From Krell to McIntosh - Anyone?

Hi Sean,

I personally do not think there is a middle ground in audio equipment. It's like what you said (right wing or left wing), either you like it or don't. With me, when I demo equipment, I usually hear two things. Detail and Presentation. Detail, I have usually been impressed and that includes McIntosh and Krell. On presentation (I believe this is the main attribute that seperates each audio equipment), I found Krell always presented the music like here it is direct and to the point, where as McIntosh presented with almost like a calming and smoother presentation. I personally like McIntosh and would not trade it in for something that has Krell features just because I don't like the Krell sound. Why would I if I already love the sound of a Mc. Having said that, I have not demo-ed every audio piece out there, I have not heard Sim Audio (which is suppose to be dark and neutral)

Shucks, did not intend to imply which of the MAC or Krell was actually more correct or better. As I wrote above, I havent't heard the latest Krell stuff, or any McIntosh in too long. But if I choose (when comparing) based on my criteria (which is real accuracy), I should choose the one that's actually the better design. Now, if my criteria were a specific "sound" and presentation, then I might choose differently. Sure, I think that the original event should be the criteria. But even my methods for identifying which is more correct is bound to be somewhat flawed - it is possible that due to recordings, nothing can be accurate and still recreate the original event...I don't really know. And there are probably other reasons too. But I have to have some basis to start with.

Another criteria I use is to determine audible differences between various recordings - if every recording I use in auditioning sounds too similar, it is wrong and I move on. True, during classical concerts, I did not hear any significant "layers" of sound, or a floating in space 3-D rendering of individual instruments, or great amounts of "air" around performers. Just wasn't there. However, the sound was smooth, timbres were full (though not necessarily rich or thick), not screechy or grainy, and very coherent. Also, the thwacks on tympani were quite dynamic, but very quick too. I could zero in on more prominant (or louder) performers if I wanted, but certainly not each and every instrument. This was somewhat easier to do via the mic feeds though (mics were just fwd and above the stage).

I do not know which I would prefer between a MAC or Krell. Hopefully, I would like niether because of the cost. Most of my system is solid-state, but my phono pre, though very modest, does have a tube. I made sure my wife saw it, "hey honey, come look at my tube!" (nothing dirty). Whatever works and I can afford.

I am going to shut up now. Cheers everyone.

Since I have never owned either, take this with the appropriate amount of salt. First of all, I don't think either of these manufacturer's gear necessarily conforms to a house sound. Mac works with both tubes and solid state. I will grant you that perhaps Mac's rather unique use of output transformers on some of their ss gear may negate what might otherwise be percieved as an automatic presumed difference. IMHO, Krell's gear has not maintained a house sound either. To my ears their home theatre, intergrated and class AB gear is significantly inferior to their pure class A stuff, and some of their gear, even in within their class A range, have obvious differences. FWIW, the better Krell stuff is amongst the best I've ever heard and I find the sound of most Macs neither attractive nor repulsive (most of the Mac gear certainly has a classic visual beauty though) .

I think it is very hard to pick one or the other unless you have owned both.I now have McIntosh amps both ss&Tube and love both.The Krell that I deoed was with Martin Logan Speakers,The sound was detailed but what I would call bright or harsh.Who is to say with other speakers and in another room I would have loved it.When I demed Mac I liked what I heard and bought a MC275 IV and latter a very nice used MC2500.Krell has been around for awhile but not near as long as McIntosh.Then there is the resale value as the origianl poster stated.Also customer service,McIntosh has parts for products that are long out of production.I called Mac customer service just the other day and even though it was five minuets till quitting time,the girl talked to me for half an hour and was so nice.Try that with any other big name brand and report your findings.This is one reason I will always own Mcintosh.But I won't say that Krell is a bad brand just because I like Mac.I do know if you live by a good mac dealer they will do a home demo.You can call or email the factory and they will help set one up.

I've recently owned the Mc 501's wt the C46 into my Dyn C4's...almost tubelike in the sense it had haze galore. It was also sterile sounding. My Krell mono's and KCT with the EVO 505 front end is quite exciting and full of color and dynamics! The Oracle cabling doesn't hurt either.