really is an illogical silly disease. It seems once I attain my system goals...I still keep thinking "what if change..."

If I don't change anything...I should be happy...right. After all, it is just a stereo! What I have is far better than most people will ever hear, let alone own.

The bottom line...I don't have to change anything, but I will still ask questions because for me tuning the gear, refining its synergy and playing with the room acoustics is just as much fun as the listening itself. It just never ends.

Dave

An old update - I ended up trying a MX119 as a demo. It is really a nice piece physically. And the controls have a very nice feel to them. When I first set it on my shelf, it was as good as sold in my mind, I was very excited. I was even drafting up the sale ad for my Krell.

But, after a couple of hundred hours of break-in time, the Mac just did not sound as good as the Krell. Now I only tested it in 2-channel analog pass-through mode, so I cannot comment on the extensive feature set in the MX119. But in this configuration, the Mac did not let it all through. It seemed constricted and flat to me.

I even had a friend who is enamored with Mac over for a listen. This guy is a real die-hard Mac-fan, and definitely biased. However, in blind back-to-back tests, he repeatedly and quickly chose the Krell as his preference every time.

So, the beautiful Mac went back, and the steely industrial looking Krell remains (dare I say “ugly”). At least I know I tried, and also that the Krell is really a nice piece in spite of popular opinion here in Agon.

If you only use it in 2-channel mode, get a Mc 2-channel preamp and see what you think.

2-channel is what I am most critical of, but I do listen the some multi-channel, and my whole set-up began life as a HT. That is why I want to stick with a pre/pro.

Thanks though.