2. amps-preamps
  3. 1059108767

Krell --- Are the Newer designs better?

After hearing all the Krell hatred for so many years, I never thought I would consider a Krell amp -- thin, steely highs -- recessed, distant midrange -- sterile, lifeless sound.............should I have believed what many said?

Then, after reading more recent reviews of the FPB series amps, I got the distinct impression that the sonics have improved to the point that the amps are now in the top class of solid state sound. Even the infamous Jonathan Scull thought it a great amplifier.

However, there are proponents of the older amps, saying they sounded the best. Krell, like Levinson, seems to have polarized audiophiles -- either they like it, or they hate it. What have your experiences been with the different Krells, and how do they measure up to the competition, such as Pass, Rowland, Gamut, Plinius? By the way, I should point out that I am a tube guy, so few solid state amps have floated my boat, the Boulder 1060 being one of them.
kevziek
rwwear
2,867 posts
 
I have used my 600c with a tube amp for a couple of years with no problem. You have to watch out for the one's that leak DC like some of the BAT preamps. I have tried a BAT with my Krell without incident however. I have seen the BAT preamps shut down a McCormack though.
johnk's avatar
johnk
1,975 posts
 
I am a tube guy but have owned 2 krell amps and a preamp .I found the fpb200c to sound better than the fpb300.Krells are wonderful amps great bass drive ,not much grain.Wish I still had the fpb200c It would make a great bass amp with my wavac running my horns .Still they dont have that majic sound my tube gear gives me .When I would listen to my krell system it would sounded amazing but after awhile it does not hold your atention like my SET and horns do.A least for me /JK
kevziek OP
323 posts
 
Some of you commented that the KSA250 is softer on the highs, or less dynamic on the highs. I don't know if I equate this with a 'tube sound'. I actually find my tube amp more lively sounding, and less 'dead' sounding than many SS amps. The SS amps can be brighter, but they can still sound less alive, less real sounding and more mechanical.

Even in this thread, I see a polarity of opinion on Krell. Some say I would not like the sound if I like tubes. Yet at least two others owned tubes and liked their Krells.

The Plinius was mentioned as more tube sounding. However, I again have heard that the Plinius is darker and less-alive sounding. I don't want that type of sound either. So, I guess I still have no clear idea as to what the Krells really sound like.
rwwear
2,867 posts
 
My 600 is dynamic when it needs to be but smooth. It has great bass control because it controls the woofer in both directions. It's a very refind sound. It will not turn a sow's ear into a silk purse however. Or vice-versa.
misskuma
75 posts
 
I'd take Krell amps over any of the amps you've mentioned except bigger Boulder, maybe.
How do they measure up? I'd say equally good. But different.
Krell is just a fun amp to listen to at least for me. That's what's lacking from
the rest on your list. I've never found Krell gear to be overly bright or
incissive as many suggest. ( at least in my rig and system context )
But, I have heard few demos that would give 'em that poor reputation.
Just like any gear, certain combinations with Krell never works for me either.
I've owned the FPB series amps before and I don't mind owening 700 CX
series monoblocks if i had a room or means.

I've ditched 'em for SET monoblocks, but overall system desposition didn't change
much. It's just the particular combination of tube amps/speakers offered
better finesse and agility on bass than the Krell combo I previously used.
More to discover