TAS review of Krell SACD:why?

Not so funny at my house.Scientific method is always used. Saw Jim and Patrick at the show and relayed to them what I heard, that the newer transport sounded better.I was told by one that it could be the result of less error correction having to be used with the newer transport. I think you may have sent me some crappy unsolicted e-mail contrary to my writing about what I heard concerning the sonic differences of these two different sounding players.I have owned them both and a couple of repairs in between as well. I don't build them only listen to them.Tom

For the record, if I don't listen to my SACD Standard for 2-weeks or so, when I do play it, it sounds like a different machine, much better sounding than I remembered it being, the first couple of Discs are like a new listening experience all over again.

Sonic memories are funny that way.

Krell has stated that "side-by-side comparisons yielded no noticable sonic differences" between old and new transports.

For me, if Krell can't hear it, it doesn't exist.

Memory.. Everything else was the same as before except for the air in the room and the air between my ears. So was the same for the other sonic witness.Tom

Hi, I have a question for Theaudiotweak. Did you compare the two units side by side or are you using your thoughts strictly from memory?

I have owned the old player and currently use the new player. I had several problems with the original unit. The new player has had zero problems and does sound better than the original. I have several listening buddies who agree that the current player with the new transport has improved image focus and mid-bass weight.Tom

I also just finished reading the new TAS review, which finally gives this player the high-praise that it deserves for its Red Book CD playback (as well as SACD). Its interesting that even in the Mfg's Comments Dan D'Agostino points out how "it was extremely important (for Krell) to produce a machine that would give exemplary performance on Red Book CDs".

As far as the differences between the initial run and the current production, both use highly-regarded Philips transports and both according to Krell sound identical, the initial display shows the track # that's playing where as the current display does not.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy a pre-owned "A Stock" Standard, even for CD only use now that the future of SACD seems uncertain at best.

BTW my Standard has performed flawlessly for nearly 2-years now.

Overhang,

It is difficult for me to comment on the differences in sound because I only had my unit for brief period of time before it failed. What I CAN day is that with its new drive, this is an excellent sonic performer for both redbook and SACD. And the sound is not at all stereotypical Krell - in my opinion the SACD Standard almost sounds like there's a 12AX7 somewhere in the output stage. Yet it serves up heaps o' detail. They are not cheap, but I think at $4k it more than holds its own.

I bought my SACD player in OCT,2003. I have never experienced any problems with the transport or the display. I read several persons complaining about this problem, but I am completely baffled.
BTW, these units never sold for half the price even used ones.

Sdatch,how would you describe the sound differences between the transports.Was the original Philips better sounding?Thanks.

If you believe what they said in the article, Krell found a new source for a transport mechanism. My guess is the units you saw being sold for half price are the older units with the Philips mechanism, which according to the article had reliability problems.

Krell has brought the unit back into production. The transport issues were with a Philips transport that was pretty much a disaster. One a new OEM drive was available they were able to resume production, and have been retrofitting earlier models with replacement drives if they had failed, which was my case. I have not experienced any issues with the new drive, although the TAS reviewer pointed out a couple of display anomalies.