I've owned two Krells, currently a FPB200 and previously a KAV300i. The 300i didn't really do much for me, having tried it in a couple different setups it was ultimately replaced with a CJ tubed integrated, the CAV50, which blew it away sonically.
I'm now trying a FPB200 with mixed results. The rest of my system: Audio Alchemy DDS Pro Transport, AA Dti pro32 digital interface, MF A324 Upsampler DAC, MIT reference digital cable, ARC LS 15 Preamp, Purist Audio single ended I/C, DH Labs Silver Ref XLR's, Chord Flatline Bi-Wires, and Maggie 3.6R's.
The sound that I get from my system is basically inconsistent and too dependant on the recording quality of the source material, which is 99% CD (I have SACD but using a Pioneer Elite 45i it doesn't sound as good as CD).
The system, and note that I say 'system' is overly bright and analytical on most music. Some CD's that are recorded well, and recorded on the warmer side, sound excellent, but 70% of my collection (varied, including rock, jazz, classical, blues etc) sounds too bright.
Having tried other amps, including tubed Cary monoblocks, a vintage Perreaux bi-amped configuration, Mac 252, Belles and CJ's, the Krell made the following differences:
Excellent soundstage depth.
Slightly improved soundstage width.
More detail - better resolution.
More solid imaging
Clearer, more precise presentation.
Clean / tight bass reproduction
Those are positives, but the negatives are:
less musically satisfying
Less able to tolerate louder volumes
Too edgy and bright
Timbral information lacking, no real substance to strings and percussion
Ultimately shorter listening sessions.
The last point really sums it up for me - 'ultimately shorter listening sessions'.
It's hard to get into the groove with my present system, and I'm trying to figure out what to change. I think it's wrong to blame the Krell, it's a system synergy issue, where the Magnepans are a little forward to begin with and the Krell doesn't help any in that direction.
My Cary V12i Monos were far more musically satisfying in my system, but they were unable to open up the soundstage on the Maggies, and stage presentation is something that I hold high on my priority list. SPL's were also limited using the Cary's, as they would regularly pop the tweeter fuses, which hasn't happened so far with the Krell.
So to get back on track for this thread, I don't think there is a 'Krell sound' per se, just a system synergy issue that is perhaps more profound than with other manufacturers components.
I personally think that the Maggie/Krell is not such a good match - it's quite 'audiophile' in a sense (stage, imaging, detail), but not musically satisfying enough.
So my advice is to be careful to match Krell amps with other components that are not on the bright or analytical side.
Rooze
PS - I'm open to suggestions on where to go next with my system, change the speakers?....change the amp?...change both?...buy a boombox..? what the heck.
I'm now trying a FPB200 with mixed results. The rest of my system: Audio Alchemy DDS Pro Transport, AA Dti pro32 digital interface, MF A324 Upsampler DAC, MIT reference digital cable, ARC LS 15 Preamp, Purist Audio single ended I/C, DH Labs Silver Ref XLR's, Chord Flatline Bi-Wires, and Maggie 3.6R's.
The sound that I get from my system is basically inconsistent and too dependant on the recording quality of the source material, which is 99% CD (I have SACD but using a Pioneer Elite 45i it doesn't sound as good as CD).
The system, and note that I say 'system' is overly bright and analytical on most music. Some CD's that are recorded well, and recorded on the warmer side, sound excellent, but 70% of my collection (varied, including rock, jazz, classical, blues etc) sounds too bright.
Having tried other amps, including tubed Cary monoblocks, a vintage Perreaux bi-amped configuration, Mac 252, Belles and CJ's, the Krell made the following differences:
Excellent soundstage depth.
Slightly improved soundstage width.
More detail - better resolution.
More solid imaging
Clearer, more precise presentation.
Clean / tight bass reproduction
Those are positives, but the negatives are:
less musically satisfying
Less able to tolerate louder volumes
Too edgy and bright
Timbral information lacking, no real substance to strings and percussion
Ultimately shorter listening sessions.
The last point really sums it up for me - 'ultimately shorter listening sessions'.
It's hard to get into the groove with my present system, and I'm trying to figure out what to change. I think it's wrong to blame the Krell, it's a system synergy issue, where the Magnepans are a little forward to begin with and the Krell doesn't help any in that direction.
My Cary V12i Monos were far more musically satisfying in my system, but they were unable to open up the soundstage on the Maggies, and stage presentation is something that I hold high on my priority list. SPL's were also limited using the Cary's, as they would regularly pop the tweeter fuses, which hasn't happened so far with the Krell.
So to get back on track for this thread, I don't think there is a 'Krell sound' per se, just a system synergy issue that is perhaps more profound than with other manufacturers components.
I personally think that the Maggie/Krell is not such a good match - it's quite 'audiophile' in a sense (stage, imaging, detail), but not musically satisfying enough.
So my advice is to be careful to match Krell amps with other components that are not on the bright or analytical side.
Rooze
PS - I'm open to suggestions on where to go next with my system, change the speakers?....change the amp?...change both?...buy a boombox..? what the heck.