What's a good upgrade from a Krell 300cd cd player


I'm wondering if the 300CD might be a weak link in my system. It's musical, not strident, has a wealth of detail across the frequency spectrum, exemplary PRaT and good soundstaging (or at least as good as I can get in my highly reflective room).

All in all, I'm very happy with it, but I'm curious to hear from anyone who's owned the 300CD and moved on to something better. What took it's place, and what were the improvements?
lornoah
Has anyone had a chance to A/B the Evolution 505 vs. the SACD Standard MKIII? I would think that they would be sonically close in a balanced (non-cast) system...
The folks at Krell have heard and measured the differences.
The Dacs are different. Jitter reduction is WAY different. The 505 has TWO power supplies. The list goes on... Once again, the 505 is a huge upgrade from the MK III.
Zieman: The DACs are exactly the same> Three Burr-Brown PCM1738 DACs / The Transports are exactly the same / The 6 reconstruction Filters (4 for SACD & 2 for CD) are the same (though numbered differently) / Both use 2 Power Supplies> a switch mode supply to drive the transport mechanism and a toroidal transformer for the analog stages, with multiple stages of regulation / Both utilize a double box arrangement, and I believe that both use the same microprocessor. The measured specs are nearly identical, as per Stereophile Magazines's Dec. 2003 Review of the SACD Standard MKI and their Sept. 2008 review of the Evolution 505. I figured that the SACD Standard MKIII would compare closer still to the Evo. 505, since it was developed after the Evolution Player.

I would recommend that you spend more time on "the phone with the wonderful folks at Krell", before your next post regarding their products...
I agree with Elite, except that the 505 does use a new anti-jitter circuit and it may have made it into the newer SACD Standard III. They are pretty much the same.
I have also heard (from dealers and owners) that when used in “balanced mode” the Evolution 505 and Standard MK3 sound awfully similar, and that unless you own a full CAST system the E 505 is simply not worth the additional $4K (based on sonics alone – the E 505 is a much nicer looking and better built Machine). Outside of the “new anti-jitter circuit” as Joeyboynj had mentioned, these 2 machines share many of the same components. The E 505 was built-up from the Standard, and is not a new ground-up design, but is rather a "tuned-up" CAST version of the Standard – which as is reflected in Stereophile’s recent review of the E 505, turns out to be a very good thing indeed, and bodes well for both of these Machines.