Best Class A amp with SLAM

@ mapman, Hi, whats good to me about krell, some sounded good and some did not win me over, what i am saying is, not only do the model lines of krell sound different from one to the other, in most cases, the model within the model line sounds different from one another, one example of this is that the krell fpb 200 sounds alot different than the fpb 600, one of the most apparent difference is that the fpb 200 has deeper, bigger bass than the 600, thats were the line is drawn, the 600 does every other audiophile attributes much better, now with the evolution E series amps, they are class A/B amps, to were the 700cx is class A, Krell revamped the amps when people complained about the excess heat that does not bother me!, so the heat sinks are now in the chassis, alot less parts, alot less power on stand-by, green friendly!, The E series is class A untill the signal gets to the out put, then it is class B, this was the only way they could achieve this was going to class A/B, some may prefer the sound of the class A/B amps, some may prefer pure class A, they do sound alot different, in some ways the evolution E amps do sound better, in some they do not!, This depends on like anything else, your preferance and what you are tring to achieve with your sound, cheers.

Bo, I read your post about the best cables to use and the size of images they generate with Pass amps. If I am understanding your post correctly, then you are talking about bloated images. I use MIT cables exclusively throughout my system, from power cords to speaker cables, and I do not perceive bloated images. In fact, I had AQ cables in the past and I don't recall any change in image size with the same amp, preamp, and speaker combination.

I had my son, who sang in the Chorale in college stand at my stereo center and count and sing. His voice image seemed comparable to voice images on my stereo. Further, I listen to live ensembles at times at the University and perceive the sound of the instruments and imaging to be quite similar to my stereo.

Years ago, I heard a full SS, very high end system that had pinpoint images. My buddy used MIT cables. His system was startling due to these sharp, pinpoint images in space; but to me a guitar has a body, a cello has a body, a voice has a body. I preferred the imaging of my system even back then. I think it is more about the preamp than cables. I have used ARC pre's since 1989 with various amps. I perceive the images have body in my system and they are not bloated. A triangle, for example, or a cymbal have more of a pinpoint image. So does a wood block. Piano notes have sharp images with the corresponding body in the reverb.

I will also add that tweaks to stabilize and isolate the sources, speakers and even preamp and amp add sharpness/focus to the images; but I don't recall them making the images smaller.

Does that make sense to you?

I sold and owned powercables of MIT for over 6 years of time. In the last months I had a few clients with MIT and I did comparison with AQ cables. Next weekend I will have a client with MIT as well. We will compare his MIT interconnects and powercables with AQ interconnects and Purist Audio powercables. I will inform you about the outcome. A few months ago I was at a presentation with AQ cables. The shop also sells MIT most expensive Oracle cables. All the demos I heard overhere in the last 15 years I never liked the individual focus of instruments and voices. This time with AQ for the first time I could hear the intimate sound like in real. There words; Audioquest is a big step further now compared to MIT.

My experience are different. At my friends home I learned how small instruments and voices are in real during classical concerts played in front of 60 people with a small group of musicians. Voices and instruments are very small in proportion. The difference between MIT and AQ is also in the level of blacks. Instruments stand a lot more loose from eachother compared to MIT.

I had discussions about imaging a few times with the people from Pass Labs. They understand what I meant. Since I do this way of testing and comparing I did not have any person who prefered the bigger proportion of instruments. There is also a big difference in drive and control. The AQ give more weight and control. There is more air and detail in the high freq. as well. The best silver cables give superior detail and air compared to all full copper cables. MIT only uses copper in there cables. In the past I owned the most expensive powercables from MIT. When the Valhalla came out I sold them. These days I use Purist Audio powercables. Because they are more complete and defeat MIT cables also quite easily.

Bo, what you just said makes sense to me now. I listen mostly to Jazz and Rock. I listen to some classical, like chamber music; but rarely full orchestral pieces. When I had my son stand and count and sing, he was 14' away from my listening position. When I play music, most singers are about that same perceived distance- just inside the back wall. So I get an intimate, nearly front row seat. Records have a sound stage from left to right, wall to wall and front to back going from in front of the speakers back into the rear wall. (Imaging is best in the dark when the back wall is invisible).

What I am getting at is full orchestral music on my system is too big, like you are saying. It is like being in the front rows, not in the middle or back. I wouldn't say the instruments are too big, just that they feel close. Is that what you are talking about?

I think you understand it as I meant it. I can create an extreme touchable image these days. Every single part of a recording is very easy to locate. But not only in one line, but also in depth. With MIT I never heard a very direct voice or instrument. Wenn I play a big orchestra, the stage is wide and deep but within this big stage instruments are very sharp focussed. When I go back to MIT, you do not know where it is exactly. The exitement you feel when the image becomes touchabele is stunning. It it the big smile on your face when you hear it. When I hear it with MIT we Always look at eachother and we all say; nooooo ( we use our heads) it is not good. But also in speed, control resolution the MIT cables loose too much in quality. That is why I love comparing with cables so much. It is a very easy way to let people hear how to get a much higher level in sound quality.